Judge Moore for President? Religious Conservatives & the Danger of Disrespecting a Popular Icon

22 Aug 03 | xzins

[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.

[xzins]

You left off the section of the book that you just put in practice with me.

Giving me what you think I'm asking for and seeing if I learn a lesson by choking on it.

:>)

[BamaG]

Obviously they were invoking the Judeo-Christian God. They were in effect writing that they sought God's guidance as they did that.

They did not, as opposed to Moore, state that this was the preferred diety, the only diety that the Supreme court recognized, or the supreme Diety on which all laws are based in his court. That violates the establishment clause of the U.S Constitution. (and I don't want any amateur scholars posting that its wrong...I'm quoting the court, and for now, the court decides) The state of Alabama can not endorse one religion over another. Thats the jist of it. Moore did that.

[hedgetrimmer]

Let's see, do the "favourite televangelists" have their name on the plaque? Is there any adverstisement saying people need to come to this group's church to worship? I don't recall a donation list anywhere on the monunment.

[xzins]

If they were invoking the favor and guidance of the Almighty Judeo-Christian God, then I honestly don't see any problem with what Moore did.

But I have other reasons for thinking Moore was totally correct in setting up his monument.

Would you imagine that there is a process they go through in that building for putting up any new decoration, piece of art, etc? Would you imagine that the Chief Justice has some say in that?

[xzins]

May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

Who do you think Washington meant when he said 'father of all mercies...our paths?' while talking to a Jew

[aristeides]

The President has no influence whatsoever over what cases are granted cert and which aren't

Briefs by the Solicitor General on whether the Supreme Court should grant cert in a case are quite common and extremely influential, and often decide the issue.

[aristeides]

Winston Churchill changed parties twice. I don't think anybody holds that against him any longer.

[xzins]

It seems there's probably an honorable and a dishonorable way to do that.

Jeffords found just the right combination of dishonor to PO nearly everybody and cause the rest to mistrust and ignore him.

[hedgetrimmer]

"The state of Alabama can not endorse one religion over another."

You are changing the words, the state cannot establish a religion.

By founding the country on Christian principles and following them with our legal system, we as a nation are endorsing Christianity. There is nothing wrong with that and everything wrong with the communist secularist idea that you can take all religious ideas out of our government and still have a country based on the premise our rights come from the Creator.

People who bash the christian origins of this nation mean to establish only one thing, a communist secular society. People who have such a fear and hatred of God that they are offended by a monument to his wisdom need help, either to understand their view is leading us down the path to communism or to figure out its ok to live and let let live.

[montag813]

Someone needs to talk real-politik to the Republican members of the Supreme Court.

That would be a useless exercise. Whatever ego and hubris the anti-Moore FReepers attribute to the Alabama Chief Justice, I assure you the SCOTUS Justices have 100 times more.

[Catspaw]

Briefs by the Solicitor General on whether the Supreme Court should grant cert in a case are quite common and extremely influential, and often decide the issue.

Ah, yes, but that isn't what xzins has proposed.

xzins has proposed Republicans do this:

Do you honestly believe these folks have no influence with the courts?

I think it's a matter of phone calls, promises, and dinner parties.

That's the way the rest of the political world works. I have no illusions about so-called judicial "neutrality." They simply aren't.

Quite different from the Solicitor General submitting a brief, wouldn't you say?

[xzins]

Are you saying that rubbing elbows doesn't happen in Wash D.C.?

I don't think you believe that.

[xzins]

You have a point.

[BamaG]

If we are such a Christian nation.. where are references to Jesus in anything?

Wouldn't by definition, Christianity be a follower of Christ?

[aristeides]

Precisely because of the amour propre of SCOTUS justices, they will take seriously a real threat to the prestige and authority of their institution, if they can be persuaded that it is real.

[Catspaw]

Are you saying that rubbing elbows doesn't happen in Wash D.C.?

What you've proposed is a whole lot more than "rubbing elbows," xzins. You're proposing that Republicans pressure Supreme Court Justices in social settings to take the Moore case while the case is still pending. Yikes!

[hedgetrimmer]

From Woodrow Wilson come these words:
"America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture."

James Wilson signed both the Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution. He said, "Christianity is part of common-law."

Noah Webster-- History of the United States, published in 1832:



"The brief exposition of the constitution of the United States, will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government, and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.

Daniel Webster:
"Let the religious element in man's nature be neglected, let him be influenced by no higher motives than low self-interest, and subjected to no stronger restraint than the limits of civil authority, and he becomes the creature of selfish passion or blind fanaticism.

On June 21, 1776, John Adams wrote:
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

Whittaker Chambers former Communist agent:
"Freedom is a need of the soul, and nothing else. It is in striving toward God that the soul strives continually after a condition of freedom. God alone is the inciter and guarantor of freedom. He is the only guarantor. "External freedom is only an aspect of interior freedom. Political freedom, as the Western world has known it, is only a political reading of the Bible. Religion and freedom are indivisible. Without freedom the soul dies. Without the soul there is no justification for freedom."

Calvin Coolidge:
"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

[xzins]

That IS what I mean by rubbing elbows, cpaw.

I think such odd things as messages sent in the night, off the record, via surrogate, etc.

Is "rubbing elbows" pressure? I think the proper term would be "influence."

[GrandEagle]

Your post #177
EXCELLENT QUOTES!

[hedgetrimmer]

;-)