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."

[AppyPappy]

He has a right to free speech (the monument). It was removed last I heard.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

While I realize that in some circles it is popular to try and divine the intentions of the drafters of the document and ascribe different meaning to the words by channeling their spirits (ala Shirley Maclaine), it is more appropriate to ascribe plain meaning to the words.

[job]

They don't have to have a relation. Go into a court room, see if there is any other statues, any paintings on the wall, the flags of the United States and the state where it presides. None of them have anything to do with ERISA, CERCLA (which I am not sure why you cited federal acts when this concerns a state judge's action in a state court), but they are there. Sometimes they post pictures of old judges, from the turn of the century, they aren't going to help you decide a case either, but they are there because the are part of the heritage of the Court, and the administration of law. Again, you are arguing a straw man.

High school debate can only take you so far.

[AppyPappy]

He can express his beliefs as much as he wants outside that building and away from his official function.

And the government could just as easily remove any speech against the government in a government building by claiming that speech was allowed elsewhere. Government officials could legislate without any criticism by hiding in the building.

because any government official could try to trump out legal challenges to establishment by saying "I was just engaging in free speech".

That's called "free speech". As long as they don't force others to comply, it's the cost of freedom.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

He has a right to free speech (the monument). It was removed last I heard.

That still has no relevance to my comment. The poster I replied to said Moore's monument had been singled out. I agree, in a different way. Moore singled it out when he had it made and placed it in the court house, thus creating this mess. The SCOTUS never singled out the display of the TC in their building. Moore did by placing it their and refusing to allow anything else. He started it. The law ended it.

[wimpycat]

I think I know what you're trying to say. When Judge Moore is acting in his capacity as a judge--he is not a private citizen, he is an instrument of the government. When he goes to church, prays, or even discusses religion out on the streeth with a private citizen, then he is a private citizen. When he acting in any capacity as a judge, he is, in effect, "the government", and not a private citizen.

Of course, judges are curtailed in what they can do in their private lives, because they are always "officers of the court" whether they're on the clock or not, but of course, they're people, too. I guess it's like being in the military. You don't have quite the same 1st amendment rights as civilians.

I'm not saying I agree with your opinion of Judge Moore specifically; but his position as a judge would apply to all judges, I assume.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

His free speech rights appear in the same amendment as the prohibition on establishment.

If his free speech rights trump the establishment clause, then the establishment clause is meaningless.

The fact is, he can do anything he wants when he isn't on duty and wearing the mantle of office - once he is on duty, however, his speech rights are subordinate to the establishment clause.

[Taliesan]

Please. Of course it's not the form of the oath which matters, nor, for this argument, does it matter whether or not anyone lies after taking it.

The oaths are a test case for revealing whether YOUR interpretation of the establishment clause would eliminate them, allow them, or not care -- and why. It's the "why" that might distinguish your interpretation from "I don't like it".

(footnote: the founder's views don't matter)

[AppyPappy]

when he had it made and placed it in the court house

Last I heard, he has the right to free speech. According to the news I read, the monument was removed due to content. It was removed because it was viewed as religious. That's what I read.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So in other words, the establishment clause is unimportant to you, and you want one particular sect of religion touted by those in a majority position in your government, using government facilities as part of their "free speech rights".

[AppyPappy]

But he didn't establish a state religion. He merely had some words on a monument. He did not require that people swear allegiance to them or anything. The fact is, he can do anything he wants when he isn't on duty and wearing the mantle of office - once he is on duty, however, his speech rights are subordinate to the establishment clause.

He did not violate the establishment clause. No religion was established.

[wimpycat]

I like my analogy to the military...active duty military personnel don't have the same free speech rights as civilians; they can't publicly criticize the government, or their commander-in-chief for example. You won't see a (smart) uniformed Marine participating in an anti-war rally. He could get in trouble for it.

The analogy isn't perfect, but people do understand that active duty military personnel have some limits on their free speech rights. So it's just a short leap from that to judges. When you come to think of it, cops probably can't use their office to promote their agendas, either.

[AppyPappy]

So in other words, the establishment clause is unimportant to you, and you want one particular sect of religion touted by those in a majority position in your government, using government facilities as part of their "free speech rights".

Strawman. I never said that. But some words on a monument do not establish a state religion. If he had demanded that people bow and worship his monument, I would agree with you.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Disagree. One was, and was elevated above all others in the words of Roy Moore.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Sorta - [I'm scrinching up my face, because that conveys perfectly what I mean by sorta].

[jimt]

It seems to me like Roy is standing up for free speech. That's important to me.

Then if a religious monument is speech, he's suppressing free speech. He explicitly said no other religious type monuments could be placed there, as his was "from God" and the others weren't.

[AppyPappy]

We put a state flag in the courtroom. But that doesn't raise it above the American flag. It merely exists there. We even have a Bible in the courtroom. But it doesn't raise it above the dictionary or the Constitution that people can swear upon.

[MEGoody]

"Yes, that would be the prevalent view of Southern populist "states' rights" folks of that time. Amazing coincidence how this notion of grandstanding "form over substance" populism always springs from the same soil, isn't it?"

It does seem that it is the people of the south who have the guts to undertake civil disobedience in protest of a perceived wrong.

[AppyPappy]

He explicitly said no other religious type monuments could be placed there, as his was "from God" and the others weren't.

And that is his opinion. But it does not establish a state religion because it is there. If you put a Montana state flag in an Indiana courtroom, it doesn't change the state. The monument did not establish a religion. It's merely a common philosophy. Some may revere it. Some may not. It's only a problem if people are forced to worship it.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Now I have an excuse not to do that silly dance at the next wedding reception."


NO, NO You can't mean that --
If it's out with the Holey Pokey, then it might be in with the Mexican Hat Dance? Just as nature abhors a vacuum, weddings adore vacuousness.