Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (1909)	8/21/2003 12:37:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

" As Liam Reid reported, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties has warned Catholic bishops that distributing the Vatican's latest statement on homosexuality could lead to prosecution under the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act, and a six-month jail term." Sounds like a possibly enforceable threat to me. And even if it isn't actually enforced threats of prosecution have the effect of controlling people. Funny, you didn't think that was true when the right was accusing liberals of being unAmerican and unpatriotic, and suggesting that we were working for Saddam. And as for the comments from Liam Reid, the operative words are "warned" and "could lead". Those words suggest a paper tiger warning. One last comment.......the Vatican needs to stick to things religious, not secular. Their own personal stance on pedophilia within the church has been nothing short of offensive so that when it comes to sexuality, they need to really clean up their own house before setting standards for others IMO. There is one thing I am very consistent about and that's not liking people telling me where to stick it......that's my business and my business only.......and of course, the biz of the recipient as well. <g> Ad for the "homosexuality is not something to be applauded" I don't think that public employers should enforce was should be applauded on the employees own time. Also he was punished specifically for something he didn't do, but the fact that it was possible that he might do at a future time. Would you like it if your employer suspended you for a month without pay because they thought you might do something bad in the future? It depends on the employment. This guy was teaching children. That's very different from making boxes. We had a teacher here fired for politicizing the war and recommending his students should participate in anti war rallies. A good teacher gives his students the pros and cons on a subject and then lets his/her students decide for themselves. Above all, he/she discourages discrimination among different peoples and teaches tolerance. The teacher example you cite was not a good teacher and deserved to be fired. People have been taken to court for saying "Nigger" in public. That's also wrong. Why is it wrong? My understanding is that it is a crime to discriminate against any minority. It's not a crime in the US, and shouldn't be a crime anywhere, to say negative things about minorities. Saying negative things in public against a minority is a crime. If you have the need, do it in your home but not in public. And why is necessary to express a negative opinion against a minority? Most things we do are not necessary, do you want to have a situation where government or your employer can prevent you from doing anything that's not necessary? You don't have to applaud what someone says to recognize that they have a right to say it. You don't have right to yell fire in a crowded theater and you don't have the right to yell Nigger in a pep rally. The reason for both is the same.......people might get hurt. Yes, in some jurisdictions its against the law for gays to have sex with each other. 1 - I am on the record as being against these laws. So what.......that doesn't give you the right to disparage gays in public. 2 - These laws have been pretty much struck down by a recent supreme court decision. So what..........in TX, who listens to the Supreme Ct.? 3 - What does this have to do with my comment? - " The title also fits because if people live in the jurisdiction where some of these laws are in force they could be suspended, fired, or even imprisoned for reading certain sections of the Bible out loud." Isn't that also - "no one's business but the people involved."? The people who want to read the bible....wish to do so in public settings like a school or gov't bldg. Once again we are a secular society........render under to Ceasar what is his and what is His to God. we've been an independent, secular nation for over 200 years and this sucker wants to turn us into a theocracy. No one I've ever read on the subject has provided any evidence that he wants to turn us in to a theocracy. Maybe not to you but it sures sound like it to me. Those people make my skin crawl. Also that isn't a defense of the actions I am condemning. Even if he does want to turn us in to a theocracy it doesn't change the fact that the actions I condemned are outrageous, extreme, and wrong. Not if you believe the guy want to turn us into a theocracy; not if a guy is condemning a minority. And while we're at it, I am sick and tired of all the phony speed traps in the South set up to generate income for some of the small towns. Its disgusting and offensive. You think I like them, or that conservatives in general like them, or that they are limited to the south? Do you think the good ole boys who put in those speed traps are liberal? These are money grabs, examples of greedy government. Something conservatives, and esp. libertarians protest against all the time. Right! How much do you want to be those good ole boys who are stealing our money thru speed traps voted for Bush instead of Gore? So if you want to complain......let me prepare my list and you prepare yours.........and then we can go thru them item by item. Get back to me when your lists includes people getting prison terms speech. Translation please. I don't understand this last statement. ted

To: TimF who wrote (1909)	8/22/2003 3:10:44 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Top Alabama Judge Vows Commandments Fight By BOB JOHNSON .c The Associated Press MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Alabama's top judge refused to back down in his fight to keep a Ten Commandments monument and lashed out at his colleagues who ordered it removed from the rotunda of the state judicial building. ``I will never deny the God upon whom our laws and country depend,'' Chief Justice Roy Moore said in a fiery defense of the 5,300-pound granite marker, as supporters cheered and prayed on the building's steps. The monument was still in the building's rotunda early Thursday evening, and court officials did not say when or where it would be moved. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, who had ruled the monument's placement violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine, has said it could be moved to a private place still within the building. He had threatened $5,000-a-day fines if Moore left the monument in the public rotunda. Moore installed the monument two years ago and contends it represents the moral foundation of American law. ``Not only did Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God as well,'' Moore told his supporters Thursday. The chief justice had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the removal order, but the court rejected it Wednesday. Moore said Thursday he would file a formal appeal with the high court soon ``to defend our constitutional right to acknowledge God.'' ``I cannot forsake my conscience,'' he said. His supporters, meanwhile, promised to block any effort to remove the monument. ``We will kneel at the doors. We will prevent forklifts or trucks from coming in,'' said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, which is organizing around-the-clock demonstrations. Moore's eight colleagues on the state Supreme Court intervened after Thompson's midnight deadline for removing the monument passed and the monument remained. In ordering the monument moved, the justices said they were ``bound by solemn oath to follow the law.'' Justice Gorman Houston said all eight instructed building manager Graham George to ``take all steps necessary to comply'' with the removal order. George declined to comment when asked when, how or where the monument would be moved. Attorney General Bill Pryor filed a notice with the federal district court after the justices' issued their order and said he believed that would remove any risk of fines. Taxpayers ``should not be punished for the refusal of the chief justice to follow a federal court order,'' he said. A partition was put in front of the monument early Thursday but was removed after about three hours. Houston said the building manager may have erected it to comply with the order. Gov. Bob Riley said in a statement that he supports public displays of the Ten Commandments, but also supports the decision of associate justices to ``uphold the rule of law.'' In his speech Thursday, Moore said he was ``disappointed with my colleagues'' and lashed out at ``this so-called rule of law'' that they cited. He said such blind obedience would have allowed slavery to continue. Richard Hahnemann of Huntsville, the monument's sculptor, said he expects voters to remember what the justices did come election day. ``They have their opinion. Justice Moore was elected by the people to do what he did,'' Hahnemann said. Richard Cohen, an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center - which sued along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State - praised the eight justices. ``Their courageous actions reflect that Justice Moore is a disgrace to the bench and ought to resign or be removed from office,'' Cohen said. Still, protesters outside the building said they were willing to stand in the Alabama heat and risk arrest for days or weeks to keep the monument inside. Twenty-one were arrested Wednesday night on trespassing charges for refusing to leave the monument when the building was closing. Stephen Hopkins, pastor of Burnet Bible Church in Burnet, Texas, was one of those arrested. He said he was willing to be arrested even though he has 10 children. ``This is a great hypocrisy,'' Hopkins said. ``This is an assault on God. They're saying we're going to cover up God.'' 08/21/03 21:37 EDT Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. .