Vanity: My Letter to Alabama Attorney General Pryor

Hamilton, I think, wrote in the Federalist that although the judiciary would inevitably be called upon to review the constitutionality of laws, it was the least dangerous branch of government, because it could be de-funded if necessary. Has that threat ever been used against it?

Not quite. He did write that they would have to take perfrom judical review, but wrote that they are the least dangerous because they do not have executive power, not becaase they can be defunded.

The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
Federalist Paper 78: The Judiciary Department

The judiciary cannot be defunded, if by that you mean cutting the salaries of judges.

Article III. Section. 1.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Still working on your reply to my objections to your list?

Still working on your reply to my objections to your list?

I think applying Biblical law to this generation is something like asking a fat, indolent teenager to consider the marine corps. He knows it would be good for him but he considers nigh to impossible. Does that answer your question?

Does that answer your question?

No. That was a non-sequitor. You asked for specific objections. I listed six, including the fact that both you and Moore have misquoted the Ten Commandments. Fat marines have nothing to do with answering that objection.

I was under the impression you were wondering whether I thought the colonial implementations of the 10 commandments should be applied today. If you don't understand the metaphor, or its application, there isn't much point in proceeding. As to misquoting the Ten Commandments, I paraphrased from memory to answer your question. The only substantive distinction you made was the difference between "kill" and "murder." The reason for that substitution is so obvious it shouldn't require further discussion.

The judiciary cannot be defunded, if by that you mean cutting the salaries of judges.

Thanks for the distinction. When was the last time the executive applied the brakes to the judiciary? Was Hamilton just being hopeful?

There are two threads that we have been discussing. One is what is objectionable about Moore's actions. That started because you posted a vanity of your letter to the AG of Alabama. You nagged a number of posters here to come up with specific objections I did and you wrote that you'd respond. You have made piecemeal responses to two of the the six I posted.

The other thread is whether you want the laws which you have been quoting from 1759 to be revived. You seem to think they are great. Does that mean you think they should be in force today? Why or why not?

While I'm waiting for your other responses we can look at one that you have given: The only substantive distinction you made was the difference between "kill" and "murder." The reason for that substitution is so obvious it shouldn't require further discussion.

Not so obvious. Please explain why you are asking if folks object to a different list then Moore installed. Is it because you believe that Moore wrote down the wrong list? Do you think the Bible is incorrect for banning killing and should only ban murder? Do you have a better understanding of this issue then Moore?

When was the last time the executive applied the brakes to the judiciary?

Who appoints the judiciary? There isn't a single judge on the federal court who was not appointed by the Chief Executive.

Who appoints the judiciary? There isn't a single judge on the federal court who was not appointed by the Chief Executive.

Didn't someone tell Hamilton? Don't you think he was referring to an executive check beyond the power of appointment?

Not so obvious. Please explain why you are asking if folks object to a different list then Moore installed.

The ten commandments are the ten commandments. That part of your objection seems to be hair splitting. (NIV, KJV, etc. may have different language, but a reasonable person would have to conclude they represent the same princples.) Your response, one by one, however, is appreciated and I'll review the thread and respond.

RE: "murder" vs "kill"

As I have read the explanation elsewhere, the reason for the routine substition is well stated here:

.."kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag." However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

Source: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html

It is certainly different from the Catholic listing of the Decalogue

Is that your primary objection? It would seem the original text would have to dictate the terminology, not Catholic or Protestant versions. Which is closer to the original text?

"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

At some point you have to reconcile yourself to the fact that the founders would have found that eventuality distasteful and even ruinous in the extreme. Despite their denominational differences, Bibles were considered indispensable tools in civilizing the Indian nations. Look at the language itself: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion" Were Hindus, animists, agnostics or atheists reflected among those "establishments?" No. Was there a 1st Church of the Deist on the list? No. The consensus was Judeo-Christian in the extreme and most of the founders viewed Democracy as downright dangerous without that consensus.

More later.

You had asked for objections. I provided you with a specific list in post #409. Now let's see how you're adressing those objections.

a) Your list is different from Moore's list.
As I have read the explanation elsewhere, the reason for the routine substition is well stated here:

I am familiar with the argument that "kill" is an incorrect, though extremely widespread, translation. But that was not my question. Moore's monument says "kill." You are asking for objections to what he installed. Apparently you have your own objection to that word. If you are going to demand people respond to Moore's monument, you should quote it accurately, and not reword it the way you wish it were. That's just plain honesty.

B) Moore's mounument has a list which is not directly derived from any published Bible. In addition, he uses a Protestant numbering, rather than the Catholic numbering.
Is that your primary objection? It would seem the original text would have to dictate the terminology, not Catholic or Protestant versions. Which is closer to the original text?

The uses of Catholic vs. Protestant version is not my primary objection, but it is a clear case of supporting one sect over another. If the Protestant version is closer to the text does that mean that Catholics are wrong? Is this monument intended to instruct Catholics in the errors in their religion? If I were a Catholic I might find that rather offensive.

The other half of the objection is that Moore has written his own version of the Decalogue. What's the reason for that? Maybe he thought he could improve upon the word of God. Maybe he thought God was too wordy and had to be edited down. Whichever, it seems extremely arrogant.

C) The prohibition on graven images is being violated by Moore's own monument and by vast numbers of sculptures and other images.
The ten commandments graven in stone are not a "graven image" any more than the original set of ten commandments, written in stone, were a "graven image." God himself ordained the statuary of the Tabernacle, including detailed instructions as to how to fashion the cherubim. Graven image is understood to mean any object designed so as to be an object of worship. A complete reading of the Bible can indicate no other conclusion.

Here is the version from the King James Bible.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Note that there is a full stop (a period) between the sentence that says "make no graven images" and the one which says "do not bow down to them." Those are two separate thoughts.

For hundreds of years the Jews regarded it as an absolute prohibition on making depictions. Since then more liberal scholars have interpreted it to mean "make no idols." It is still a point of contention between Christian sects. Catholics bow down to crucifixes. Orthodox venerate icons. It is not a settled issue in theology. You yourself admit that a complete reading of the Bible was necessary for you to arrive at your own interpretation.

D)"THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANY OTHER GODS BEFORE ME" America has freedom of religion.
At some point you have to reconcile yourself to the fact that the founders would have found that eventuality distasteful and even ruinous in the extreme. Despite their denominational differences, Bibles were considered indispensable tools in civilizing the Indian nations. Look at the language itself: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion" Were Hindus, animists, agnostics or atheists reflected among those "establishments?" No. Was there a 1st Church of the Deist on the list? No. The consensus was Judeo-Christian in the extreme and most of the founders viewed Democracy as downright dangerous without that consensus.

Not a single Founding Father was a "Judeo-Christian." The majority of signers of the Constitution were Anglicans. By your logic does that mean we should all be Anglicans (Episcopalians)? The Constitution does not qualify freedom of religion. It is absolute. The fact that some of its authors worshipped in one way or another is entirely beside the point.

Equally absolute is the Old Testament commandment to the Jews:

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That comandment is still operative on observant Jews. It is not operative on citizens of the United States of America.

E) No response.

F) No response.

If you are going to demand people respond to Moore's monument, you should quote it accurately, and not reword it the way you wish it were. That's just plain honesty.

You know, Diogenes, most of the time when rhetoric heats up on FR and a participant endulges the temptation to call an opponent's argument "laughable," I take it as just an attempt to score cheap points, but this time I really must admit that I find your distinctions here about Moore's wording amusing. A reasonable person would understand his wording to be materially no different from the 10 commandments many Christians memorize as concepts and then repeat in paraphrase. (As I said, earlier, my own rendition was based on memory, not on a resort to KJV or NIV or any of the dozens of other translations I could have alluded to.) You would have 10 Commandment supporters put a footnote on their protest placards indicating exactly what translational camp they fall in? I wasn't there at the site itself, but I'm having difficulty imagining ideologically violent clashes between "The Catholic 10" and the "Protestant 10" and the "Living Bible 10."

A reasonable person would understand his wording to be materially no different from the 10 commandments many Christians memorize as concepts and then repeat in paraphrase. (As I said, earlier, my own rendition was based on memory, not on a resort to KJV or NIV or any of the dozens of other translations I could have alluded to.) You would have 10 Commandment supporters put a footnote on their protest placards indicating exactly what translational camp they fall in? I wasn't there at the site itself, but I'm having difficulty imagining ideologically violent clashes between "The Catholic 10" and the "Protestant 10" and the "Living Bible 10."

You don't get around much. There is plenty of controversy over the Ten Commandments within the religions which read the Old Testament. For example:

To gain converts from heathenism, unsound doctrines, superstitious rites and the adoration of images and relics were gradually introduced into Christian worship. The decree of a general council (Second Council of Nice, A. D. 787) finally established this system of Christian idolatry. To complete the sacrilegious work, Rome presumed to erase the second commandment, forbidding image worship, from the law of God, and to divide the tenth commandment to preserve the number.
WHAT'S BEHIND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

Now if you feel this guy is "unreasonable" (sounds like a nut case to me), then you are saying that the state shall decide what the "reasonable" interpretation of a religious document is. That is precisely the territory that our Foundng Fathers tried to make sure government avoided. Can you imagine if Clinton, et al, were in charge of deciding which commandments should be written in government buildings? Yikes!

You talk like a athiestic Liberal!
And you call yourself a Freeper, you're pathedic!!!!

Roy Moore did what was right, the Federal courts were wrong!

Damn Richard Pryor for attacking and removing Moore and the Ten Commandments!!

Obviously the ACLU are recruiting people like you to destroy our Nation's Judeo-Christian Heritage!

you're pathedic!!!!

It is obvious what your are. LOL.

Yep!
Conservative, Christian, and Constitutionalist!

And you?
The opposite.

I was calling you a bad speller! Or should I say, pathetic speller.

Keep praying to Roy's Rock.

I pray to God and Christ; 'Roy's Rock' is the Laws of God and recognized by our Founding Fathers.

Keep it up you Marxist, er, I mean Democrat.

'Roy's Rock' is the Laws of God and recognized by our Founding Fathers.

It is a rock. It is no different than the copy of the 10 Commandments I keep on paper.

Keep praying to a rock, I am sure God appreciates all your efforts for mankind.