Posted on 08/22/2003 7:08:16 AM PDT by xzins
It is reported that Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “It is religion that keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” Rich is, of course, a relative term. One can be “rich” in money, and in the world of religion one can be “rich” in spirit, and in the political realm one can be “rich” in power.
Who is in danger of being murdered?
James Dobson, the leader of “Focus on the Family” has recently voiced his displeasure with the Republican Party over their failure to deliver benefits to the Christian conservatives for their support over these many years. Despite a Senate majority, despite a ‘conservative’ President, despite an iron-grip conservative hold on the House of Representatives, there is precious little (nothing?) from the conservative Christian agenda that has been successfully guided to implementation. In fact, there appears to be backward momentum.
Abortion is as big as ever. School vouchers are little experiments here and there but not under federal authority. Sexuality is now considered under the heading of a newfound freedom of ‘privacy’ that allows any sexual practice to escape even the most reasonable bio-medical review by a state legislature. Marriage is in jeopardy from Massachusetts to California as liberals successfully redefine that institution, considering any form of partnering leading to sexual release on the same par with a man and woman creating and rearing a family.
And now activist judges, seemingly in league with the ACLU, are excising our country’s religious symbols at what can only be described as a hostile pace. They are being permitted to dismantle America’s historic culture of Judeo-Christian morality and replace it with a culture that these judicial architects claim will be neutral, but which is in fact anti-theistic.
Permitted? Who is permitting it?
The religious conservatives would say, “Those we placed our hope in have permitted it. None of the big names stood with us on the firing line. None of them picked sides, went public with their verbal support, and then went public with their actions which demonstrated support.” Not even Attorney General John Ashcroft, the supposed insider religious conservative, spoke up. (John hasn’t spoken up in some time now. Is he gagged?)
We are reminded of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
The Republican Party, very rich in power, is in danger from the common people who make up its religious base.
And right now Judge Roy Moore has immense “good will” with that same religious conservative base of the Republican Party. Where did this good will come from? In the eyes of those conservative Christians, Moore was willing to sacrifice himself for one of their concerns. Make no mistake, they trust this man. His stock is very high in that group at this moment.
We’re told that if Al Gore had received even one percent less of the African American vote, that the 2000 election wouldn’t have even been close. How much more if George W. Bush had received one percent less of the Christian conservative vote? We’re told that Bill Clinton won two elections without ever having a majority of the vote because Ross Perot took up to nineteen percent of the Republican vote away from them. The message is clear. A third candidate popular with religious conservatives will kill the Bush Re-election.
"Flatter me, and I may not believe you. Criticize me, and I may not like you. Ignore me, and I may not forgive you...." (William Arthur Ward.)
To refuse a hearing at the highest level is an insult to a man who in his own sphere has reached the top rung. Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Judge Roy Moore, has definitely worked his way to a high enough position to have earned the right to be heard. And, in giving a hearing to Moore, they give a hearing to his supporters. Whether the powers in the Republican Party understand the necessity of giving him his hearing is entirely a different subject.
But, if I were an operative for the Constitution Party, and if I were a disgruntled conservative Christian, I would definitely see a man with tremendous name recognition, a solid base of support, and a whole boatload of determination.
Someone needs to talk real-politik to the Republican members of the Supreme Court.
Well, I'm not the one who proposed Judge Moore run for President on the Constitution Party ticket--that'd be you (and threatening that if the Supremes didn't take his case, he should run & he'd get 10% of the vote--why not bribe the Supremes? Too expensive?), and after all, Howard Phillips, leader of the Constitution Party, spoke at Moore's rally last Saturday. Moore and the Constitution Party are already cozy, and you know Moore is just too big for the state of Alabama to hold. I agree with you--I think he should run.
You mean taking you at your word and making you keep your word? Yeah, you'll find that on the Mom gene.
Eventually.
I expect they'll cut the "endowed by our Creator" part out in a few years.
BTW, does anyone doubt hedge's conclusion that the Founders meant the "Christian God?" If so, then why?
This is from the Preamble of our constitution. There is no command to invoke God, this is merely the background of the constitution.
We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:
FindLaw.com defines Preamble as such:
"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them":
There is no need to uphold, nor no commandment to do so. This is just like a historical record, saying in effect, we established this document, and we asked for the almighty's blessing.
Oh, yeah--she's all grown up now, but she'll always be my baby (standard Mom clause from the Mom Handbook). I know all about timeouts, clean your room, you're grounded, if your friends told you to jump off a cliff..., wash your hands before you eat, don't fake burp in public, say your prayers, make your bed, because I said so, how about a hug & want some ice cream <---all from the Mom Handbook.
So what we do in this document is written for the partial purpose of being acceptable to God?
Who is this Almighty God they were talking about in 1901?
Notice that it isn't just ANY hang-out-on-the-corner God that they were talking about. They specifically mention the ALMIGHTY God.
Who is that?
Christian God? Hmmm, is Judaism a subset of Christianity or is it a separate religion? Last I looked, Judaism was a separate religion from Christianity. This letter from George Washington to the Touro Synagogue was written in 1790. Formatting's not too great, but you can read the letter at the link.
|
|
The letter from George Washington
in response to Moses Seixas, Page 2 |
|||
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
