Vanity: My Letter to Alabama Attorney General Pryor

Self | 11/11/2003 | Self

[farmer18th]

Dear Mr. Pryor:

Your actions with respect to Judge Moore confuse me.

Is "Thou Shalt Not Steal" offensive to you? (I'm glad I don't own property in Alabama)

Is "Thou Shalt Not Murder" problematic for you? (I'm glad I don't live in Alabama)

Is "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" hurtful to you? (I'm glad you don't know my wife.)

Is "Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness" repugnant to you? (I'm glad I never had to seek justice in your state.)

Is "Thou Shalt Have no Other Gods Before Me" distasteful to you? (What with lightning bolts and all, I'm glad I dont worship next to you.)

We are a nation of laws, Mr. Pryor, and not of men. I'm just confused as to which laws you follow.

[EternalVigilance]

That is known as a "non-denial denial." Some people will accept that as proof of the accuracy of the charge. I don't. I knew it was true before I made it.

It is possible for you to think it is true. But that doesn't make it true.

[lugsoul]

That would also be a non-denial denial.

[EternalVigilance]

You're doing a pretty good job arguing his agenda. That is my point. But you knew that.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Thank you for the link.

An interesting discussion; however, from your perspective, I think that it shows, at best, that Madison was inconsistent in his actions.

I get the distinct impression from the opinion this is treated as a strange quirk from an otherwise consistent "preacher" of a separation between gov't and religion. After all, the Court does cite to Memorial and Remonstrance...

Do you disagree with this?

[lugsoul]

I guess you'll accuse Ed Carnes of working for Dees' agenda next. Is Pryor on the SPLC payroll, too?

I don't even know what Dees stake in this would be - I haven't heard anything from him on it. What'd they give ya at the office? Perhaps you can fill me in.

[EternalVigilance]

Nobody has to pay me to fight folks like you.

I do it every day for free.

[lugsoul]

That would be three non-denial denials. Most reporters would let the story fly with that.

[Ohioan]

Oh, goody, "Mr. anti-semite segregationist" checks in on behalf of Roy Moore. Yo, flax-boy, still got some mocking words about the holocaust? Maybe a platitude or two against the notion of suffrage for blacks?

What a ranting liar, you are! Please cite anything to back up the suggestion that I have ever written anything anti-semitic, or that I have personalized my opposition to universal suffrage to apply to blacks--or that I have advocated the adoption of segregationist laws. As for "mocking words about the holocaust?" I have several articles discussing the cold-blooded Socialist slaughter of Jews, as anything but mocking. It is one of my principal examples of the horrors of Socialist intolerance. (See Compulsion For Uniformity, The Lies Of Socialism, etc..)

But perhaps, I do you an injustice. Perhaps you are not only irrational, as you pretty well demonstrated in our little exchange on another thread, yesterday. Perhaps you simply do not understand English, and the distinctions which people of intelligence rely upon, to discuss serious issues in a rational manner.

But post away, my friend. You have no idea how far out of your pathetic league you are getting.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Looking for Diogenes]

Dude, why did the Blaine Amendment fail 14 times?

I dunno. I wasn't there. You tell me.

Strange, but Scalia and Thomas both seem to agree that the First Amendment applies to states.

I join the Court's conclusion that the District's refusal to allow use of school facilities for petitioners' film viewing, while generally opening the schools for community activities, violates petitioners' First Amendment free speech rights to the extent it compelled the District's denial.

Justices Scalia and Thomas, concurring

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District 508 US 384 (1993)

[EternalVigilance]

Denials of what?

That I'm associated with conservatives?

Only to a Lefty like you would that be some kind of 'issue'.

But your charge that I somehow do what I do for money is still patently false.

[Texas Federalist]

The first prong is easy. It has a secular purpose. WHether it be decoration or education, or whatever. To satisfy the "effects" prong of Lemon, the primary effect of the act must be to neither advance nor inhibit religion, right. I would argue that the primary effect is to advance freedom of thought, knowledge of the orgins of English common law, or simply knowledge in general. Certainly the edification of the Ten Commandments is not going to convert those entering the courthouse to Christianity. Third is the endorsement test. To be honest, I'm doing this off the top of my head and I don't really remember how it's worded in the caselaw. But I would argue that erecting a statute of the Ten Commandments isn't an endorsement of a particular religion, just as celebrating Ramadan in the white house, or erecting a Christmas tree on the town square isn't.

The point is, I just need to give a judge enough to work with. I don't need to give him the best argument. Lemon and the rest of the SC opinions are complete bunk and there is always a way to distinguish a case or wiggle out of precedent if you try hard enough. Judges do it all the time.

I have to run, but I'll be back in the morning to read your reply.

[lugsoul]

Lefty? Still holding "anti-Christian" in your quiver, are you?

"But your charge that I somehow do what I do for money is still patently false."

Purposefully vague. That usually follows the non-denial denial. Why can't you just come out and say that you do not hold or have not held any paid position that involves posting here in any way, shape or form? Oh, that's right. That would be a denial.

[lugsoul]

Did you read Moore's testimony, at all? He said it had a religious purpose and not a secular purpose. He also said that its intended effect was to acknowledge that sovereignty of the God of the Holy Scriptures over the Alabama judicial system, and that if the effect was to acknowledge any other god then the charges levied against him 'would be true.' He pretty much negated every available escape hatch in the Lemon test with his own mouth.

[EternalVigilance]

I don't get paid to post on FR.

Do you?

[jwalsh07]

I am of the mind that it was hypocritical but these things are all on a time line. Combine this with Jeffersons building of Catholic missions as well as filling them with bibles while funding same with the public treasury and imho, one can onle be left with the impression that the Wall of Separation was not constructed by the founders but by 20th Century judicial activists.

[lugsoul]

Not as far as my boss knows.

[lugsoul]

When did that gig end?

[jwalsh07]

I dunno. I wasn't there. You tell me.

Because they didn't have the votes. Tough one huh?

[EternalVigilance]

Fish all you want. All you prove is my point that you are talking out of your anal cavity.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Because they didn't have the votes. Tough one huh?

That's why most motions fail.

Regardless, the Fourteenth Amendment has made the first 8 Amendments applicable to the states. If you don't like that you're gonna have to get those liberals, Scalia and Thomas, off the bench.