CPAC 2004: ALAN KEYES' SPEECH

Renew America website ^ | January 24, 2004 | Dr. Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

Here is my honest debate, which you have not bothered to refute.

Your arguments are pretty much self refuting, when you write stuff like this:

'An establishment of religion' is any teaching, precept, dogma, or object relating to any specific religion.

That's certainly not how the founding generation interpreted those words. The proof is in the facts of the history of the last 200+ years of public life in America.

You are still interpreting the First Amendment just like the liberals, and thereby turning that history on its ear.

You have yet to give me a reason why it was okay for the Ten Commandments to hang in all of our courthouses, capitols and schools for two centuries, but is somehow now 'unconstitional'.

Good luck.

An establishment of religion, as written in the BOR, means simply the establishment of a national state church.

And any sixth grader can understand that the binding nature of that prohibition is on the Congress. After all, who else would have the power to establish a state church?

Maybe the judicial tyrants, eh? They seem to be doing a pretty good job establishing secular humanism as the national religion.

[TigersEye]

Alan Keyes is a first rate preacher. He's a good/bad right/wrong, type chap. I'd go listen to him in church every Sunday. He's dynamic, and would keep me awake.

McClintock is a GREAT state Senator, if that's what he is. He's boring, dry, puts people to sleep, doesn't smile, has NO charisma, is not a team player. ... But issues don't win elections... people... charasmatic people win elections, compromisers win elections, happy, smiley people win elections. Well, McClintock needs a little charm school under his belt, before he runs for top offices again,...

Let's see, Alan can't win because he's dynamic. IOW's he's charismatic, happy, smiley and has a lot of charm. McClintock can't win because he isn't those things. Makes sense to me!

[Amelia]

Let's see, Alan can't win because he's dynamic. IOW's he's charismatic, happy, smiley and has a lot of charm.

From dictionary.com:

dy·nam·ic    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (d-nmk)
adj. also dy·nam·i·cal (--kl)

1. 1. Of or relating to energy or to objects in motion.
   2. Of or relating to the study of dynamics.
2. Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress: a dynamic market.
3. Marked by intensity and vigor; forceful. See Synonyms at active.
4. Of or relating to variation of intensity, as in musical sound.

Alan Keyes is intense, vigorous, and forceful. One problem he has is that many people don't find him charismatic, happy, or charming -- they perceive him as angry, condescending, and obnoxious.

[Amelia]

he has spent quite a bit of time on Capitol Hill, sitting with Republican Congressmen and Senators crafting legislation

But he doesn't get the credit for it, he isn't held responsible for it, and he doesn't have to (publicly anyway) make the compromises necessary to get it passed, if indeed it does pass. Don't you see the difference?

He has a very large constituency across America that is unique among modern political figures.

"Very large" compared to what? I know that Dr. Keyes has people across America who admire him, but most people I know have never heard of him, or have only heard of him peripherally - "Oh, yeah, that black guy who ran for president as a Republican?" They couldn't tell you a whole lot about him.

I am working very long hours on this current campaign, with alot of daily pressures

I do admire all the work you do, EV. It's quite impressive.

But the fact is, a large proportion of the criticisms aimed at him around here are untrue and unfair.

A lot of the criticisms aimed at him around here are people's opinions, based on the impressions they have of Dr. Keyes. If a politician or public figure consistently gives a significant number of people a faulty or misleading impression of himself, one must consider that there might be a problem with the delivery, wouldn't you think?

[TigersEye]

Faulty reception is a bigger problem. Some people will swallow anything if it's sugar coated (Awnuld Shwarzennkennedy anyone?). But the truth can't be sugarcoated or it's no longer the truth.

[tpaine]

Keyes writes:

There was a reason why that phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," was the first phrase in the Bill of Rights -- -- What it says is, there can be no federal law that deals with the subject of religious establishment.

Wrong, Alan.. It deals with legislators making no law about "respecting AN establishment of religion".
'AN' establishment, not 'THE' establishment of religion.
Big difference in meaning.
'An establishment of religion' is any teaching, precept, dogma, or object relating to any specific religion.

That's certainly not how the founding generation interpreted those words.

That's how they WROTE those words, and how they meant them to be read, according to the ratification debates I've read.

The proof is in the facts of the history of the last 200+ years of public life in America. You are still interpreting the First Amendment just like the liberals, and thereby turning that history on its ear.

You offer no proof, just more 'liberal' namecalling.

You have yet to give me a reason why it was okay for the Ten Commandments to hang in all of our courthouses, capitols and schools for two centuries, but is somehow now 'unconstitional'. Good luck.

Moore's monument was an act of political defiance, -- as he admitted, and got fired for; -- the hanging/inscribing of religious/historical principles on public buildings is artwork..

An establishment of religion, as written in the BOR, means simply the establishment of a national state church. And any sixth grader can understand that the binding nature of that prohibition is on the Congress. After all, who else would have the power to establish a state church?

Our original States had that power, until our Constitution/BOR's made it clear that such a power was not compatible with principles of individual freedom, and that such religious favoritism would not be allowed in our new states.

Maybe the judicial tyrants, eh? They seem to be doing a pretty good job establishing secular humanism as the national religion.

Your conspiracy theories about 'secular humanists' establishing ~any~ thing are getting pretty bizarre. Perhaps you should seek help.

[EternalVigilance]

You offer no proof, just more 'liberal' namecalling.

I don't need to prove that the Ten Commandments hung in our courtrooms, our classrooms and our legislative bodies throughout our history, sir. It is what is known as a self-evident truth. Everyone knows that it is true, except for you, obviously.

[EternalVigilance]

Your conspiracy theories about 'secular humanists' establishing ~any~ thing are getting pretty bizarre. Perhaps you should seek help.

You have to be pretty ignorant to not understand that the Left has been trying to drive Christianity out of the public sphere for the last generation; and thereby establish secular humanism, in its generic meaning, as the national religion.

Willfully ignorant, in my opinion.

[EternalVigilance]

You state your interpretation of the meaning of the 'establishment clause' as if it were indisputable truth.

But the truth is, it is patently false.

[EternalVigilance]

I have a hard time understanding why it is such a great sin, in your eyes, that Alan doesn't have to bear the burdens that those who are in office must bear. He can hardly help that, can he, since he is not in office? But again, he has greatly influenced the course of government and of legislation as much as any private citizen. I think he should be commended for that, not criticized.

And then you criticize him because everyone doesn't know who he is? Again, this seems more than unfair to me. But I assure you, people who have paid attention know who he is, and the vast majority of them have great respect for the man.

But thank you for your kind words.

I'm sorry that you and some others have a bad impression of Alan. As you know, I don't think it justified, and wish it werent' so. But the fact is, when you put yourself out there in the political wars, it doesn't matter who you are. Some people just aren't going to like you. That's life.

Have a good day.

[tpaine]

You have yet to give me a reason why it was okay for the Ten Commandments to hang in all of our courthouses, capitols and schools for two centuries, but is somehow now 'unconstitional'. Good luck.

Moore's monument was an act of political defiance, -- as he admitted, and got fired for; -- the hanging/inscribing of religious/historical principles on public buildings is artwork.

I don't need to prove that the Ten Commandments hung in our courtrooms, our classrooms and our legislative bodies throughout our history, sir. It is what is known as a self-evident truth. Everyone knows that it is true, except for you, obviously.

How weird, -- I agree with you on 'hanging' and yet you continue to carry on about it. Read much?

[Federalist 78]

Liberty Counsel Press Release

TEN COMMANDMENTS MONUMENT ON TEXAS STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS IS CONSTITUTIONAL

Austin, Texas – The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that a stand-alone Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, is constitutional. Liberty Counsel, a civil liberties education and legal defense organization with an extensive amount of experience in the constitutionality of the public display of the Ten Commandments, filed an Amicus Brief in support of the state of Texas. The Fifth Circuit covers the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The 42 year-old monument was originally donated to the State by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961. The granite monolith is more than six feet high and three feet wide. It is one of 17 monuments and memorials on the grounds of the State Capitol. The donation of the Ten Commandments was part of a youth guidance project to give the youth of the nation a code of conduct by which to govern their actions. The monument sat in a small park-like subsection between the Supreme Court building and the Capitol building.

Thomas Van Orden filed the suit to have the monument removed because he claimed the sight of the Ten Commandments disturbed him. The Court began by noting that "The Ten Commandments have both a religious and secular message." Given that message, the Court held that the State of Texas had a secular purpose for displaying the monument. The Court noted that, "Even those who would see the Decalogue as wise counsel born of man’s experience rather than as divinely inspired religious teaching cannot deny its influence upon the civil and criminal laws of this country. That extraordinary influence has been repeatedly acknowledged by the Supreme Court and detailed by scholars. Equally so is its influence upon ethics and the ideal of a just society." The Court concluded its opinion by noting the Ten Commandments influence on American law and stating, "There is no constitutional right to be free of government endorsement of its own laws."

Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated, "This decision begins to turn the tide against the historical revisionism of groups like the ACLU who seek to remove all references to the Ten Commandments from our public life." Staver added, "We are excited that the Court issued such a ringing endorsement of the Ten Commandments and their effect on our laws. This opinion energizes us to take our fight to preserve our history, including the Ten Commandments, to the highest levels." Staver concluded "The Ten Commandments have both a secular and religious aspect. To ignore the influence of the Ten Commandments in the founding and shaping of American law and government would require significant historical revisionism." Liberty Counsel is currently defending 10 separate Ten Commandment displays throughout the country. In the past 14 months, two federal courts of appeals and three federal district courts have found such displays to be constitutional.

The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama, 49 Ala. L. Rev.434-754 (1998).

[tpaine]

"Willfully ignorant, in my opinion."

______________________________________


whatever

[tpaine]

EternalVigilance wrote: You state your interpretation of the meaning of the 'establishment clause' as if it were indisputable truth.
But the truth is, it is patently false.


______________________________________


whatever

[EternalVigilance]

Well, if you agree, concede the point so people like me don't have to keep hammering it! ;-)

If you admit that the Commandments have always been there, and that no sane individual before this modern secularist era thought there was anything wrong with it, or counter to the First Amendment, what has changed?

It certainly isn't the BoR or its meaning...

[EternalVigilance]

whatever

Yeah.

[EternalVigilance]

Great post.

[Tax-chick]

later

[EternalVigilance]

Congrats on that beautiful baby boy. You are blessed.

[tpaine]

Yep.. -- To bad Moore was unable to place his monument, and rationally justify its installation, as did the those Texans..

Just proves that Moore was the problem, not his monument.