The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

The Bible - Luke 18 ^ | about 1970 years ago | Jesus Christ

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[1] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' 13 "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' 14 "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

[Chancellor Palpatine]

In light of previous commentary on Roy Moore, the protest, the preachers, the televangelists, the sobbing, the prostrations and the principles propounded by this monument, I offer this exerpt and the following commentary. Take from it what you will - I know what I take from it, most of you know what that is.

One of the things that is truly remarkable about America is the fact that it is a participatory republic. Over the course of time, the very branches established under the Constitution have developed a set of governing principles which can be adjusted through electoral policy direction - but change is slow. The remarkable thing about what has been developed here has been the principle that court decrees are respected by the other branches of government - this is what separates us from the banana republics. Imagine the crisis that could have arisen had Al Gore refused to accept the USSC ruling in Bush vs. Gore, with Bill Clinton refusing to allow Bush to transition in. Think about the result had Nixon declined to turn over the tapes. Imagine what our society would be like if people routinely disobeyed orders of tribunals to which jurisdiction they were subject. Custody orders ignored, judgments and injunctions laughed at - there would be the anarchy of the mob. At the conclusion of every contested proceeding, someone has to win, and someone has to lose.

It is absolutely critical for society that people give due process its opportunity to work - and to then accept the results, whatever those may be (especially if the litigant is a government official). Chaos and anarchy follow if an example of a callous disregard to the routine orders of court is allowed to persist - many of you have made this point with respect to the example set by Bill Clinton.

Ask yourself what abject defiance accomplishes in light of the fact that you can vote and can participate in the political processes of the country - and when your view does not prevail at election time, there may be some time in the future that you might persuade people to vote your way. Ask youselves why these protests occurred, what examples were set by the behavior of Roy Moore and those people supporting him, and whether those were inherently worthwhile.

Finally, ask yourself what the placement of a stone monument has to do with the functions of government, and whether such a monument fosters economic health, infrastructure improvements, educational attainment, regulatory change and tort reform.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

.

[mrsmith]

Wisconsin Judges defy US Supreme court order!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Yes. During the Civil War - not exactly germaine to now, and I thought it weird the first time you put that up.

[Hodar]

Nicely done. Great post.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Thank you.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

.

[Texas_Dawg]

.





;-)

[Chancellor Palpatine]

You're a cold, cold guy, LOL.

[mrsmith]

"I thought it weird the first time you put that up. "
??????????????????????????

Maybe you need some sleep.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Ask yourself what the placement of a stone monument has to do with the functions of government, and whether such a monument fosters economic health, infrastructure improvements, educational attainment, regulatory change and tort reform."

Didn't do much for the Easter Island folk

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Very, very good catch.

[AppyPappy]

Let me ask you this. If this was the Constitution rather than the Ten Commandments, would you feel the same way?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Ah - I'd seen your name on the bottom when I first spotted that.

[I still care]

If the monument was just a rock, the ACLU wouldn't be having such a conniption over it.

[trebb]

There are "Just" edicts and "Unjust" edicts. Even in the military, where a commanding officer has pretty much full control of, and responsibility for you, it is your duty to resist orders which you know are illegal. If a respected Judge and a good deal of the population consider this to be against the Constitution, there is nothing inherently wrong with attempting to defy it if you are also willing to suffer the consequences of the law for trying to resist the edict. Part of changing things is to take a stand, in defiance of what you consider wrong, in order to garner attention and support. Otherwise Rosa Parks would have wasted her time and civil rights would be a dead issue. Inaction in defiance of what you consider to be a bad "legal" decision is not as bad as taking destructive action as part of your statement. Ghandi is revered for his passive resistance, leftist groups are "justified" in damaging property for "the right cause", and Judge Moore is castigated for doing what he thinks is right. If you want to explore one aspect, be open to exploring all aspects. otherwise you have a doctrine instead of an argument.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

No - it wouldn't be afoul of any aspect of the 1st. I would likely object, however, to such a monument as a waste - unlikely to produce anything of value.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Roy made it more than a rock with its design, placement and his comments on its installation. And given the reaction of demonstrators, it took on a wholly new characteristic:

[AppyPappy]

No - it wouldn't be afoul of any aspect of the 1st

What if it offended some people? What if some people believed it was religious?

[AppyPappy]

I know people who feel the same way about the Constitution. Maybe it should be banned.