Posted on 02/29/2004 12:53:37 PM PST by FBD
By Steve Duin of the Oregonian
02/29/04
Maybe it was the timing. "The Passion of the Christ" is so much in the news. And it was against the backdrop of that depiction of real persecution and unforgettable suffering that Roy S. Moore swept through town.
You remember Roy. While an Alabama circuit judge in 1997, Moore ignored a court order to remove the Ten Commandments from the wall behind his bench.
Owing to the publicity of that stand, Moore was elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court three years later . . . and subsequently ousted from the post when he refused to remove a 5,280-pound granite block inscribed with those very commandments from the courthouse lobby.
The toll of that righteous stand? Infamy? Poverty? Dishonor?
Heavens, no. How about celebrity and speakers' fees. How about Saturday's "Profile in Courage" award from the Constitution Party of Oregon.
Maybe it was the timing. "The Passion" is so much in the news. You might say we've lowered the bar on what passes for sacrifice and paying a price for one's beliefs.
More than 500 folks paid $40 to celebrate Moore at a banquet at the Airport Holiday Inn. I'm not sure when I crossed the twilight zone or hopped the invisible fence that separates the world I know from the Constitution Party's alternative universe, but I knew I'd arrived when I heard the first "Amen" chorus at Moore's pre-banquet "press" conference.
When Lon Mabon -- who was present, of course -- was hailed as a hero. When several "reporters" futilely begged Moore to endorse an amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage. ("You can't amend the Constitution for every moral deficit," he replied.)
When Moore explained his political theology in terms of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and a snappy conversation between Alice of Wonderland fame and Humpty Dumpty.
I'm afraid I can't do that theology justice. Neither can Washington nor Jefferson, which is why Moore kept interrupting the Founding Fathers to apologize that they wrote and spoke in what "sounds like a foreign language."
But I think the theory goes that our rights come from a creator God and government draws its power from us. Thus, society, the state or the courts have no right to suggest that we can't acknowledge God, whether we are inside the closets into which Jesus orders us to pray, or parading through courthouses and classrooms.
Moore's message was well received in a room where the ACLU lawyers representing Planned Parenthood were described as "Satan's servants." Where foam blocks labeled "Department of Education," "Open Borders and Amnesty," "Printing Press Money," and, yes, even the "U.S. Patriot Act" were tossed into the Trash Can of History.
Where Bob Ekstrom, state chairman of the Constitution Party, said, "Justice Moore finds himself in the middle of the white-hot heat," and I turned around, looking for the klieg lights.
Did I say well received? I meant to say "celebrated." And once again, maybe it was the timing. I still live in the strange place where evangelicals celebrate two things and two things only: Jesus and new arrivals at the foot of his cross.
Those hoopin' and hollerin' for Roy S. Moore under the banner of "Life, Liberty and Limited Government" have a different mind-set.
I saw some dear friends in the crowd at this curious crossroads of the Bible and the Constitution. Although it's hard to understand why they -- or anyone else, for that matter -- are seeking justice or consolation in the world of politics, it's easy to wish them peace of mind and the freedom to worship and to believe what they want.
But when I left the room and once again traversed the twilight zone, I wondered how much freedom they would accord those who, with an equal passion, choose to believe otherwise.
Steve Duin: 503-221-8597; Steveduin@aol.com; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201
I wanted to high-light this post, to point out the relevant areas, addressing your comments above:
"The failure to observe this distinction leads to the absurd presumption that all government action in matters of religion is somehow inherently a contravention of individual freedom.
This can be no more or less true in matters of religion than it is in any other area in which both individuals and governments are capable of action and decision.
The government's power to arm soldiers for the community's defense does not inherently contravene the individual's right to arm himself against personal attack.
The government's power to establish institutions of higher learning does not inherently contradict the individual's right to educate his young or join with others to start a school.
The government's power to engage in economic enterprises (such as the postal service or electric power generation) does not inherently contradict the individual's right to private enterprise.
It is possible for government coercively to inhibit or repress any of these individual activities, but it is obvious that government action does not in and of itself constitute such coercion.
As the U.S. Constitution is written, matters of religion fall into this category of parallel individual and governmental possibilities.
Federal and state governments, in matters of religion, are forbidden to coerce or prohibit individual choice and action.
However:[Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution]:
Within the states, the people are free to decide by constitutional majority the nature and extent of the state's expression of religious belief.
This leaves individuals free to make their own choices with respect to religion, but it also secures the right of the people of the states to live under a government that reflects their religious inclination."
Remember, we do live in a republic. Plus, I think you are missing the conjunctive clause: OR, as in: "or prohibiting..."
Do you have a point in making those two comments?
BTW, the Ten Commandments are on the walls of the Supreme Court. How does your stance of the 14th amendment square with that?
How does the 14th prohibit USSC wall decorations? -- I don't think it does..
More from Alan Keyes, on this subject: please read the section on parallel rights, Regarding the individuals right to bear arms:
[Keyes writes]
Parallel rights and actions
"The failure to observe this distinction leads to the absurd presumption that all government action in matters of religion is somehow inherently a contravention of individual freedom.
This can be no more or less true in matters of religion than it is in any other area in which both individuals and governments are capable of action and decision.
The government's power to arm soldiers for the community's defense does not inherently contravene the individual's right to arm himself against personal attack.
The government's power to establish institutions of higher learning does not inherently contradict the individual's right to educate his young or join with others to start a school.
The government's power to engage in economic enterprises (such as the postal service or electric power generation) does not inherently contradict the individual's right to private enterprise.
It is possible for government coercively to inhibit or repress any of these individual activities, but it is obvious that government action does not in and of itself constitute such coercion.
No one has ever said it has.. --- In the case of these activities...
State religious activities are not the same.
As the U.S. Constitution is written, matters of religion fall into this category of parallel individual and governmental possibilities.
Not true. Goverment sponsored religions are coersive by their nature.
Federal and state governments, in matters of religion, are forbidden to coerce or prohibit individual choice and action.
Within the states, the people are free to decide by constitutional majority the nature and extent of the state's expression of religious belief.
Contradictory reasoning. >BR>This majority "expression" would be coersive on its face.
This leaves individuals free to make their own choices with respect to religion, but it also secures the right of the people of the states to live under a government that reflects their religious inclination. As in all matters subject to the decision of the people, the choice of the people is not the choice of all, but of the majority, as constitutionally determined, in conformity with the principles of republican government.
Illogical. The majority is violating the choice of ALL, by choosing a state religion repugnant to some.
It's a coersive 'choice' on Keyes own terms.
The man has slipped a mental cog in his religious zeal, imo.
You call the posting of the Ten Commandments choosing a state religion?
That's what Keyes was addressing in this speech.
"How does the 14th prohibit USSC wall decorations? -- I don't think it does.
Well good, we are in agreement, because that's why Judge Roy Moore was kicked off the bench. For a marble decoration, no differant from the one at the Supreme Court.
Look, neither yours, nor my rights are violated by the Pledge of Allegiance -"One nation, under God" line, any more than they are they violated by the posting of the Ten Commandments, whether that be in the courtroom of Alabama, or on the walls of the Supreme Court.
" Goverment sponsored religions are coersive by their nature."
Yes, like in Sweden, where the Lutheran Church is sponsored and paid for by the state. Name anything similar here in this case of Judge Roy Moore. You can't, because that's not what Keyes is talking about.
A generic referance to God does not violate your civil liberties in any way, to either believe or not believe, worship or not worship any god you choose.
"Illogical. The majority is violating the choice of ALL, by choosing a state religion repugnant to some."
Again. You cannot name or cite any particular religion here, because it doesn't apply to this case. Unless you believe the acknowlegment of God somehow is repressing or coercing you.
Better get down to the US Capitol building,and tell them to stop opening sessions with a prayer! Oh, and tell the Supreme Court as well...
--Thomas Jefferson, "The Declaration of Independence," 1776
Oh, oh...Jefferson, by your very definition, is engaging in " State religious activities "...
:)
As the U.S. Constitution is written, matters of religion fall into this category of parallel individual and governmental possibilities.
Not true. Goverment sponsored religions are coersive by their nature.
You:
Yes, like in Sweden, where the Lutheran Church is sponsored and paid for by the state. Name anything similar here in this case of Judge Roy Moore. You can't, because that's not what Keyes is talking about.
Keyes is saying that States have a power to establish religion, just two lines below.
Keyes:
Federal and state governments, in matters of religion, are forbidden to coerce or prohibit individual choice and action.
Within the states, the people are free to decide by constitutional majority the nature and extent of the state's expression of religious belief.
Contradictory reasoning.
This majority "expression" would be coersive on its face.
Keyes:
This leaves individuals free to make their own choices with respect to religion, but it also secures the right of the people of the states to live under a government that reflects their religious inclination. As in all matters subject to the decision of the people, the choice of the people is not the choice of all, but of the majority, as constitutionally determined, in conformity with the principles of republican government.
Illogical. The majority is violating the choice of ALL, by choosing a state religion repugnant to some.
You:
Again. You cannot name or cite any particular religion here, because it doesn't apply to this case.
You are denying Keyes advocates a -- "right of the people of the states to live under a government that reflects their religious inclination"? --
It's a coersive 'choice' on Keyes own terms.
The man has slipped a mental cog in his religious zeal, imo.
And you seem unable to read his clear words on the matter , printed just above.
Plus, I see you (inevitably) tangled with FR's "tpaine".
Love 'em or hate 'em, agree or disagree, there's no one on the entire www who can come anywhere close to the man's insights on the true meaning(s) behind our constitution's amendments &/or BOR.
Can easily see that too when some of the board's wannabes can only refute his ironclad points by pathetically ignoring him and insodoing show themselves to be the intellectual inferiors they actually are.
Fact.
And as you shall learn later, after the handfull of wannabes become frustrated they'll attack the man *personally* & when that happens waych out.
He's repeatedly proved he can defend himself quite nicely against their smears making mincemeat of 'em and sending them sprinting tail between legs for the tall grass with bloodied noses.
...'tis a real pleasure to witness. :o)
free dixie,sw
Love 'em or hate 'em, agree or disagree, there's no one on the entire www who can come anywhere close to the man's insights on the true meaning(s) behind our constitution's amendments &/or BOR.
Can easily see that too when some of the board's wannabes can only refute his ironclad points by pathetically ignoring him and insodoing show themselves to be the intellectual inferiors they actually are.
Fact.
And as you shall learn later, after the handfull of wannabes become frustrated they'll attack the man *personally* & when that happens waych out.
He's repeatedly proved he can defend himself quite nicely against their smears making mincemeat of 'em and sending them sprinting tail between legs for the tall grass with bloodied noses.
...'tis a real pleasure to witness. :o)
tpaine, when I see that my good friend Landru has a lot of respect for you. Anybody that has Landru's respect is definitly a person of admirable character, and you deserve my respect also.
I understand your points about the coercion of a state established religion, ( Although I gave you some examples of our Founding Fathers expressing religion, perhaps I have relied too much on Alan Keyes.)
However, if we honestly examine the situation in American society today, look at where the coercion lies:
When state employees, school children, etc. are given time off for the Christmas holiday, it is called the "Winter holiday", as the word "Christmas" is religious "expression".
I fact, there have been many instances lately, where public employees are denied the opportunity for religious "expression."
In Eugene, Oregon, firefighters were ordered to remove a Christmas tree from their fire station, because it was a religious "expression."
Christmas programs have been canceled in public schools, because even voluntary attendance shows approval of religious "expression."
My daughter's school can no longer have a bacclaureate ceremony, because of it's a religious "expression".
The Pledge of Allegiance is called declared unconstitutional, because of it's religious "expression."
Boy Scouts are denied the use of schools, and other public buildings to hold weekly meetings, because their acknowlegement of God is a religious "expression".
A granite Ten Commandments monument (donated, and paid for ENTIRELY by VOLUNTARY contributions) is not allowed to be displayed in a public courthouse, because it constitutes religious "expression."
And so it goes.
Anyone who has followed this subject, could cite hundreds of examples of denied religious "expression."
Given the state of our state today, how can you honestly tell me that the coercion is in the establishment of a religion? Or is it really in the prohibition of "the free excercise ("expression") thereof"?
Regards.
- That was a case of "establishment" which interfered with free "expression".
Again, you are -(I believe) confusing "establishment", with "expression."
I have to leave my office now. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate, FRiend.
Thanks!
Regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.