Warning – Serious Item! U10 Commandmensts judge Moore is an egomaniacal huckster)

ESPN Page 2 ^ | August 26, 2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

[quidnunc]

-snip-

Judge Roy Moore, the publicity-seeker who put the 2.5-ton Ten Commandments in the Alabama state courthouse, declared Monday that he could disobey the direct order of a federal judge because "judges do not make laws, they interpret them." Since, Moore continued, an interpretation can be wrong, therefore he may defy a judicial order. So presumably Judge Moore also thinks that if he sentences a man to prison, the man can declare that the interpretation might be wrong and walk free? It's exactly the same logic.

Moore further said that the First Amendment precept, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," does not apply to him because "I am not Congress." Drag this incompetent lunatic out of the court quickly, please. Anyone with entry-level knowledge of Constitutional law knows that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was intended to extend the Bill of Rights to state governments; that a 1937 Supreme Court decision specifically declared that the First Amendment binds state officials like Judge Moore.

As a church-going Christian — TMQ was in this church on Sunday — I find it deeply embarrassing when Christianity is associated, in the public eye, with hucksters like Moore. I find it embarrassing, too, when Christians supporting Moore's hunk of stone suggest that a big object in a public square is what matters, rather than the power of God's message itself. Anyone who needs to look at a big object in order to believe, doesn't really believe.

And consider that in the same state, Alabama, where the Judge Moore sideshow is getting nonstop media attention, Republican Gov. Bob Riley is risking his political neck to campaign for tax-law changes that would increase taxes on the well-off while exempting everyone who makes less than $17,000 annually. Gov. Riley phrases the campaign in religious terms, saying, "According to our Christian ethics, we're supposed to love God, love each other and help take care of the poor." How come this pure and admirable Christian sentiment gets no media attention while the egomaniac with the hunk of stone in the same state's courthouse enjoys round-the-clock coverage?

-snip-

[Lurker]

Guys who think like you do would have been bounty hunting for slaves before the Civil War.

L

[Paleo Conservative]

ESPN columnists ought to stick to sports.

"Maybe so, but in this case he is right on target."

Well he should put the article in a publication that publishes political opinion. Most people I know watch sports to take a break away from the real world. I really resent their using sports publications to push their leftist drivel. It's about like going a classroom lecture expecting an academic lecture but then being subjected to the professor's personal political rantings.

ESPN also should be careful. Most of their audience is heterosexual males who subscribe to cable TV. The homosexual males I have met are extremely uninterested in watching sports. All those demographic categories tend to make their viewers more Republican than the general population. Do they really want Rupert Murdoch to do to sports broadcasting what he has done to cable news? If they don't watch their step they may just find out.

[lugsoul]

If that is not what he is saying, what does it mean to say that including Hinduism as a "religion" under the 1st Amendment is an "erroneous assumption." It would take a Clintonian twisting of the language to conclude anything other than Hinduism is not included within the 1st Amendment reading of "religion."

[Tribune7]

But, instead, because our God graciously allows them to do so. That is one of the most damned un-American things I've ever heard . . .

Another "damned un-American thing" I guess.

[lugsoul]

Pre-emption again - He does not deny that they have freedom of religion. But he does say that their freedom is not included in the specific words in the Constitution that guarantee religious freedom. If they only have that freedom by the grace of our God, one must presume that it can be revoked.

[Tribune7]

Have you been studying at the Maureen Dowd School of Quote Editing?

They're the Judge's words and he meant them exactly as depicted.

[lugsoul]

Thomas Jefferson explicitly stated that the religious freedom of under the Constitution extended to Hindus, Muslims, and persons of other faiths. Your attempt to compare him to Moore is an insult to Jefferson and an insult to religious freedom.

[lugsoul]

Then why did you feel compelled to leave off the rest of the quote?

[Tribune7]

But he does say that their freedom is not included in the specific words in the Constitution that guarantee religious freedom.

The Constitution is a document that provides a framework for government and briillantly, amazingly puts restrictions on that government. Those restrictions do not include publicly funded works of art.

Judge Moore was referring to liberty in the inalienable sense. This of course only comes from God who is the God of everybody, even those who don't know Him or reject Him.

[Tribune7]

Thomas Jefferson explicity stated that we are endowned by um, who? with certain inalienable rights. This is pretty much what Judge Moore is saying.

[lugsoul]

Your ability to discern Moore's state of mind to completely obviate the meaning of his own words is remarkable. You must be him.

He says, flat-out, that "religion" under the 1st Amendment means Judeo-Christian faiths. He doesn't like to say it our loud that much, but sometimes he gets caught. You can twist his words to mean something else all you want, but I'm not talking about isolated quotes. He has made similar statements in his testimony, in his briefs, in his law review article, and in interviews with journalists who would be perceived as friendly. If you want to be his apologist, go ahead, but he has demonstrated himself to be a bigoted demagogue, though one of exquisite talent.

[Tribune7]

The rest of the quote doesn't in the least bit change the meaning of "Americans are free to worship other Gods."

Judge Moore defends and recognizes the rights of Hindus et al.

[lugsoul]

It is not "pretty much" what Moore is saying. Jefferson said the rights came from our Creator and are to be GUARANTEED and PROTECTED and PRESERVED by the government. Moore just stops at the first part.

[lugsoul]

Nope. Read his testimony. Read his articles. You are ascribing beliefs to him that are not his.

[FreedomCalls]

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is constitutional.

In Worcester vs. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), the Supreme Court ruled the ouster of the Cherokee from their national area in nothern Georgia was unconstitutional. President Jackson ignored the ruling and used the U.S. Army to oust them anyway. It looks to me like the USSC is not always the final arbiter of what is constitutional -- it requires a coalition of the courts, the legislature, the President, and the consensus of the people at large to determine whether something is constitutional for not. Judges come and go. Interpretations change.

[6ppc]

No, I don't know him. My opinion is based on what's been reported in the news. I do have some personal knowledge of one of the Republican candidates he beat in the primary.

Please understand that I did vote for him, but only because he was the only conservative on the ticket. I would have preferred to vote for one of the other conservatives, just didn't have a choice.

[lugsoul]

Sure - it means the same thing if you believe that all things flow from the Judeo-Christian God. If you don't, it means something very different.

[Jim Robinson]

Your religious freedom comes from God. The Founder's simply prohibited government from depriving you of your right to freely exercise it. Judge Moore is standing up for your right to freely exercise your faith (be it Christian, Hindu, or whatever) and is trying to prevent the federal government from violating same.

Judge Moore violated no constitutional law, because there is no constitutional law ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..., etc) restricting the free exercise of religion or free speech.

[lugsoul]

That's not what he is saying. What you are ascribing to him is wishful thinking.

As for me, I do not need a two-ton rock, the approval of Judge Moore's God, or the full power of the state to be strong in my faith. His must be foundering if he requires all that help.

[lugsoul]

"Your religious freedom comes from [the Judeo- Christian]God."

It doesn't take much imagination to see how insulting that is to a Hindu American.