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.

[Viva Le Dissention]

You're characterising someone who disagrees with you as a thief and a murderer, or at least someone who condones such actions. I call that a high horse.

[EternalVigilance]

The Ten Commandments displayed in a public building does not establish a state religion. It requires the blotting out of vast portions of American history to believe that particular bit of Leftist propaganda.

Sorry to see so many FReepers who have allowed themselves to be propagandized so thoroughly by the Left that you will help them forward their agenda.

[farmer18th]

Is your faith so shallow that you need a rock?

Yes. We are incurably evil. As Doestoevsky said, (refering to the French Revolution), "without God, all things are possible." He was refering here to the sort of attrocities we have witnessed in the last 200 years when people forget those axiomatic truths CARVED IN STONE. Jesus would carve them on your heart. Is there a place for them there?

I repeat the question: are you a defender of murder, adultery, theft, covetousness or perjury? Which one of those laws offend you and why?

[Texas Federalist]

". . . the question is, has an omnicient judiciary been created? . . .

Perhaps you mean omnipotent;"

Perhaps he meant omniverous . . . or amphibious. Nothing he's said has made much sense so far, so why not?

[TheOtherOne]

Trivializing the Ten Commandments as "Roy's Rocks" means you are afraid of the language enscripted on the stones themselves.

I think a course in logic is warranted. Your conclusion that I fear the language of the commandments is based on nothing but your imagination.

"Are you capable of a substantive dialogue on the subject or are you more of an Al Franken type? "

LOL, kinds like the pot calling the kettle black, ehh?

[EternalVigilance]

He made a law that said the Ten Commandments can't be publically displayed in the court in Alabama.

Are you dense?

Now cite the law that Judge Moore broke.

[TheOtherOne]

Is your faith so shallow that you need a rock?

Farmer1th: Yes.

I do not have that same problem. I understand your fear now.

[EternalVigilance]

Carnivorous, perhaps?

LOL...

[lugsoul]

No, he didn't. He issued an injunction granting the relief requested by the Plaintiffs, which was the removal of the monument on the grounds that its placement - along with Moore's stated intent behind the placement - violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment - according to binding SCOTUS precedent - as determined by application of the Lemon Test as required by binding SCOTUS precedent.

Now, let's see if you can articulate an argument that any part of that is incorrect.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Judge Moore himself said that the reason he placed the monument in the building was to advance religion. Not for historical purposes. Not because he thought the 10 Commandments are a nifty ethic code.

It is no different then if he placed a large crucifix in the courthouse rotunda. Oh, but perhaps you wouldn't consider that to be an establishment either.

[EternalVigilance]

The cowards on the court may overrule the people of the state of Alabama and remove Judge Moore, you are correct.

But they will themselves find their own positions to be untenable thereafter, mark my words.

Judge Moore will get the last laugh.

[farmer18th]

You're characterising someone who disagrees with you as a thief and a murderer

Let's put it this way: if someone objects to the posting of the words "thou shalt not murder" in a court of law, I would consider them a better candidate for therapy than for the bench.

[EternalVigilance]

Now, let's see if you can articulate an argument that any part of that is incorrect.

It is a pretty little edifice built on nothing.

Their reading of the First Amendment is ridiculous. The emporer has no clothes. Surprised you haven't noticed, 'cause he looks silly.

[EternalVigilance]

Oh, but perhaps you wouldn't consider that to be an establishment either.

Nope.

[reflecting]

ARe you fromm Alabama?

[EternalVigilance]

BTW, one of the reasons he looks silly, other than that he is naked, is that he isn't really the emporer, either. He just thinks he is.

[EternalVigilance]

Why does that matter?

[lugsoul]

EV, you can run all you want, and you can bash Myron Thompson all you want, but can you articulate ANYTHING in Thompson's ruling that was not exactly as required by the application of the Lemon test? You may not like the test, but you can't argue that Thompson isn't bound to apply it - or can you?

[farmer18th]

I do not have that same problem. I understand your fear now.

Ever heard of Pete Singer, the Princeton professor who believes the right to life should not be extended to children? God wrote the commandments in stone to protect his people from moral idiots like Professor Singer. You would remove those protections? Are you unfamiliar with the axiomatic, or do you believe eternal principles of justice are up for a vote?

[Viva Le Dissention]

Uh-huh. Which frankly has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Ok, we'll post a list of the state code sections (or common law) of the relevant portions of the ten commandments in every Courtroom. Happy?

Then there can be something like:

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to deprive the previous possessor thereof. This offense carries a maximum of five years imprisonment.

So that should restore the moral order of which you speak and then people like me are happy. What do you say?