Supreme Court rejects Ten Commandments appeal

[The_Dude]

WOOT!

earlier discussion can be found here

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=22398

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused Wednesday to block the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from an Alabama judicial building, rejecting a last-minute appeal from the judge who installed the display.

The justices said they would not be drawn, at least for now, into a dispute over whether the monument violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.

The high court was Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's last hope to avoid a federal judge's midnight deadline to remove the display. It was unclear if Moore would comply. Other state officials have said the monument would be moved.

Moore's lawyers told justices in a filing that Moore should be allowed to "establish justice by acknowledging the guidance and favor of Almighty God, placed upon him by his oath of office and the Constitution of Alabama."

Moore installed the 5,300-pound stone monument in the rotunda of the judicial building two years ago after being elected chief justice amid publicity of his support of the Ten Commandments.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such indoor and outdoor government displays. In 1980, the court barred Ten Commandments from classroom walls in public schools.

The justices' refusal to intervene was not a surprise. An appeals court had twice refused to give Moore a stay.

"It's not like somebody's about to face execution, if the court doesn't enter a stay the person will be dead and the appeal will be moot," said David Frederick, a Washington attorney who specializes in Supreme Court practice. "If the Supreme Court were to decide it's constitutional, it can always be put back."

Moore had pledged last week to defy the judge's order. His emergency stay request was filed Wednesday with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who oversees cases from Alabama. Kennedy referred it to the full court, which said in a one-sentence order that it was rejected.

Moore has already asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the judge overstepped his bounds in the case, and a second appeal in the Ten Commandments case is expected. Those could take months to resolve.

Groups that challenged the monument filed papers at the Supreme Court arguing that Moore should be required to obey the lower court's mandate. His compliance "will promote the public interest and will uphold the integrity of the federal judiciary in the face of Moore's attack," wrote Ayesha Khan, legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In Alabama, Moore's supporters held a candlelight vigil early Wednesday.

"Even if they should remove this monument — and God forbid they do — they'll never be able to remove it from our hearts," said the Rev. Greg Dixon of Indianapolis Baptist Temple.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson has said he may fine the state about $5,000 a day if the monument is not removed by the end of the day Wednesday. He has said it would be permissible for the monument to be moved to a less public site, such as Moore's office.

moore couldnt get 4 votes in our conservative supreme court. now that's sad! (i'm sure that rehnquest and c.thomas voted to accept this ).

today is a great day for the seperation of church and state.

---------

now the question is, whether or not he will comply with the orders of the fed appeals court.

more on that

Monument coming down 'very soon,' Pryor says

Federal court has ordered removal of Ten Commandments memorial from state building

08/20/03

By GEORGE TALBOT
Business Reporter


SANDESTIN, Fla. -- Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor said Tuesday he will enforce a federal court's order for removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building and that, "I expect it to be removed very soon."


While Pryor has said he would put his personal beliefs aside when dealing with the Ten Commandments issue, Tuesday marked his first remarks estimating an abbreviated time frame for removal of the monument that has polarized Alabama in the argument over the separation of church and state.

"My responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, and I will be doing my duty," Pryor said when asked about the monument after a speech at the Business Council of Alabama's annual governmental affairs conference at a Florida Panhandle resort.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore installed the 5,280-pound monument in the rotunda of the state judicial building two years ago. On Tuesday, Moore continued his legal fight to keep the monument in place, asking the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider after it declined to stay an order requiring him to remove the monument by midnight tonight .

Pryor, a Mobile native who has seen his appointment for a lifetime seat on the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stymied by congressional Democrats, said it is his personal belief that the Ten Commandments can be displayed constitutionally. Despite that view, however, he will keep the state in compliance with the order to remove the monument, he said.

"I don't want to speculate on how or exactly when it is going to happen," Pryor said Tuesday. "I will be advising the appropriate state officials on how to proceed, and I expect they will do so."

The effort to remove the monument could meet resistance from Moore's supporters, who said Tuesday they planned an around-the-clock prayer vigil and a series of protests on the steps of the court building.

Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said the protests would begin at 12:01 a.m. today and would be "Christ-centered, peaceful and prayerful."

"Every minute that monument stays in the building after (today) is a victory," Mahoney said.

Joining Mahoney at the judicial building Tuesday were several people who said they had come to Montgomery to join Moore's fight.

"I'm tired of a small group of people telling us that we can't display our history on public buildings," said Jenny Brown, who traveled to Montgomery with her daughter from their home in Wichita, Kan.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for the second time Tuesday, rejected a plea by Moore to stay the removal order until the U.S. Supreme Court can rule on his petition call for it to intervene.

A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court, denying his second motion of the day, said he had failed to ask for a stay within the legal time frame after it ruled against him July 1.

His request now can be granted only in "extraordinary circumstances," and Moore failed to show such circumstances exist, the appeals judges said. Their ruling said that repealing U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument would be "one of last resort, to be held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies."

Thompson ruled earlier this year that the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion. He said he may impose fines of about $5,000 per day on the state if the monument is not removed by the deadline.

Thompson has said it would be permissible for the monument to be moved to a less public site, such as Moore's office.

Moore took a defiant stand last week, saying he "cannot and will not" remove the monument. Moore could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the eight associate justices on the Alabama Supreme Court have considered using a state law that allows a majority of the court to overrule an administrative decision by the chief justice. The associ ate justices are not expected to take any action unless fines are imposed on the state after the Wednesday deadline.

Robert Varley, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups suing to remove the monument, said he expects it will be removed. "No one in this country is above the rule of law. We don't have kings and princes," Varley said.

State Rep. Jim Carns, a Republican who is minority leader in the House, wrote the attorney general on Monday, asking a series of questions on why Pryor hasn't fought for Moore under state's rights and other claims. Carns also asked if the associate justices could overrule Moore and order the monument removed.

Pryor, a Republican, like Moore, reiterated his belief that "the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage," but said he must "obey all orders of the court, even when I disagree with those orders."

what is moore gonna do?? the state supreme court doesnt have any militia or police forces and the attorney general is gonna remove it??

this kinda reminds me of the elian gonzales deal where the INS had to scoop in early morning to get the kid. maybe alabama state officals will do that to prevent conflict with the protestors.

[debaser]

The idiots have said they will hold a pray-in to prevent the removal, watching the staute 24/7.

Now, isn't that trespassing or loitering?

If not, somebody should move the entire homeless population of Montgomery into the courthouse as well.


Honestly, this guy should be dis-barred. He is on a personal crusade, wasting taxpayer money over an obviously unconstitutional act. Shit-can the idiot.

[sixate]

Originally posted by debaser
Honestly, this guy should be dis-barred. He is on a personal crusade, wasting taxpayer money over an obviously unconstitutional act. Shit-can the idiot.

I agree with that 100%.

[Lebell]

I don't see how anyone can argue that putting the ten commandments in a public area of a Court House does not violate the 1st.

[Mael]

Originally posted by Lebell
I don't see how anyone can argue that putting the ten commandments in a public area of a Court House does not violate the 1st.

when many americans beleive that the founding fathers and creators of the constitution were christian (although most facts, including memoirs and letters point to them being diests) and founded the country as a christian country, i can see how people would think it's wrong to remove it. i think a lot of people in this country, especially the more religous christians and people from highly christian areas have the thought "it's okay for people of other religions to live in this here country, but they gots to follow the laws and rules of Big J."


edit: i forgot a few words.

[docbungle]

I agree that church should be at church, not at school. You're there to recieve an education, not choose a religion. When you go to church, they don't give you an algebra lesson, so wtf? School is for school. Church is for church.

I also believe that way too big a deal is made of this crap. Who cares, really? Other than to prove a point, what does it matter? People that believe in Creation don't like that Evolution is taught in schools, but it still is. When I was in school, I had no sayso in what was posted on the walls, and I didn't care. What was on the walls didn't mold me as a person; I did.

Nowadays, advertising is everywhere. McDonald's, Pepsi and Burger King advertise on roadsides. When I piss in a urinal I notice the little "say no to drugs" thingy in the bottom. I have a hard time taking something seriously when I'm pissing on it. And now God has billboards in schools.

I have no point other than that things are retarded, and will continue to get more retarded as long as crap like this is an issue.
Take the damn thing down, grow up and move on.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally posted by debaser
Honestly, this guy should be dis-barred. He is on a personal crusade, wasting taxpayer money over an obviously unconstitutional act. Shit-can the idiot.

Absolutely correct on this one. Or better yet, perhaps he may want to become a martyr for his self-righteous crusade, and cool his heels in a prison cell for awhile.

[virus]

i think it may be good for the media to publicly embarrass jackasses like this.

[seretogis]

Please learn what "separation of church and state" really means.

It is NOT removing every trace of "god" or "jesus" from our schools and public buildings.

[johnnymysto]

There is nothing about separation of church and state in the constitution. Look it up - see for yourselves.

[seretogis]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

- The First Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States of America

I see nothing in here about banning the public display of the Ten Commandments on government property. All that I see is a ban on the establishment of a government-sponsored religion, meaning, no official state religion.

[Mael]

Originally posted by seretogis
Please learn what "separation of church and state" really means.

It is NOT removing every trace of "god" or "jesus" from our schools and public buildings.

then please, tell us what it is.


and in regards to your later post with the quote of the first amendment, by putting the 10 commandments in a court house or other government property, that says "look at us, we're a christian country and thats how we govern ourselves and come up with our laws." it might not be in writing, but that's the message that is sent, that we're a de facto christian nation.

[The_Dude]

i can see how some artifact with a historic value (like some stone that has been there for the past 100 years) can be allowed to put on there for historical value, but this dude dragged it in the middle of the night after his fellow justices had went home.

also, moore is paying his lawyers through the money he receives from the sale of the tapes he made that shows him putting the stone up in the first place. (which was filmed by a christian tv station).

look @ the motive here!

[johnnymysto]

The monument and the land that it is on is privately owned land, and therefore is not a government endorsement of religion. The city formerly owned the monument, but sold it in 2002. So this is not a case of "separation of chuch and state."

[Mael]

Originally posted by johnnymysto
The monument and the land that it is on is privately owned land, and therefore is not a government endorsement of religion. The city formerly owned the monument, but sold it in 2002. So this is not a case of "separation of chuch and state."

how is it on privatly owned land? it's at the freakin' courthouse, which is government (aka public) property. doesn't matter who owns the monument, it still can't be there. and where do you get that he sold it? that's not mentioned anywhere in the article. could you post a link?

[johnnymysto]

Yep. Should have done it in the first place. Sorry.

http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleas...mmandments.asp

Quote from article:
-------------------------------
In filing a motion to intervene as a defendant, the ACLJ cites that the FOE owns the display and the property, not the city and argues that the court has no jurisdiction over the FOE or removal of the monument since the FOE is not a party in the case. The ACLJ also today filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court to set aside the July 14th decision declaring the monument unconstitutional, ordering it to be returned to the city and removed. The court’s decision was in response to a lawsuit challenging the monument filed against the city of La Crosse by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The ACLJ argues that because the FOE is a private organization, its decision to display the monument is constitutionally protected and cannot violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The FOE installed the monument in 1965 and the city owned it until August 2002 when it sold the property and monument to the FOE.

The ACLJ contends that the sale of the monument in the La Crosse case passes constitutional scrutiny in the same manner that a federal appeals court determined in 2000 that it was valid and appropriate for the city of Marshfield, Wisconsin to sell a statue of Jesus to a private landowner as long as it was made clear to the public that the city no longer owned the statue. The ACLJ represented the city of Marshfield in that case. In its motion for reconsideration in the La Crosse case, the ACLJ cites the Marshfield decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that concluded “. . .a sale of real property is an effective way for a public body to end its inappropriate endorsement of religion.”
--------------------------

So apparently, there has already been a similar ruling on this issue.

[The_Dude]

i read the article, but i cant seem to figure out how the hell does a private party own a state courthouse?

i'm confused

[sipsake]

Originally posted by seretogis
I see nothing in here about banning the public display of the Ten Commandments on government property. All that I see is a ban on the establishment of a government-sponsored religion, meaning, no official state religion.

"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state."
Legal Information Institute - Cornell University

[Mael]

thanks for the link. i wonder what FOE is. as it is, i don't agree with the previous ruling. in my opinion, it does not matter who owns the land or the object in question. if the goven't is leasing the land for thier use, who owns it doesn't matter, it is being used for official government use and what is one it is a reflection one them. if i lease a house, and grow pot there, does that mean that the leasers are also pot growers? no. i am. (although, in reality, i'm not. this is hypothetical).

by allowing something of a religious nature (like the monument) on property that is being used by the government, it is still showing silent endorsement of the religion.

[The_Dude]

leasing!

if the property is being leased, then then owner cant dictate what should be put up on the property.

if i'm leasing a house from somebody, they cant come in and tell me what i should put up on my walls!

[archer2371]

Originally posted by The_Dude
leasing!

if the property is being leased, then then owner cant dictate what should be put up on the property.

if i'm leasing a house from somebody, they cant come in and tell me what i should put up on my walls!

Umm, yeah they can. You don't own that property, they do if you're leasing the property, they still technically own that property. Even people who don't own your house can tell you what you can and can't do to your home (Home Owner's Associations). You have to obtain permission to change something in a house that you're leasing or renting. If you own a house out in the woods with nobody around, and aren't part of an HOA then you can do basically anything you want within the limits of the law.

[smooth]

Originally posted by johnnymysto
The monument and the land that it is on is privately owned land, and therefore is not a government endorsement of religion. The city formerly owned the monument, but sold it in 2002. So this is not a case of "separation of chuch and state."

Why are you using a case from Wisconsin? This doesn't have anything to do with the display in Alabama.

[Mael]

Originally posted by archer2371
Umm, yeah they can. You don't own that property, they do if you're leasing the property, they still technically own that property. Even people who don't own your house can tell you what you can and can't do to your home (Home Owner's Associations). You have to obtain permission to change something in a house that you're leasing or renting. If you own a house out in the woods with nobody around, and aren't part of an HOA then you can do basically anything you want within the limits of the law.

last time i checked, a lease is an agreement between the owner of property and the person looking to use that property. the contract between them states that the owner is responsible for general upkeep of the property, but otherwise has very little say about what goes on there except that which is explicitly stated in the contract. if you lease a house, you are essentially taking "temporary ownership" of the house. you are responsible for damages you cause. the actual owner has no say over what can be put there unless it is specifically stated in the contract. the leasee also can only modify things according to the lease agreement. so if it says "no nails in the walls" then you can't hang pictures using nails. but you have complete say over what pictures/posters you hang, as long as you don't damage the house while hanging them. as for homeowners associations, if you live in a place with one, when you buy the home you sign an agreement giving up certain rights, like what you can do with the outside of your house, landscaping, agreeing to keep the lawn mowed, etc. in exchange, everyone else contributes to keep the neighborhood looking good.

so no, being the owner of a leased property does not give you the right to say what's put there. you lose pretty much all rights of an owner except that which is explicitly stated in the contract between leaser and leasee.

[archer2371]

I know that, it's just that if you enter into a contract where it's restrictive (which is dumb, I don't agree with people telling you what you can do with ur house if you own it) the owner can tell you what you do with it. I'm just saying that they can, but unless they wise up, then they won't get very many tennants.

[debaser]

Originally posted by seretogis
I see nothing in here about banning the public display of the Ten Commandments on government property. All that I see is a ban on the establishment of a government-sponsored religion, meaning, no official state religion.

Cool! So what you are saying is that me and a bunch of my friends can break into a courthouse at night and plant a 2 ton sculpture of Cthulu in the rotunda? Now I have a project for my off time...

[johnnymysto]

Debaser: You would probably be able to. I mean, this will probably all end with a sculpture of Allah put in place of the Ten Commandment's to show our nation's "sensitivity" to Muslims.

Smooth: The case in Wisconsin relates to the case in Alabama, due to ownership of property. Read the quote I posted. Law is all about precedent.

[smooth]

johnny,

Maybe I missed something--is the courthouse in Alabama leased property?

(I know law is all about precedent--that's why I haven't bothered responding to the people quoting the 1st Amendment as if that were the only relevant law on the books in regards to this topic).

[sipsake]

Originally posted by johnnymysto
Debaser: You would probably be able to. I mean, this will probably all end with a sculpture of Allah put in place of the Ten Commandment's to show our nation's "sensitivity" to Muslims.

Since the Islamic faith generally forbids any representation of man in it's artwork, a sculpture of Allah would be a lousy way of showing "sensitivity" to Muslims.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by archer2371
I know that, it's just that if you enter into a contract where it's restrictive (which is dumb, I don't agree with people telling you what you can do with ur house if you own it) the owner can tell you what you do with it. I'm just saying that they can, but unless they wise up, then they won't get very many tennants.

the owner is not telling the tenets what they cant do, the owner would be telling them WHAT TO DO.

i'm 99.9% sure that the lease didnt say that the people leasing had to put up the 10 commandments.

[johnnymysto]

Smooth,

I don't know if the courthouse is leased property. Mael made that point. I'm just saying that there has been a previous ruling that the sale of a monument has relieved the issue of government endorsement of religion.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally posted by Mael
...i wonder what FOE is...

Unless I miss my guess, the FOE is the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

[sipsake]

Originally posted by Bill O'Rights
Unless I miss my guess, the FOE is the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

You sure? I thought FOE (Friends Of Evil) was the criminal organization headed by the evil mastermind Dr. Neutrino whose diabolical plot to dominate the world was foiled by Mark Time and his space rangers!

[smooth]

Originally posted by johnnymysto
Smooth,

I don't know if the courthouse is leased property. Mael made that point. I'm just saying that there has been a previous ruling that the sale of a monument has relieved the issue of government endorsement of religion.

You confused me when you posted this:

Originally posted by johnnymysto The monument and the land that it is on is privately owned land, and therefore is not a government endorsement of religion. The city formerly owned the monument, but sold it in 2002. So this is not a case of "separation of chuch and state."

The link you provided is about a display in a park that has been present since 1965. The land and the display were sold to a private party and the case is in dispute; the case is not precedent--it hasn't been decided yet.

This case in Alabama, however, is not on private land, nor can the land be sold to a private individual since it is the inside of a courthouse. The judge already ruled that the monument can be moved into the Alabama judge's office.

There you go, hopefully that will clear up some confusion and end the detour argument over leased property rights.

edit:
this article http://www.lacrossetribune.com/artic...wscommands.txt (written four days after the one you posted) states that a federal judge rejected the argument that the display could remain. He ordered for the monument to be removed and the city to recompensed for the costs of removal.

Unless the Supreme Court intervenes there is no precendent for the monument to remain in either Alabama or Wisconsin.

[frenik]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

respecting = to have reference to
establishment = a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws

My interpretation of this passage is that Congress is not allowed to make a law to establish an official state religion. Having the commandments there, regardless of this man's goals in doing so, is fully within his rights (assuming he has the right to place a display of any type there). It in no way establishes a state religion, nor does it prohibit the right of citizens to freely practice their religion of choice. It simply acknowledges the origin of United States law. His goals are of no consequence here.

This is not a first amendment issue, it is an issue of if he had the right to put anything there without permission in the first place. The few stories I've read say that he had it installed after the building closed, keeping the other justices in the dark. If he had the right to do this, then in my opinion he had the right to do it period.

Of course, this whole argument is based on my personal interpretation of the words in the first amendment, and I'm sure you'll let me know if there is a flaw in it.

An interesting side note: Ever been to a courthouse and gazed upon the statue of Themis, the Greek goddess of Justice? The blindfolded figure holding the scales of justice is a Greek goddess, a religious figure.

[smooth]

Originally posted by frenik
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

respecting = to have reference to
establishment = a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws

My interpretation of this passage is that Congress is not allowed to make a law to establish an official state religion. Having the commandments there, regardless of this man's goals in doing so, is fully within his rights (assuming he has the right to place a display of any type there). It in no way establishes a state religion, nor does it prohibit the right of citizens to freely practice their religion of choice. It simply acknowledges the origin of United States law. His goals are of no consequence here.

"You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." "New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345. 349, 41 S,Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1923) (Holmes, J.)

[sipsake]

Originally posted by frenik
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

respecting = to have reference to
establishment = a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws

In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. I, 15-16, Justice Black writes:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment
means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government
can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion
, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither
can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from
church against his will or force him to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for enter
-taining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendence or non-attendence.

. . . In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause was intended
to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."


In 1971 the Supreme Court (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602, 612-613)
applied the following test to laws with respect the the First Amendment:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
second, its principal or primary effect must be one that
neither advances nor prohibits religion ...; finally, the
statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement
with religion." [Stone v Graham, 449 US at 40]

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by frenik
"[i]
An interesting side note: Ever been to a courthouse and gazed upon the statue of Themis, the Greek goddess of Justice? The blindfolded figure holding the scales of justice is a Greek goddess, a religious figure.

good point.

Indeed, the ceiling frieze of the main U.S. Supreme Court chamber includes -- along with other symbols of jurisprudence -- a depiction of Moses holding two overlapping tablets on which the Ten Commandments are written in Hebrew. But the figure is just one of many carved icons and not singled out for any special attention. Only commandments 6 through 10 are visible.

By contrast, Moore's monument sits alone in a central place of honor where it cannot be ignored. Its purpose, according to Moore, is to teach citizens that God's law overrules those laws made by men, such as the U.S. Constitution.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...3_means17.html

also, look @ the symbolism of themis

to symbolize the fact that justice requires a consideration of both sides of a legal case.

as for the blindfold,

This is so she is not influenced by what she sees. Eyes can see illusions which need to be eliminated for a fair decision

also, there is usually no writing on the statue of themis.

on the other hand, the 10 commandments has writing that addresses what people should and should not do and it doesnt symbolize anything in our justice system.

the justice system allows what the commandments deems people should not do.

[Nizzle]

yay.

Aug. 22 — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was suspended today pending the outcome of an ethics complaint for his defiance of a federal court order to move a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building in Montgomery.

[The_Dude]

the justice gets justice.

yay indeed.

[2wolves]

Fundies make great bulldozer track grease. Let them stand fast in their beliefs.

Probably good fertilizer also.

Extremism of the Christian or Islam varieties should make everyone itch.

2Wolves