Roy Moore, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is running for the U.S. senate. Roy was removed from this position twice. First, in 2003, for refusing to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments he’d had installed. Second for defying the U.S. Supreme Court over its ruling on gay marriage. Can you imagine an atheist getting a fair hearing in Alabama when this idiot was on the bench? And now this nut sack has a very good chance of being elected to the U.S. Senate. We have to do a better job of promoting secular candidates.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
He's an idiot and a bigot, and he may have some mental issues, however, I wouldn't consider theism itself as a mental illness, but religion is a pretty good costume for some people's mental problems.
The worse part of having a health issue and be in disguished, it's that no-one won't advise you to look for help, and you may even be considered a hero in certain circles. You'd probably imagine that you got more points for heaven, thanks to the favor to your good Lord.
Right, because the constitution clearly gave gays the right to marry each other doncha know. Never mind what it actually said or how it was interpreted and was meant to say at the time.
Leftists just want judges to legislate from the bench and when judges don't they are declared bigots. I can't wait until the Supreme Court gives us the right to polygamy and to marry animals.
Dumb Ox
Are you saying you want to marry multiple animals? Which kind do you prefer?
Sheep would probably be ok, but goats are a bloody nuisance.
I took my girl out for a lamb dinner. She said, "What's that?" I said 6 martinis & a piece of ewe!
Polygamy, marry animals and same-gender love are completely different issues, what a cheap argument.
Polygamy is marrying several consenting adults. There are reasons to believe that polygamy in practice is no heaven on Earth, and these are my own: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/defence-polygamy?page=...
Marrying animals... Is this a joke? Non-human animals can't express consent!
Same-gender love is love after all. And marriage is an expression of it and a mutual commitment of respect for that love. Interracial marriage was forbidden in USA not so long ago. It wasn't considered legitimate love either. When it comes to Human and Civil Rights, first goes the Law, then comes the gradual approval. Eventually, people realize those are silly prejudices and that they shouldn't have denied those rights in the first place.
You obviously don't understand the principle of the Constitution Dumb Ox. The Constitution is a contract that gives individuals the right to do anything that is NOT explicitly made illegal by law and does not infringe on anyone's civil liberties.
Ironically you are defending a judge that was legislating from the bench.
No, it was actually supposed to limit the federal government to things which it explicitly said or whatever fell under the vague "necessary clause" (forget its name). Everything else was suppose to be left to the states. So states have the right to define marriage. Btw gay marriage was against the law in some states so by your own reasoning you wouldn't have a constitutional right to it.
As an aside, judicial review and the constitution applying to states probably isn't constitutional, but that ship sailed long ago.
Not true Dumb Ox.
Gay marriage. The fact that the Constitution doesn't specifically forbid it means that it is legal.
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
All powers that the Federal Government that it does not reserve for its self is deligated to the states. BUT the states may not violate individual rights. Denying gays the right to marry is a violation of individual freedom. So you are wrong Dumb Ox.
As far as applying the Constitution to the states. The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the land so it applies to the states.
You don't know history, you don't know the Constitution. You can't even cite the specific Clause that you think you know.
Article IV states:https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv
This means that even if a state passes a law that forbids gay marriage, if a couple is lawfully wed in another state that state must honor the marriage. It also means that all states fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and that the Constitution must be upheld by every state.
Article I Section 8 clause 3
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8
I could do this all night Dumb Ox. I can cite case law and the Federalist Papers.
So where in the US Constitution does it say that gay couples may not marry?
To paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut : Why the Ten Commandments on the Court House steps if this is a Christian nation?
Why not the Sermon on the Mount?
On the courthouse steps: Blessed are the merciful!
On the Treasury Department : Blessed are the poor!
On the Pentagon: Blessed are the peacemakers!
Above the entrance to the Oval Office : Blessed are the meek!
Ahem, Chimp, please, enough of ideas... You never know...
Paulo Coelho de Suza once said " Politics is the second oldest profession, but it's very closely related to the first."
MCD- what platform/traits of your secular candidates do you prefer? Or does simply being "secular" automatically make you a superior candidate? Might wanna check how secular governments worked out in Nazi Germany, USSR and numerous other failed communist states...
You mean like Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden....the list goes on....and on.
@ Sinner
NAZI Germany was NOt secular. It was distinctly catholic! You may want to check your sources. Oh wait that would be fruitless. You might want to check REALITY!
Hitler was a practicing catholic.
Mein Kampf. New York: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395951054. ""Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (p. 65)''''
...I love how you conveniently don't address the ones I mentioned! Check out Iceland's population decline, Sweeden's issues with radical Muslim's infiltrating their country, and Japan's military reliance on the US...after being destroyed in WW2.
@sinner:
Iceland? Why is population decline a bad thing. Especially when it is achieved through birth control. If we don't get our population under control the decline will be due to famine, war, climate change resulting in mass extinction.
Japan's dependence on the USA for protection is because of the surrender agree that Japan signed at the end of WWII. They are not allowed to have a military. You need a history lesson.
BTW, Sinner, there are "radicals of every nature in every nation. The lowest percentage of "radicals" per capita happens to be in China. So your theory just doesn't pan out!
So Communism has been successful worldwide?
Depends on the measuring stick you're using.
@ Sinner
Communism or more to the fact Marxism has never even been employed at any time or anywhere.
Nazi's Catholic- that's laughable
Hitler 1941 : "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”
Hitler from 'Mein Kampf" - “The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement)
was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”
All NAZIS are and were catholic! That is just a fact.
I don't think that's accurate, myk. Where did you come by that info?
@CyberLN
I referenced the requirements of becoming a NAZI prior to and During the years 1934 to the end of WW II.
The oath was taken with a hand on the KJ Bible and the other hand clutching the NAZI flag in the presence of a catholic priest.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-fuehrer-oath
The King James Bible doesn't mean Catholic. It is xtian, but not necessarily Catholic. Not all of the nazi leadership approved of xtianity. Goebbels, Bormann, Himmler, Rosenberg and Heydrich all voiced anti-xtian sentiments at one time or another.
An entry from Goebbels's diary dated December 29, 1939 says, "The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed. The Führer is a convinced vegetarian on principle."
Edited to add: taking an oath on a bible does not make one Catholic and more than doing so in a court of law before providing testimony did.
They performed the ritual before a catholic priest CyberLN.
Pages