Replies

"That's my opinion, anyway."

And it's a good one. I would ask, though, how would you provide for redress where a large majority (i.e., 81 per cent in the case of the Monument) of the population felt in their bones that the supreme court was wrong on an issue and a constitutional amendment to over-ride the court's opinion was illegal?

Well, it proves that we are not a 'democracy' after all. But it also dis-enfranchises the will of We the People through representaive government in the resolution of hard grievances. Do we have a flaw in our system?

If we do, I would guess it would be in the unknown character and agenda of the appointed justices. Not only a flaw, but a time-bomb that could destroy our Republic. I can't believe the number of people who are split on this Monument issue. Not just politically split, but emotionally split. Some say, 'I agree, but the rule of law should prevail.' Others say, 'there is no rule of law on this issue. No law has been broken.' -- and they are both honest in their statements.

A dilemma, for sure. Puts me in mind of the two factions arguing the law two thousand years ago. One group following the rule of law when they enforced the penalty for blasphemy (and rightfully so), and the other group willing to suffer the penalty for following an unwritten, but higher law felt in their bones and unknown to the former.

It appears 'these bones are rising again' in Alabama.

If you are saying that it's worth taking out your gun and killing people over, I suggest you stop a moment and think through the ramifications of your actions.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again - the Alambama governor, the Alabama attorney general, and all eight of the active justices of the Alabama Supreme Court disagree that civil disobedience is called for here.

If violence breaks out, people will be hurt and maybe killed over whether a rock is moved from one place to another. Meanwhile, other displays of the Ten Commandments remain on display in public places in Alabama - Roy Moore had a plaque with them hanging in his personal courtroom when he was a trial judge and that was ruled to be legal.

If the judges who ruled against Judge Moore were wrong, well, sometimes judges are wrong. And sometimes they made a judgment call that you just don't like. Either way, does it rise to the level of crucifying Christ? To me, that seems mighty hyperbolic.

"Do we have a flaw in our system?"

If the issue at hand is strictly one of relgion and the First Amendment - and I don't for a moment believe it is - there is indeed a flaw in declaring that Congress shall make no law restricting the excercise of any given religion. I don't see how any civilized people can accomodate for every religion on earth without at some point discarding Natural Law. Seems like that is where we're headed.

In the case of Judge Moore's rendition of the Ten Commandments, I heartily concur with those who say he neither created nor violated any laws with respect to either the State of Alabama or The United States.