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.

[reflecting]

That will be just great then the trial lawyers will completely control the state. Do you know anything about Roy Moore?

[lugsoul]

It matters - to the extent anyone cares whether you know what you are talking about or just reading from your Coral Ridge talking points.

[lugsoul]

Who's the "emporer"?

[reflecting]

Because there are factors in this matter that I never see you address in your comments regarding this story....

[farmer18th]

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

Hardly. That's bulletin board law, not eternal law, the sort of thing that would please a Bolshevik or a student revolutionary--so long as the posted laws matched the current consensus. Do you want to trust your children, your spouse, your property to the current consensus or do you want the code that has sustained WESTERN CIVILIIZATOIN FOR THE LAST 2000 YEARS?

[Viva Le Dissention]

And have you read Singer's essay(s)? They are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to attack from a logic standpoint. This is the point of the essays. He also wrote one (Famine, Affluence, and Morality http://www.petersingerlinks.com/famine.htm) in which the conclusion is that everyone has a moral duty to give away all of their money to the point that they are starving and freezing to death.

He makes an extremely compelling argument because he approaches the problem very logically and in a step-by-step manner. Anyhow, the point of his essays are not generally to persuade politically, but that clear and rational thought are necessary in dealing with questions of ethics, even if it leads to seemingly irrational results.

[Viva Le Dissention]

The English Common Law has been around for quite some time, at least since the 12th Century or so, and as far as I know, larceny has also been a crime at common law, so I don't really think that I'd call it subject to the current whim or fancy of public opinion.

But when it comes to a Court, I'll go with common law over religious law, thanks.

[lugsoul]

The shore? eastern?

It amazes me - the FReepers with the most clear-headed view of Judge Roy are often from Alabama, while his lockstep supporters are never from Alabama. As I've said before, folks down here know a huckster when they see one.

[reflecting]

I am a deeply committed Christian, as conservative as they come, and an Alabamian - I would just offer a warning that there is a reason the conservative pastors of Alabama did not ralley to Moore's cause. You might ask why Godly men, unafraid of the cost, did not tightly embrace Judge Moore.?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Do you want to trust your children, your spouse, your property to the current consensus or do you want the code that has sustained WESTERN CIVILIIZATOIN FOR THE LAST 2000 YEARS?

Which would that be? Roman?

[farmer18th]

Singer ... logical.

The ability of a single savant to marshal logic in his or her perverse favor is precisely why we can be grateful God chose to tell His story by carving it in stone. When a demonic presence like Singer comes along, advocating the killing of children, his ideas are dumped in the rubbish as they should be. Given the conclusion, his ideas are not worthy of consideration.

[farmer18th]

You might ask why Godly men, unafraid of the cost, did not tightly embrace Judge Moore.?

Because they aren't men of God.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm a political activist, fighting to defend and restore our free republic, not an attorney.

I believe that America, as it once was, should be a nation that reveres God, the Creator, respects innocent human life and enjoys liberty.

The majority of lawyers obviously are too close to the trees to see the forest these days.

In cases like this, their expensive legal educations are working against them, and against the best interests of limited government.

The law is too important to let it be defined by lawyers, IMO.

[Texas Federalist]

Huckster or not, it doesn't make the positing of the 10 Commandments in a courtroom a government establishment of religion.

[EternalVigilance]

Perhaps they are not as unafraid as you think.

[lugsoul]

THAT'S IT!!! Either they embrace Judge Moore, or THEY ARE UNGODLY!!!

Next thing you know Moore will lead a group to live in the jungle of Guyana.

[farmer18th]

Which would that be? Roman?

No, not the standard that produced bastard brats like Nero and Caligula. The standard that gave us, utlimately, the English Bill of Rights, Common Law, and the American Constitution. Deuteronomy was quoted by the founders more than any other single source.

[EternalVigilance]

This crowd always attempts to make conservative leaders out to be hucksters. It's part of their MO.

The more bold the leader, the more fierce the attacks on their reputations and character.

[lugsoul]

The posting of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is not, in and of itself, a violation of the Establishment Clause, and the Courts in this case expressly said as much. MOORE's actions and declarations, however, are another story.

[EternalVigilance]

Next thing you know Moore will lead a group to live in the jungle of Guyana.

Now you're getting downright pathetic.