Lowering the bar on profiles in courage (Former Chief Justice Roy S. Moore comes to Portland)

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.

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

Remember, we do live in a republic.

Plus, I think you are missing the conjunctive clause: OR, as in:
"or prohibiting..."

BTW, the Ten Commandments are on the walls of the Supreme Court. How does your stance of the 14th amendment square with that?

More from Alan Keyes, on this subject:( please read the section on parallel rights, Regarding the individuals right to bear arms):

"The practical foundation of all the rights and privileges of the individual citizen is the rights that inhere in the citizen body as a whole, the rights of the people and of the state governments.

The latter effectively embody their ability to resist abuses of national power. Such rights include the right to elect representatives, and to be governed by laws made and enforced through them.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment secures a right of the people. Until now, though, many have treated the first two clauses of the amendment as if they are one. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This practice ignores both the linguistic and the logical contrast between the two clauses.
Where the first clause deals with a right of the people (that is, a power of government reserved to the states and to the people), the second clause deals with an action or set of actions (the free exercise of religion) that cannot be free unless..."

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.

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.

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.

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.

(Which the U.S. Constitution requires the people of each state to respect).

Subverting the wisdom of the Founders:

The Constitution reflects the view that the choice with respect to governmental expressions of religious belief must respect the will of the majority. Unless, in matters that should be determined by the people, the will of the majority be consulted, there is no consent and therefore no legitimacy, in government.

Though it may be argued that matters of religion ought to be left entirely to individuals for decision, this has the effect of establishing in the public realm a regime of indifference to religion. Thus, a choice of establishment is inevitable, and the only question is whether the choice will be made by the will of the people or not.

The U.S. Constitution, being wholly republican, decides this question in favor of the people, but in light of the pluralism of religious opinions among the people, forbids any attempt to discern the will of the people in the nation as a whole.

By the First and 10th Amendments, the Constitution reserves to the states, they deprive the nation of this prudent and logically balanced approach to the issue of religious establishment.

Whether through carelessness or an artful effort to deceive, they ignore the distinction between the individual right to free exercise of religion and the right of the people to decide their government's religious stance. They have, in consequence, usurped this right of the people, substituting for the republican approach adopted by the Constitution an oligarchic approach that reserves to a handful of un-elected individuals the power to impose on the entire nation a uniform stance on religion at every level of government.

The right to decide the issue of establishment is a fundamental right of the people. It is also among the most likely to cause bitter and passionate dissension when the religious conscience of the people is violated or suppressed. That may explain why it is the very first right secured from federal violation in the Bill of Rights.

When they take this right from the people, the federal judges and justices depart from the
republican form of government. They impose, in religious matters, an oligarchic regime upon the states. They therefore violate, in letter and spirit, Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
This section, [Article IV, Section 4 ] declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government . . ."

"It is ludicrous to see a major political figure like Keyes claim that states are free violate our individual rights. -- I'd like to see him defend the CA assault weapon prohibition on this basis, for instance..

I wanted to high-light this post, to point out the relevant areas, addressing your comments above:

'Parallel Rights and Actions
(by Alan Keyes):

"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.

It is ludicrous to see a major political figure like Keyes claim that states are free violate our individual rights. -- I'd like to see him defend the CA assault weapon prohibition on this basis, for instance..

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.

" The majority is violating the choice of ALL, by choosing a state religion repugnant to some."

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...

Benjamin Franklin speech:

"MR. PRESIDENT,

"The small Progress we have made, after 4 or 5 Weeks' close Attendance and continual Reasonings with each other, our different Sentiments on almost every Question, several of the last producing as many Noes as Ayes, is, methinks, a melancholy Proof of the Imperfection of the Human Understanding.

We indeed seem to feel our own want of political Wisdom, since we have been running all about in Search of it. We have gone back to ancient History for Models of Government, and examin'd the different Forms of those Republics, which, having been originally form'd with the Seeds of their own Dissolution, now no longer exist; and we have view'd modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our Circumstances.

"In this Situation of this Assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark to find Political Truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our Understandings?

In the Beginning of the Contest with Britain, when we were sensible of Danger, we had daily Prayers in this Room for the Divine Protection. Our Prayers, Sir, were heard; -- and they were graciously answered.

All of us, who were engag'd in the Struggle, must have observed frequent Instances of a superintending Providence in our Favour. To that kind Providence we owe this happy Opportunity of Consulting in Peace on the Means of establishing our future national Felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that GOD governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe, that, without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial, local Interests, our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and a Bye-word down to future Ages. And, what is worse, Mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate Instance, despair of establishing Government by human Wisdom, and leave it to Chance, War, and Conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move,
That henceforth Prayers, imploring the Assistance of Heaven and its Blessing on our Deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to Business; and that one or more of the Clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that Service." -- Benjamin Franklin-
(speech at the Constitutional Convention, 28 June 1787 )

Keyes:

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.

Simply excellent, FBD.
Enjoyed your report & subsequent debate.
You've a real, genuine "passion" all your own I never knew of but have come to respect.

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)

"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)

Well, he definitly has challenged me! And I appeciate that. :)

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.

tpaine, you and I are locked in a debate over the differance between the establishment of a religion, and the *mere* expression of religion.

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.

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.