Roy Moore - Man of the Year

Ahh, but Fascism, like socialism, is taking the liberal philosophy to an extreme.

""The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after.""

Hardly liberal theory.

""Fascism [is] the complete opposite of"…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... ""
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage...""

Oops! Deeply un-liberal thoughts here...

""...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.... ""

Oh no, it''s founder describes it as distinctly non-liberal!

It''s pretty clear from the above, taken from Benito Mussolini''s
definition of Fascism written for the Italian Encyclopedia in
1932, that Fascism overtly repudiates Liberal thought, as
well as Democratic and Socialist thought. I''d love to say it''s
conservative in origin, but I can''t without understanding more
about it than I care to know.

You gotta take Rush with a grain of salt - at least, I know he
says this all the time, that liberals are fascists. Let this
canard die it''s pathetic quacking death.

Robear

Well, I hate to disagree with Moussalini''s propaganda, but Fascism is, in essence, a socialistic system. Fascism is another logical conclusion of big-government liberalism, not free-market conservatism.

Now Liberalism in the classical sense, meaning individual freedom and liberty, is definitely contradictory to Fascism.

Keep in mind you are comparing Fascism to classical Liberalism, not modern leftist philosophy. Yes, Fascism is in opposition to representative democracy and individual liberty, but the characteristics of many modern leftists - censorship of dissenting ideas, the attempt to remake society according to the vision of a few ""enlightened"" individuals, constant assertions of imaginary crises - match perfectly with the history and ideology of Fascism.

And again, what''s the fixation with Rush?

Well, I hate to disagree with Moussalini''s propaganda, but Fascism is, in essence, a socialistic system. Fascism is another logical conclusion of big-government liberalism, not free-market conservatism.

Now Liberalism in the classical sense, meaning individual freedom and liberty, is definitely contradictory to Fascism.

I can''t be a classical Liberal? Anyway, I was just pointing out
that Fascism is *neither* Liberal or Conservative in origins.
You are just tying a few features in and waving hands to
pronounce it liberal; I could just as easily point to it''s
militaristic tendencies, wave hands and call it conservative.

I won''t call Fascists conservative; don''t try to pin liberals that
way, either.

And Ral, I was trying to point out some of the ways that Rush
impugns liberals unfairly. Lemme look up the earlier message
you apparently are referring to to see if you have more
detailed questions.

Robear

Quote:

Except that all the states are bound by Federal law and the
US Constitution, as was decided in the Civil War.

Well, I didn''t see the Civil War resulting in the repealing
of the Tenth Amendment, so no...I hold that the states still
have authority. The Federal government has clearly defined
powers. The fact that we as citizens have allowed the Federal
government to severly overstep those powers is a different
discussion. But legally, it is a state issue, and Federal
courts have no jurisdiction.

Me:
Except that a state cannot, to the best of my knowledge,
actually violate the US Constitution. I mean, that''s the
point. A state can''t decide that it will enforce Biblical
law *over* state or Federal law, and that is what Roy Moore
wanted to remind people is the Way Things Are. He was not
doing this to educate, but rather to change the judicial
system in his courtroom. A form of judicial activism.

Quote:

It''ll certainly strike fear in the hearts of the unbelievers

That''s a big assumption. If that is true, then does that
mean that unbelievers have had fear struck in their hearts
since the founding of this nation?

Me:
Somewhat facetious, but I''ll bite. What I mean by this
is, how would you like to have your crime judged by a
standard not within the law that would automatically make
you guilty by not adhering to a set of cultural beliefs?
That would raise the question of bias in a big way. And
it would not reflect justice as we understand it.

How would you be *sure* the judge is applying the same
standard to non-believers, and would do so every time?
Would you wait to see his bias in action, or would
you act to prevent the possibility of that happening?

Quote:

Roy Moore attempted to operate his court as
an arm of Christian faith - that''s a very different type of
justice, and one you and I are not subject to, in Alabama,
or any other state.

I asked you before for a single case where Moore treated a
non-Christian differently under the law. Please show me
proof of how Moore ever treated people differently under
the law based on religious beliefs. Or, I can save you the
trouble, since I have looked - he never did. So all of your
commentary about his beliefs interfering with his duties
is fallacious. And besides, if it is his beliefs that are
interfering, how does the display come into it? If he was
religiously bigoted, wouldn''t he behave the same with or
without the display?

Me:
Yes to the latter, but until his actions showed it, we''d
have no recourse. In this case, his actions showed that
he was indeed biased, even if it had not been obvious -
there are many areas where Christian thought intersects
the law.

However, the idea of American justice requires that the
same standards apply to all people. How can that then
be held true, if the standards of one religion are laid
on top of the legal system? He has in effected committed
such an action, simply by putting the Commandments in place
under the reasoning that they supercede the law as written,
rather than just as an educational display.

Quote:

Would it then be
okay for a Muslim judge in Alabama to post the major laws
of the Koran, and state that the Sharia law of Allah was the
guiding principle of his courtroom?

Display away.

Me:
No, that''s not the point. This is not an issue of display.
It''s one of displaying *because* the Law of God supercedes
the Law of Man. Please address that, not the straw man
above.

Quote:

But the prevention of a nationally mandated religion is
*exactly* the seperation of church and state! I mean, you
say that''s what they did, then you say they did not do it.
Very confusing.

Quote:

And when Judge Moore said that the US legal system is below
that of the Christian God''s Ten Commandments, he''s saying,
with the force of the Alabama legal system behind him,
that in his court, you''d better follow the commandments.
And that''s flat-out unconstitutional.

Let me say it again. A display isn''t Establishment. Moore''s
opinion isn''t law. And Moore isn''t Congress. The First
Amendment is intended to prevent the government from
*passing a law* that provides preferential treatment
to one religion over others. Show me how a display does
that. Did the display of the Ten Commandments provide
different tax benefits to churches that favor the
Ten Commandments over ones that don''t?

Me:

A judge''s opinions are law, or at least the enforcement
of law. In fact, their judgements are actually *called*
""opinions"", right?

The quotes provided earlier showed that he was indeed
using his position and authority to place Christian
law over state and federal law. That is an establishment
of religion, plain and simple. And it''s more than just
a display to educate.

""He explained that the Judeo-Christian God reigned over
both the church and the state in this country, and that
both owed allegiance to that God.""

That''s fine for a church, or the town square, or a
school cafeteria, but not in a federal courtroom when
espoused by a judge in his official role. Surely that''s
obvious? Insert ""Allah"" into the above and see how you
feel about it.

It''s not an issue of display, it''s the intent behind
the display, putting God''s law over Alabama''s. And the
justices agreed.

Quote:

I can''t believe you buy Rush''s ideas
as you have stated them. Do you think I''m unhappy with my
life, hate the country I''ve served and can''t bear to see it
succeed, because of my political beliefs?

Nope. I''d never assume that. But there are an awful lot of
people that take the liberal positions to extremes. Just
like there are a lot of people that take conservative
positions to extremes. I never said that made either
un-American. But, if you read one of my later posts,
I clarify my position somewhat. I realize I came off
a bit harsh with my initial statement.

Me:
Sorry I dragged Rush into this, but I do hear this from
him every day and it pushed a button. There are people
who take the extremes; I don''t think we are in that set.

Robear

And Ral, I was trying to point out some of the ways that Rush
impugns liberals unfairly. Lemme look up the earlier message
you apparently are referring to to see if you have more
detailed questions.

The reason for my question was that no one has mentioned Rush in this entire thread except you, and you keep mentioning him in relation to what other people think. Since they aren''t quoting him or drawing their ideas from him, I couldn''t figure out why you kept bringing his name up.

Also, Robear, since you have no examples of Judge Moore acting inappropriately, your argument is that you don''t think Christians should be allowed to be judges, since if they are true believers they consider God supreme. Poppycock.

I''d like to point out that this isn''t the only instance where Roy Moore has made it clear that Biblical Law trumps the legal system in his mind.

http://www.citizensoldier.org/alabamasupct.html

Link to Opinion: http://www.ccbama.org/custody/Custody.pdf

(I chose the first link because it was concise and contained a link to the actual court decision, other than that I''ve never been to that site and know nothing about it. EDIT: Then I tested it and found the link was broken, so I found another direct link to the opinion .)

The case itself was pretty straight-forward, a mother who had previously given up custody was now suing to regain it. She was denied, appealed and won, and was now at the Alabama Supreme Court, who reversed the decision, unanimously. Roy Moore wrote a special concurrence for the decision, in which he basically said that the fact the mother was homosexual was alone enough reason to deny her custody.

Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature''s God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated.

That''s judicial impartiality for you! I''m not homosexual, but I suspect that were I one, I would never want to find myself before Judge Roy Moore, whether I was guilty or innocent.

You must have missed this part of his quote:

Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State...The law of Alabama is not only clear in its condemning such conduct, but the courts of this State have consistently held that exposing a child to such behavior has a destructive and seriously detrimental effect on the children.

So since homosexual behavior was outlawed in Alabama, and other state courts have come to the same conclusion that Moore did in this case, I''m not sure where you get the idea that Moore put his own opinion over the law...

Missed that whole ''Lawrence vs. Texas'' thing did you? Yeah this decision came out before Lawrence, but are you really arguing that criminalizing homosexuality is constitutional?

I believe oral sex and maybe even any position but missionary are also illegal in Alabama and probably also considered very immoral in certain religious sects, but you don''t hear anyone claiming someone presumptively isn''t fit to have custody of a child because they have oral sex.

Missed that whole ''Lawrence vs. Texas'' thing did you? Yeah this decision came out before Lawrence, but are you really arguing that criminalizing homosexuality is constitutional?

It was when Moore made his opinion in the case you are citing, so, yes. How could you argue otherwise?

Moore upheld the laws of Alabama and the precedents of the courts - exactly what you are accusing him of not doing. Ironically, it sounds to me that you really do wish Moore would put his opinions over the legal system - as long as his opinions match yours.

As long as we''re putting words in other people''s mouths, I will take this to mean that you think no homosexual is fit to raise children and advocate forced removal of any child being cared for by homosexuals.

I bet if you asked Moore today if he still believes homosexuality is an a priori reason to deny custody even after the Lawrence decision, he would say yes. That is religious bias. How apropos that Ann Coulter would consider him man of the year.

A state can''t decide that it will enforce Biblical
law *over* state or Federal law, and that is what Roy Moore
wanted to remind people is the Way Things Are. He was not
doing this to educate, but rather to change the judicial
system in his courtroom.

A state can have an established religion if they so choose. The Constitution only limits the powers of Congress on this matter.

And, since you seem to not believe me, please find me one case that Moore presided over where he put ''God''s law over state law''. If you can''t, kindly refrain from repeatedly making that statement.

How would you be *sure* the judge is applying the same
standard to non-believers, and would do so every time?
Would you wait to see his bias in action, or would
you act to prevent the possibility of that happening?

Hmm. How about applying the standard of ''innocent until proven guilty'' here. You are making a huge leap in saying that Moore should be removed because he might act biased in the future, even though he hadn''t ever done so in the past. So, by your logic, I assume that you would support arresting black people at random because they might commit a crime? Or, if you think that is unfair, arresting black parolees at random because they historically have committed a crime and might commit another?

The quotes provided earlier showed that he was indeed
using his position and authority to place Christian
law over state and federal law. That is an establishment
of religion, plain and simple. And it''s more than just
a display to educate.

Really? What are the benefits that Moore gave to his religion? What religion was it exactly? Which denomination? I mean, since they are now the ''official'' religion of Alabama, it should be easy to find out. What are the penalties of living in AL if you aren''t the official religion?

Just so we''re clear: only Congress can establish a national religion. A display isn''t Establishment. Moore''s
opinion (even his judgements) isn''t law. And Moore isn''t Congress. The First Amendment is intended to prevent the government from *passing a law* that provides preferential treatment to one religion over others.

And again, give me one precedent where he put Christian law over the state law of AL.

""He explained that the Judeo-Christian God reigned over
both the church and the state in this country, and that
both owed allegiance to that God.""

That''s fine for a church, or the town square, or a
school cafeteria, but not in a federal courtroom when
espoused by a judge in his official role.

Again, please show me the case precedent where he said that.

What are you talking about? Moore upheld the law. You complained that he should''ve known that at some point in the future a split Supreme Court would have invalidated portions of the law he was upholding, and ruled accordingly. That is patently ridiculous. You brought up Lawrence v. Texas as if to say that since homosexual sex has now been ruled legal, that this somehow invalidates Moore following Alabama lawbefore the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. Also ridiculous. So what was your point in bringing up Lawrence v. Texas?

I bet if you asked Moore today if he still believes homosexuality is an a priori reason to deny custody even after the Lawrence decision, he would say yes. That is religious bias.

If your only evidence of religious bias is hypothetical mind-reading, I would say you''ve pretty much made my case.

I bet if you asked Moore today if he still believes homosexuality is an a priori reason to deny custody even after the Lawrence decision, he would say yes.

The question isn''t whether Moore believes that or not. It is whether he would go against the law to deny custody solely based on those beliefs. And, again, I ask for case law to show where he ever did that.

I''m not familiar with Lawrence vs. Texas, but, through the case judgement, did the presiding judges institute a new national law regarding homosexual custody?

...

or is it merely a precedent to be interpreted and affirmed or denied by other cases/judges?

I''m not familiar with Lawrence vs. Texas, but, through the case judgement, did the presiding judges institute a new national law regarding homosexual custody?

...

or is it merely a precedent to be interpreted and affirmed or denied by other cases/judges?

In Lawrence v Texas, five people decided for the rest of the country that the Constitution contains a right to homosexual sex. Must have been behind one of the other articles. Heh, made a funny there.

Of course, legal behavior (alcoholism, practicing Satanism, etc.) and ""good for children to be exposed to"" are two very different things. All other things being equal, the heterosexual parent should probably get preference.

The reason for my question was that no one has mentioned Rush in this entire thread except you, and you keep mentioning him in relation to what other people think. Since they aren''t quoting him or drawing their ideas from him, I couldn''t figure out why you kept bringing his name up.

Not quoting, perhaps...but the use of several of his everyday
statements was suggestive of Rush, and I took a guess here.
I can withdraw that if it makes you happy, I think MoJo took my
point and was quite fair with it.

Also, Robear, since you have no examples of Judge Moore acting inappropriately, your argument is that you don''t think Christians should be allowed to be judges, since if they are true believers they consider God supreme. Poppycock.

Nonsense. My argument is not that, or I would have stated
it. What I argue is this: when a judge, in his *official*
capacity, working for the *state* enforcing the *state''s*
laws, admits religion into the courtroom and states that
the reason he does so is that all citizens are bound by
God''s law *above* state law, he''s overstepping his
authority. He does not have to actually act on this - what
would be the point of doing it if he did not believe it? We
can assume he''s true to his word and *will* act on it,
since he has stated his belief that God''s law is above
Alabama''s. I challenge you to cite any Alabama code
that says that principles of Biblical law supercede the
law.

That should be clear, right? You don''t need to exaggerate
my argument, I''ve made it there and you can take it or
leave it, really. I won''t mind.

Robear

He does not have to actually act on this

And I guess that''s where we ultimately disagree. I would not prejudge a Christian judge''s ability to follow the law anymore than I would assume a young black man to be a gang member. You cannot actually cite an example of Moore not following the law, but go by your prejudice instead - which to me is no different than calling all blacks criminals.

I just thought it would be amusing to show what Rush actually said about this issue since he seems to be closely in agreement with the person who has been deriding him throughout this thread.

For our system to work, for there to be a functioning legal system, the federal courts have to be obeyed no matter. And then dealt with within that system, whenever a decision comes down that''s obviously wrong or offensive or what have you. But for Judge Moore to defy a federal court order is not the way to do this. It''s not the way to handle it. It''s not going to solve anything; it''s not going to advance anything, and if such a precedent were set, then you''re going to have more than just Christians deciding to cite God''s law.

Quote:

A state can''t decide that it will enforce Biblical
law *over* state or Federal law, and that is what Roy Moore
wanted to remind people is the Way Things Are. He was not
doing this to educate, but rather to change the judicial
system in his courtroom.

A state can have an established religion if they so choose.
The Constitution only limits the powers of Congress on this
matter.

Me:

I don''t believe so. How can a state establish a religion,
when it''s prevented by the US Constitution? That makes no
sense. State''s rights don''t extend to violating the
Constitution. Are you arguing that they could muzzle free
speech, quarter soldiers on the citizenry, etc? If I''m
mistaken, please let me know why you say this.

JMJ:
And, since you seem to not believe me, please find me one
case that Moore presided over where he put ''God''s law
over state law''. If you can''t, kindly refrain from
repeatedly making that statement.

Me:
But I was just quoting the findings from the Federal case
that summarized his words. If he believes that, isn''t
it then reasonable to suppose he will act on it? And isn''t
a judge held to a high standard of behavior in his court?

If a judge announces his intention to take bribes, or
declare guilty all 17 year old burglary suspects, he''ll
be stopped before he can act. Likewise, in this case,
he took the stance that there was a law more important
than the State''s. In that case, he''s literally violating
his oath of office, and creating a serious question about
every decision he makes, which could be very costly to
the state.

I don''t understand why his explanation of his *intent*
in this matter is not enough for you. You are saying
""fine, he stated it but did not do it"", is that it?
Why then would you assume that he is never going to
do it; that he is in effect lying?

Quote:

How would you be *sure* the judge is applying the same
standard to non-believers, and would do so every time?
Would you wait to see his bias in action, or would
you act to prevent the possibility of that happening?

Hmm. How about applying the standard of ''innocent until
proven guilty'' here. You are making a huge leap in
saying that Moore should be removed because he might
act biased in the future, even though he hadn''t ever
done so in the past. So, by your logic, I assume that
you would support arresting black people at random
because they might commit a crime? Or, if you think
that is unfair, arresting black parolees at random
because they historically have committed a crime
and might commit another?

Me:
The worry here is that that standard is not in the Bible,
to my knowledge. Who then is to say *what* standard
he''s using, if he''s adding to the state code? That''s
my point.

As for pre-empting, I can''t extend the principle past
this case, since the focus of this is extremely tight -
one judge, one action, both highly specific. If Judge
Roy said it had to apply to all judges, yeah, your
example would work, but it does not apply in this case,
nor would I support that. The precedent only applies
to people who try to put the Commandments in a court
*because* they believe it''s above state law. I''d
actually be okay if it were hung educationally, with
a sign that said, effectively, ""Here''s where some
of our laws came from"". But not one that says
""God''s Law Before Man''s - Judge Roy Moore, Presiding
Judge, Xth Circuit"". That would scare the piss out
of me.

Quote:

The quotes provided earlier showed that he was indeed
using his position and authority to place Christian
law over state and federal law. That is an establishment
of religion, plain and simple. And it''s more than just
a display to educate.

Really? What are the benefits that Moore gave to his
religion? What religion was it exactly? Which denomination?
I mean, since they are now the ''official'' religion of Alabama,
it should be easy to find out. What are the penalties of living
in AL if you aren''t the official religion?

Me:
Well, again, you are over-reaching putting words in my mouth.
He did not make Christianity the official religion of Alabama.
He did however attempt to create a precedent that it lies
above the state''s law, and that is establishing Christianity
as the official basis for state and US law, if it is allowed.
That''s the establishment. Small but real. Denomination
is unimportant.

JMJ:
Just so we''re clear: only Congress can establish a national religion.
A display isn''t Establishment. Moore''s opinion (even his judgements)
isn''t law. And Moore isn''t Congress. The First Amendment is intended
to prevent the government from *passing a law* that provides
preferential treatment to one religion over others.

Me:
Well, Congress *can''t* establish a national religion, it''s prohibited.

Again, from the decision:
""Justice Kennedy''s proselytization test is met here. Both in appearance
and in stated purpose, the Chief Justice''s Ten Commandments monument
is an ""extreme case""; it is nothing less than ""an obtrusive year-round
religious display"" installed in the Alabama State Judicial Building in
order to ""place the government''s weight behind an obvious effort to
proselytize on behalf of a particular religion,"" the Chief Justice''s
religion.""

Note the use of the phrase ""to place the government''s weight behind"".
That''s been my point, and that is why it''s not just a display, and
why it is an establishment.

JMJ:
And again, give me one precedent where he put Christian law over the state law of AL.

Me:
And again, he announced his belief that that was so. Do we assume
he''s a liar, and would *never* do that?

Practically, will I do that? No. Can you show me that in none
of his cases did allow this to happen? Practically, no. I think
that line is dead. I accept intent and Judge Roy''s honesty in
his convictions. I have no reason to believe he was lying; he
lost his job because he was unwilling to lie.

Quote:

""He explained that the Judeo-Christian God reigned over
both the church and the state in this country, and that
both owed allegiance to that God.""

That''s fine for a church, or the town square, or a
school cafeteria, but not in a federal courtroom when
espoused by a judge in his official role.

Again, please show me the case precedent where he said that.

Me:
Well, obbiously, that was from his testimony to the Federal
Court during his trial. I don''t know the case number, but
I took it from the quotes given earlier in the discussion.
Are you saying now that his testimony is unimportant when
deciding intent, that only actions will do? Then you have
to argue that setting up the marker was seperate from his
intent, I guess - don''t want to put words in your mouth,
but I think it gets messy if we don''t accept what he said
was his intent, *as* his intent.

I guess I''d argue that if you are correct, Judge Roy was
lying, to the degree that he''d never act on his principles.
I believe his actions show that he did indeed act on them,
and it''s reasonable to conclude he''d do so again.

And Happy New Year''s Eve!

Robear

I just thought it would be amusing to show what Rush actually said about this issue since he seems to be closely in agreement with the person who has been deriding him throughout this thread.

Of course, I was deriding him not for this, but for saying that
I was desperately unhappy, that I hated my country, that
I would never *be* happy, that I secretly hope we fail in our
military ventures, that I''m afraid to take a strong position for
right...on and on. I''m sensitive about that stuff, since it''s
possible to be a liberal and be patriotic, work for your country,
and all that other stuff.

No one is wrong all the time. Well, except maybe Anne
Coulter, but that''s another thread.
.

Of course, I was deriding him not for this, but for saying that
I was desperately unhappy, that I hated my country, that
I would never *be* happy, that I secretly hope we fail in our
military ventures, that I''m afraid to take a strong position for
right...on and on.

What has that got to do with Roy Moore?

Quote:

He does not have to actually act on this

And I guess that''s where we ultimately disagree. I would not prejudge a Christian judge''s ability to follow the law anymore than I would assume a young black man to be a gang member. You cannot actually cite an example of Moore not following the law, but go by your prejudice instead - which to me is no different than calling all blacks criminals.

No, and that''s a dangerous conclusion to make. First, this
is a very specific situation - one judge, one action, one intent.
Second, it''s reasonable to react to a person''s stated intent
*before* action is taken.

The proper analogy is that when a young man with a gun,
a note, and a prior arrest record threatens to rob a bank,
then typically he has drawn attention to himself and may
well be arrested before he does so. Likewise, Judge Roy
announced beliefs that conflicted with his judicial role,
and was removed before they could be acted on (although
none of us can say he did not earlier act on them).

Has nothing to do with whether he''s Christian. But, how
can a judge who admits of a higher law *in* the court,
be presumed to be following *only* the law of that court,
and not *also* the higher law. That''s worth explaining.

Please be careful in ascribing to me conclusions that I have
not made. If I believed this allowed blanket arrests of
innocent people, I''d have said so.

Have a good evening, btw.

Robear

Interestingly, the Alabama Constitution specifically outlaws
several principles involved in this discussion.

Article 3 ( I think):

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

So let me say this; Johnny''s point that a state can establish
a religion is incorrect in Alabama (and in Maryland, too); the
display argument is negated by the second clause, since
putting the monument in the court gives preference to
Christianity; and that Judge Roy in effect stated that his
capacity was affected by his religious beliefs.

Can we close this yet? It''s pretty clear why the court
ruled as it did.

Robear

Judge Roy in effect stated that his
capacity was affected by his religious beliefs.

It''s the ""in effect"" part that is wrong. Judge Moore''s statements are no different than the phrase in the Alabama constitution acknowledgint the existence of God and stating that rights come from Him. Dismissing Judge Moore for stating these beliefs, with no evidence whatsoever that he has failed to uphold the law, is bigotry, pure and simple.

I guess we should dismiss all Muslim judges who stated that they believe in and followed the Koran because they will surely not be able to uphold Western laws.

Going all the way back to the first post, here is a follow-up article:

The American Civil Liberties Union began its onslaught against Alabama Judge Roy Moore in 1995, when an ACLU lawyer, depressed that he was not chosen to play Mrs. Claus in the Macy''s Thanksgiving Day parade that year, wrote a letter to all the state judges in Alabama protesting their practice of having a prayer in the courtroom every few weeks. (Obviously you can''t have prayer in court: It might distract all the people holding their hand over a Bible and swearing before God almighty to tell the truth.)

Everything had been going just fine in Alabama – no defendant had ever complained about the practice – but upon receiving a testy letter from the ACLU, all the other Alabama judges immediately ceased and desisted from the foul practice of allowing prayer in court. Judge Moore did not.

For resisting the ACLU''s bullying, Moore became High Value Target No. 1. Soon the ACLU and its ilk were filing lawsuits and anonymous ethics complaints against Moore. The ACLU along with the Southern Poverty Law Center sued Moore for having a Ten Commandments plaque in his courtroom. (Poverty had been nearly eliminated in the South until a poor person happened to gaze upon Moore''s Ten Commandments – and then it was back to square one.)

An affirmative action, Carter-appointed judge (oh sorry, I forgot – we''re only allowed to say that about Clarence Thomas) found that the Ten Commandments plaque violated the First Amendment. Apparently, in a little-noticed development, Judge Moore had become ""Congress,"" his Ten Commandments plaque was a ""law,"" and the plaque established a national religion. The Taliban had better legal justification to blow up centuries-old Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

The then-governor of Alabama, ""Fob"" James, responded to the inane ruling by saying he''d send in the Alabama National Guard if anyone tried to take down Moore''s Ten Commandments.

That''s all it took. The Alabama Supreme Court backed off from a confrontation with the governor by dismissing the ACLU''s suit on technical grounds.

Both Moore and James were soon re-elected in landslides, Moore to chief justice. Liberals reacted to the overwhelming popularity of the state officials who resisted the ACLU by accusing them of stirring up the Ten Commandments dispute as a publicity stunt. The president of the Alabama ACLU said ""the whole thing is political,"" and that Moore and James were using it as an election issue. The ACLU sues, and for not surrendering immediately, state officials are media whores.

Thus, according to Time magazine, Judge Moore has been on a ""crusade"" since – in Time''s own words – ""he defended his right to display"" the Ten Commandments. It ""should have surprised no one"" the magazine continued, when Moore installed the Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse lobby and ""forced a showdown by refusing to remove it.""

In other words, Moore defended himself from one ACLU lawsuit and then – as if that weren''t enough! – he did not instantly surrender when the ACLU filed a second lawsuit. That guy sure knows how to get publicity.

Indeed, Moore maintained his disagreement with the ACLU''s interpretation of the Constitution as creating a universal ban on God right up until he was out of a job.

A lot of conservatives said Moore was wrong to refuse to comply with the court''s idiotic ruling. The conservative argument for enforcing manifestly absurd court rulings is that the only other option is anarchy.

But we are already living in anarchy. It''s a one-sided, ""Alice in Wonderland"" anarchy in which liberals always win and conservatives always lose – and then cheerfully enforce their own defeats. Oh, you see an abortion clause in there? OK, I don''t see it, but we''ll enforce it. Sodomy, too, you say? OK, it''s legal. Gay marriage? Just give us a minute to change the law. No prayer in schools? It''s out. Go-go dancing is speech, but protest at abortion clinics isn''t? Okey-dokey. No Ten Commandments in the courthouse? Somebody get the number of a monument removal service.

What passes for ""constitutional law"" can be fairly summarized as: Heads we win, tails you lose. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court.

Apparently the only thing standing between a government of laws and total anarchy is the fact that conservatives are good losers. If we don''t give liberals everything they want, when they want it, anarchy will result. We must obey manifestly absurd court rulings, so that liberals obey court rulings when they lose.

Point one: They almost never lose. Point two: They already refuse to accept laws they don''t like. They do it all the time – race discrimination bans, bilingual education bans, marijuana bans. They refuse to accept the Electoral College when their candidate wins the popular vote, and they refuse to accept sexual harassment laws when their president is the accused. If you don''t let them win every game, they walk off with the football.

I''m not sure what horror is supposed to befall the nation if the liberals started ignoring the law more than they already do, but apparently it would be even worse than a country in which the Ten Commandments have been stripped from every public space, prayer in schools is outlawed, sodomy is a constitutional right, and more than 1 million unborn children are aborted every year.

I think it''s about time for conservatives in power to force the issue and refuse to comply with some of these insane rulings. Once a state governor stands up and says no, or a Republican president or Congress refuses to simply accept a Supreme Court proclamation, we might actually see a return to the way the system was supposed to be - with checks and balances, instead of a judiciary with absolute veto and legislative powers.

Quote:

Judge Roy in effect stated that his
capacity was affected by his religious beliefs.

It''s the ""in effect"" part that is wrong. Judge Moore''s statements are no different than the phrase in the Alabama constitution acknowledgint the existence of God and stating that rights come from Him. Dismissing Judge Moore for stating these beliefs, with no evidence whatsoever that he has failed to uphold the law, is bigotry, pure and simple.

I guess we should dismiss all Muslim judges who stated that they believe in and followed the Koran because they will surely not be able to uphold Western laws.

Again, sweeping generalizations get you nowhere here.
We should only dismiss the ones who, as a part of their
judicial duties, place the laws of the Koran in their courtroom
as an official reminder from the State that these laws are
above those of the State.

Again, don''t generalize beyond the case.

As for the Alabama Constitution, it rightly acknowledges God,
and goes on to say in a number of places that that is not
allowed to impact the performance of the courts, government
or civil life, in any way. In other words, it explicitly prevents
what Judge Moore tried to do. ""...that no preference shall be
given by law to any religion..."" If a judge cannot give a
preference by law, I''m not sure who can. Yes, it applies to the
state legislature, but also to those responsible for enforcing
the law, judges being one of that class.

Robear

I think it''s about time for conservatives in power to force the issue and refuse to comply with some of these insane rulings. Once a state governor stands up and says no, or a Republican president or Congress refuses to simply accept a Supreme Court proclamation, we might actually see a return to the way the system was supposed to be - with checks and balances, instead of a judiciary with absolute veto and legislative powers.

I think that''s probably a good approach in these cases. While
I disagree with your goal, I think the article pointed out one
tools remaining to liberals that have not been co-opted by the
Neocons (conservatives being a dead minority these days).
I don''t think a civil war will result, although I surely would not
like to find myself in his courtroom. But I have a goal of
staying out of any courtrooms, so that''s not too likely.

I move we pick another topic in a few days and go at it again.
I learned a lot from you and Ral and the others.

Robear

I hadn''t touched this thread yet, and I just read it all tonight. I think I have a headache now.

You know, many times throughout I thought of stuff to put in my response, but my brain feels like jelly right now.

We should only dismiss the ones who, as a part of their
judicial duties, place the laws of the Koran in their courtroom
as an official reminder from the State that these laws are
above those of the State.

I agree - and when Moore''s actions affect his duties, he should be reprimanded or removed.