Posted on 11/11/2003 11:43:08 AM PST by 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.
Second, you are posting with an agenda that mimics those you serve. If you want that agenda to be secret, fine. But that doesn't mean anyone who knows who you are has to help.
Have fun on the phones.
Pot, meet kettle. You have no room to criticize anyone's hostility. If you want to do so, I suggest you scroll back through these threads and count the names you've hurled at me.
And if you don't like folks knowing the fact that you are a shill for people who use this ginned-up Moore debacle as a fundraising tool, then you should try a little harder to keep it a secret.
"I've got no problem with it - though some faiths have a problem with that translation. But, let me shortcut this a bit - I have no problem with posting commandments 5-10 in any courthouse. Have at it."
So, you can retract your lie about what I "like" or don't like, or you can remain a liar.
I glad you don't, as well. It doesn't need anyone like you.
Also, its good to see you view a judge's proper role as stirring up media attention. Point us to that provision in the Constitution, would ya?
There are many objectionable things about the list you just posted.
a) Where did you get your list? It is not the list which Moore had engraved in his stone. His list says "Thou shalt no kill," not "Thou shalt not murder." There are some other wording differences as well.
b) Where did Moore get his list? I checked the 16 translations of the Bible on the Bible Gateway and his list, as he has worded it, does not appear in any of them. According to his own statements Moore has placed this monument to show respect for God's Word, but not without first editing the words to suit himself.
It is certainly different from the Catholic listing of the Decalogue. Therefore this list shows a preference for one sect over another. That in itself is a clear violation of the intent of the 1st Amendment.
c) "THOU SHALT NOT MAKE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE" Aside from the fact that Moore himself has created a 'graven image' this is a commandment that few of us are interested in following. Are sculptures immoral? I don't think so. Do you? If so you should be offended by this monument.
d) "THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANY OTHER GODS BEFORE ME" America has freedom of religion. If I want to go worship a moon god, or a pantheon of gods, or no god at all then that is my business. I don't think there should be a large stone monument in a state courthouse commanding me to worship the God of the ancient Hebrews (even if I choose to worship that same God elsewhere). This commandment also directly contradicts the US and Alabama Constitutions. Do you find the 1st Amendment objectionable?
e) "THOU SHALT REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY" The sabbath day? Which day is that? Friday, Saturday, Sunday? Since Moore felt comfortable editing the text maybe he should change that to "a sabbath day?"
f) The context, including Moore's own actions and words, are objectionable. Moore has gone out of his way to be provocative in placing this monument. He has shown disrespect for his colleagues, for the Consitution, for his office, and for those of other faiths.
I tried to contact you, privately, to make sure that I understood this request. I am not quite sure, but I will try to do what you request with respect to the most significant aspect of each subject, noting that these "distillations" do not cover all aspects--not by a long shot, as each subject is either the subject or a major part of the subject in at least four separate essays at my web site:
With that caveat, my view on universal suffrage--as a means of determining policy or leadership--is that it is only a satisfactory method, when you have a population where almost everyone has the intellectual capacity, the educational background--which can be at one's mom's knee--and the standard of living, where there is sufficient leisure time, to both understand the political aspects of a people's ethos, and to reflect deeply and regularly on those aspects. Where those things are not all present, there is obvious danger in trusting the "counting of noses," as the determinant of public policy. That danger increases in proportion to the class and ethnic divisions in the population involved--i.e., there is less danger of victimizing minorities and eccentricity, where all those involved have most traits in common.
I also feel that the suffrage should be structured to eliminate obvious conflicts of interest. Thus, anyone receiving regular, unearned checks from any level of Government should not be allowed to vote for that level of Government and still retain eligibility for such payments. The reasons for this are also obvious--preventing the buying of votes, by misapplication of the public revenues.
With regard to the Nazi slaughter of millions of European Jews, I think that one needs to understand the historic root in a century of Socialist propaganda, which demonized the Jews because of their success in Germany under Capitalism--Marx blamed Capitalism on Jews, and speculated on "a world without Jews," and even some of his rivals in the Socialist movement, preached a similar line of hatred. In terms of the early 20th Century, Hitler took up the standard Socialist line, and built on it, as part of his battle to win the rabble in the street from the Bolsheviks. Ultimately--9 years after creating the climate of hate and demonization--he authorized a systematic slaughter, which served the same function for those trying to build a Nazi monolith, as the Bolshevik slaughter of millions of Kulaks, served for the Soviets.
Both massacres reflected the willingness of Socialist movements to employ whatever means they deemed necessary to destroy those whom they did not see as fitting in their "classless" Utopias. Both reflected the intolerance for eccentricity--for individualism--among those with a neurotic need to impose uniformity on their subject populations.
I hope that this is helpful.
For anyone who wants more information, I will be happy to provide links for more thorough discussion.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
So, in essense, Pryor was protecting his own butt, regardless of how he may have personally felt about the federal ruling that he was ordered to carry out.
Well, I can't claim to know what Pryor personally felt about this. I do know that if he had stood up to the federal judge, he could have kissed his future nomination to the federal bench goodbye.
No doubt about that in my mind.
Having said that, I will nonetheless go and do whatever I can to get him an up or down vote in the Senate. He deserves that, and the President deserves that. I just won't have any illusions about how effective he might be in the future in reclaiming the judicial branch from the Left.
As to the suffrage issue, your position is, to me, unrealistic, elitest, and arbitrary. Any measurements of voting qualifications such as you mention would be arbitrary and subject to abuse.
When you get over being an inveterate liar, come back with your lectures on morality. Until then, there is no need for anyone to listen to you and your lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.