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]

Now who's evasive?

I've been far more open here about who I am and what I believe than you have, or most FReepers have for that matter. But I certainly haven't said the things that you and certain of your compadres have said about me here. They could only be obtained by some pretty serious digging.

So, just to level the playing field, why don't you reveal who you are, and who your associates are?

[EternalVigilance]

*crickets chirping*

[EternalVigilance]

Ah well. Can't continue this lovefest any longer. Places to go and people to see.

Another time perhaps...

[farmer18th]

Comparing this to real war crimes--genocide, rapine and wanton destruction, et cetera--...

Invoking the first law of the internet is a bit like Holocaust denial, isn't it? Are you one of those people?

But if the German people were better schooled in the Ten Commandments they might not have fallen for the paper-hanger. Worth considering?

[farmer18th]

Farmer18th: "The founders, despite being of different faiths and different religions, all agreed that the Ten Commandments were a correct summation of immutable moral law of the universe--including the need to worship the one, single, true God."

Lugo: A nice allegation - but completely false. There is no basis for claiming any "AGREEMENT" that the 10 Commandments were the summation of immutable moral law or the basis of all US law. None.

“We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
--James Madison

Is that what you call "none?"

There it is. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Plain ol' bigotry.

Re-read the post. Ponder the words "natural and adopted" and then re-think playing the bigotry card.

[EveningStar]

Such a change would require bipartisan support. How would you convince Democrats that this was not anti-poor? Hell, I'm as Republican as one can get and I'm not convinced.

There will always be abuses. Many situations cannot be eradicated. But they can be made better - through vigilance rather than more laws.

[EveningStar]

Your smears of Alan Keyes...

I haven't read the referenced post but it's not necessary to smear Keyes. He does such a good job it himself.

[lugsoul]

Your Madison quote is bogus.

So, unless one is BORN a Christian, Jew, or Muslim [I presume you include them in the family of Abraham], or chooses to convert to same, that person is one the world can do without? If you don't see the bigotry in that sentiment, your eyes have been poked out.

[lugsoul]

Nah. It is easier than you think. And I don't have any associates relating in any way to any political activity.

[lugsoul]

compadres?

[farmer18th]

Your Madison quote is bogus.

I note that most of the sites attempting a refutation of Barton's TWO sources bear the term "humanist" somewhere in the URL. No axe to grind there. I have, however, a copy of New Hampshire Acts and Laws, circa 1759. The entire criminal code of the colony, summarized in the first four pages, is based squarely on the ten commandments, including punishment for blasphemy. You're completely out of the park if you believe the ten commandments didn't constitute a cultural/legal consensus at the time of the constitutional convention. Ever read the Sabbath laws that were widespread in the colonies at the time? Probably not.

[Looking for Diogenes]

note that most of the sites attempting a refutation of Barton's TWO sources bear the term "humanist" somewhere in the URL.

Barton himself has acknowledged that there is no basis for that quotation.

WallBuilders | Resources | Unconfirmed Quotations

[farmer18th]

I believe Barton wrote that the quote is unconfirmed, not that there was no basis for it. He seems to have argued for its probability given Madison's Federalist writings. But no matter, let's just go to the actual laws on the books in the colony of New Hampshire, if you seriously believe the Ten Commandments were not at the very heart of our jurisprudence:

..if any person shall presume wilfully to blaspheme the holy name of God, Father, Son or Holy Ghost, either by denying, cursing or reproaching the true God, his creation or government of the world; or by denying , cursing, or reproaching the holy word of God, that is the canonical scriptures....every one so offending shall be punished by imprisonment, not exceeding six months, ...by setting in the pillory, by whipping, boardig throgh the tongue with a red hot iron, or setting upon the gallows with a rope about their neck..."

How could Madison have POSSIBLY said anything as preposterous as law being based on the ten commandments? Given the laws on the books at the time, it would have been preposterous to conclude anything else.

[farmer18th]

Maybe you could object that at least this wasn't enscribed in stone, heah?

[Looking for Diogenes]

I believe Barton wrote that the quote is unconfirmed, not that there was no basis for it.

And the difference is? The fact is that there is no record that Madison ever said it. Barton can't remember where or how he found that quote. Now I'm not saying that he made it up, but if you'd like I can provide you with a whole lot of "unconfirmed" quotations from Founding Fathers to bolster my position.

But no matter, let's just go to the actual laws on the books in the colony of New Hampshire,

If you look far enough back in colonial history you'll find all kinds of restrictive religious laws. It was in reaction to those laws that the 1st Amendment was passed.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Maybe you could object that at least this wasn't enscribed in stone, heah?

You and Moore both seem to enjoy misquoting those you claim to revere.

[farmer18th]

If you look far enough back in colonial history you'll find all kinds of restrictive religious laws. It was in reaction to those laws that the 1st Amendment was passed.

Actually, you don't have to look that far back at all. The quote I referenced was 1759. Those laws stayed on the back well into the early federal period. Here's one on buggery, just in case you don't think Leviticus had a place in Early American jurisprudence:

"..every man duly convicted of lying with man-kind as he lyeth with a woman...shall suffer the pains of death."

[farmer18th]

You and Moore both seem to enjoy misquoting those you claim to revere

The Acts and Laws of New Hampshire edition is sitting right in front of me. And??

[Looking for Diogenes]

Are you proposing that we should revive the colonial laws you are quoting from?

(You are quoting correctly this time, right?)

[Catspaw]

The Judicial Review Board will announce their decision at 11 a.m. CST tomorrow.

http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-4/106864914388630.xml