Alabama chief justice says First Amendment is only for Christians




Buddha didn't create us.

I'm shocked!


So I guess if the government wanted to establish Islam or Buddhism as the state (non) religion, that would be OK with him.


I think this is something people need to understand when American Conservatives talk about religion, specifically freedom of religion. To conservatives religion = Christianity = religion. When someone "has religion" or "is religious" they are "Christian". "Freedom of Religion" means freedom to be Christian. Some more moderate conservatives view "Freedom of Religion" to mean freedom to choose any Christian sect, although most quietly agree that non-main-stream-protestant sects are not really "Christian".

**update: important "non-" missing.


Roy Moore is a first-class loon, from way back.

check out his wiki page for all kinds of goodness:


I'm sure that
Ray Moore
has way more
surprises for us.


For a person to be so mixed up in the head, I can only assume he must also think that it's reasonable for a Christian to be pro-war, anti-poor, "tough on crime", and in favor of the death penalty.


let's add free market capitalism. In fact, here's Bryan Fischer to explain it to you:
"Jesus was a capitalist to his core"


With his track record, if they held an election for the post of being Roy Moore, he'd lose


Who is the 2nd amendment for? Y'know, if he's dishing them out.


Fortunately, he's a rare anomaly.


Umm I was under the impression that the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian religions all shared the same creationist origin of the world from the Old Testament.

And wasn't it founding father Jefferson, who coined the term separation of church and state when talking about the first amendment?


SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! (if you happen to see your mom this weekend)


More importantly, they share the same god.


They are essentially three different sects of the same religion: Same God, different name; Same book, different chapters; Same cosmology, different criteria; Same historical figures, different roles.

And conservatives are quick to point out that "separation of church and state" never appears in the constitution. They're very quick to forget where it does appear- In a context that pretty much boils down to:
"So, Tom- What's up with that first amendment thing?"
"Oh, we wanted to create a wall of separation between church and state."
"That protects me, right?"
"Yep. Should protect everyone."


Let's not forget the ever-popular bit in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli that says "The United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". You know, in writing. And signed by John Adams, who ought to know what the US was or wasn't founded on, being one of the people who founded it.

(I wouldn't bring up the common roots of the "Abrahamic" religions though, since that just gives bible jerks something to quibble about, and isn't helpful from the point of view of, say, atheists or hindus)


It always annoys the "American is a christian nation" crowd when you throw that little bit of historical fact in.

and plus, when you start to go down the "christian nation" line of thinking, which christanity? From very early on, European immigrants were a mixed crowd since so many people were arriving because of the religious wars back in Europe. Even the first two sets of English colonies were not homogenous, with the Virginia colony being settled by mostly angelicans and the new england colonies by religious dissenters. And that doesn't even get to the early slaves and indentured servants, a fair number of who came from Ireland.


I listened to that whole nasty video waiting for his "assertion that only Christianity is entitled to First Amendment protection under US law". Yeah, I get where what he said combined with some reasonable assumptions about his beliefs would imply that. But you know that's not what "assert" means. Why exaggerate what's bad enough already? Is it that whole thing about how they're being crazy so we need to counterbalance it with just a touch of our own disingenuity?


Once again confirming my belief that people don't want religion in schools/government, they want their religion in schools/government. If we implemented strict Biblical law tomorrow, far too much of the country would celebrate it.


So what is his view on Acts 4:32-35?

King James Version (KJV)

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.