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

THE OREGONIAN (dead fish wrapper) ^ | 02/29/04 | Steve Duin

[tpaine]

We both know what Keyes is advocating.

[Agamemnon]

Criminal Contempt of Court

And then the executive branch would have to enforce the decision prosecute them, and carry the decision out. Imagine if in the case of Romney in MA, he stands up to the MA Supremes simply by refusing to enforce their ruling. Could be interesting.

[Servant of the 9]

Criminal Contempt of Court

And then the executive branch would have to enforce the decision prosecute them, and carry the decision out. Imagine if in the case of Romney in MA, he stands up to the MA Supremes simply by refusing to enforce their ruling. Could be interesting.

You illustrate my point. What you are speculating about would quickly deteriorate into either civil war or anarchy.

If the Governor can ignore a court ruling he dislikes, then so can I, so can everyone.
If I can ignore the judiciary, why can I not also ignore the legislature and the executive?
Coequal branches of government.

So9

[tpaine]

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 thank you both.. Its refreshing to rationally argue religious points without all the emotional baggage..

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've been making the point that Keyes position is far beyond 'expression'. I have no problems with free exercise 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."

Yes, they can.. But in almost all those cases, courts have explained their constitutional basis for their opinions in that particular case. Such cases build 'case law', -- but your constitutional right to expression remains.
In most instances, all you have to do is take your expression to private property.

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.

Our basic concept on this is fairly simple, imo..
--- You are free to 'exercise' most anywhere.. But try to stay out of my face while you do it.. -- Ordinary courtesy used to guide most of us..

[Agamemnon]

Homosexuality seems to destroy all that it touches. They are the kiss of death.

Statutes were crafted against it because the people through their legislatures spoke, and laid down the law. The courts think they can strike down the legistlatures, and with it the will of the people. Scalia was mocked for predicting the anarchy that such a decision would wreak. I'll just bet he didn't think it would happen so fast.

The court does not have to be the last word on anything if Congress limits their jurisdiction, or if a ruling like the one in MA is so bad, the Executive Branch doesn't have the stomach to enforce it. Either of those two branches can draw a line in the sand. And it's about time too.

The USSC need look no further than the mirror to learn the source of the anarchy you seem to fear.

I don't fear what you do. BTW, it's not anarchy if a branch of government stands up to the Court. It's called "checks and balances." Supreme Court should not be confused in anyone's mind with the notion that they are "supreme" in the sense that they are over either the Executive or Legislative branches. They're not.

The homos may actually be the death of the powers that the USSC has wrongfully assumed to itself over the years.

[MissAmericanPie]

It's typical liberal double standards, back when murderer's could profit from their crimes, liberals would try to spring them, buy their art work, see to it that their books got published.

[FBD]

"--- You are free to 'exercise' most anywhere.. But try to stay out of my face while you do it.. -- Ordinary courtesy used to guide most of us."

Tell that to the ACLU, who gets in everyones face about the tiniest of assumed expression. They get in the face of any city who calls DEC. 25th, "Christmas holiday" a violation of "church and state". They have filed lawsuits all over the country, demanding that cities call it the "Winter Holiday" Then they defend NAMBLA, on the grounds of a First Amendment issue, at the same time attacking the Boy Scouts.

OK.

Well maybe the ACLU should demand that all public employees no longer take time off for the Federally recognized "Christmas Day holiday"!!! How do you suppose that would go over for folks who seem to be so afraid that any acknowledgment of God is some sort of violation of the First Amendment establishment clause?

..."courts have explained their constitutional basis for their opinions in that particular case. Such cases build 'case law', --

-Yes, and some would argue that many Courts no longer look to the Constitution, they merely allude to it via 'case law,' and in the end, this allusion eventually turns into ellusion.

"In most instances, all you have to do is take your expression to private property."

Your views appear to be inconsistent, because you called the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court "artwork", and in the Alabama court, it is religious expression?

OK.

A donated Ten Commandments monument is taken out because of the ""separation of church and state"".

---

Conversely, a newly restored 55 ft. tall "Vulcan" - a Roman god of forge is set on Birmingham, Alabama city property. (to the cost of $14.5 million to taxpayers.)

[FBD]

Correction: artwork quote was actually-"USSC wall decorations..."

typo- "ellusion" = elusion

[tpaine]

Anyone who has followed this subject, could cite hundreds of examples of denied religious "expression."

Yes, they can.. But in almost all those cases, courts have explained their constitutional basis for their opinions in that particular case.
Such cases build 'case law', -- but your constitutional right to expression remains.
In most instances, all you have to do is take your expression to private property.

Your views appear to be inconsistent, because you called the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court "artwork", and in the Alabama court, it is religious expression?

Moore admitted he placed his 'artwork' as a political statement. He was fired for that expression of defiance to our constitutional principles.

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"?

Our basic concept on this is fairly simple, imo..
--- You are free to 'exercise' most anywhere.. But try to stay out of my face while you do it.. -- Ordinary courtesy used to guide most of us..

Tell that to the ACLU, who gets in everyones face about the tiniest of assumed expression.

Yep, zealots abound on both sides of this issue..
Rest assured, I'm just as quick to tell an ACLU goon to butt out of my business as his counterpart in the fundamentalist movement.

My favorite quote on the subject of over-zealotry:

"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion."
-Arthur Koestler-

[FBD]

"He was fired for that expression of defiance to our constitutional principles."

No, he wasn't. He was fired because he failed to show "contrition."

I highlighted the pertinent part of the article below:

---

This article in the Seattle Times, by David Postman:

"As a lower-court judge, Moore was sued over the Ten Commandments plaque he hung on his courtroom wall. In 2000, he was overwhelmingly elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

He had a 5,280-pound monument to the commandments installed in the rotunda of the state courts building and was sued for violating the separation of church and state.

He lost his job when a special ethics panel ruled against him in November for defying a court order to remove the monument. At his trial, the presiding judge said Moore should be removed in part because he had not shown contrition."

---

I see. Religious folks must be must be apologetic, contrite. Or else they are "zealots". I wonder what the was intended, when the Ten Commandments were put on the USSC?

"My favorite quote on the subject of over-zealotry:"...."

Yeah. and -
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

[FBD]

Just wanted to make sure you noted this part of the article:

"In 2000, he was overwhelmingly elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court."

As opposed to the Federal judges that removed him, for "not showing contrition" who were "appointed".

BTW, fear and disdain of religious folks is in itself a form of zealotry, FRiend.
I'm not saying that of you, but I am saying it of the folks who are so afraid of any religious expression in the *public * (read government) arena.

Regards

[tpaine]

He was fired for that expression of defiance to our constitutional principles.

No, he wasn't. He was fired because he failed to show "contrition."

In part, sure.. He defied, then when given opportunity to comply, he defied again in refusing to admit his constitutional error. So, he was fired in part for contriteness. Big deal. He deserved it.

I see. Religious folks must be must be apologetic, contrite. Or else they are "zealots". I wonder what the was intended, when the Ten Commandments were put on the USSC?

Folk? -- Not at all. -- But judges must acknowledge our constitution, or they get fired.
<
"My favorite quote on the subject of over-zealotry:"...."

Yeah. and - "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

I agree with both Goldwater & Koestlers comments, in the context they made them. -- You don't? Make a point, -- not sarcastic asides.

Just wanted to make sure you noted this part of the article: "In 2000, he was overwhelmingly elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court." As opposed to the Federal judges that removed him, for "not showing contrition" who were "appointed". BTW, fear and disdain of religious folks is in itself a form of zealotry, FRiend.

Remember -your- friends post about personal remarks, just yesterday?
Of course you claim:

I'm not saying that of you, but I am saying it of the folks who are so afraid of any religious expression in the *public * (read government) arena.

Of course, -- perish the thought that you might be meaning me, seeing I just made remarks about keeping religion to private venues..

We should all be cautious, as were the framers, -- to keep religion out of politics.. They knew first hand of the dangers.

[FBD]

tpaine:"He was fired for that expression of defiance to our constitutional principles."

-Judges, legislators, and executive officers have consistently pledged under oath— "So help me God" —to uphold the Constitution.

tpaine:"But judges must acknowledge our constitution, or they get fired."

Yes, they do, and they can also acknowlege God. That was the question Mark Prior repeatedly asked Moore, when he was cross-examining him, whether he would continue to acknowlege God. But you don't think a judge can do both, huh?
But you do like case law, right?
Well, here’s a quote to consider :

---

"The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the Creator which government must respect."

"The Declaration of Independence stated the now familiar theme: "We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
-"And the body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights enshrined these principles."
- Justice William O. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court in the 1961 case of McGowan vs. Maryland.

---

tpaine:"We should all be cautious, as were the framers, -- to keep religion out of politics.. They knew first hand of the dangers."

OK...Let's ask Samuel Adams about this:
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone all men ought to be obedient; He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious Eye beholds his Subjects assuming that freedom of thought, and dignity of self direction, which He bestowed upon them. From the rising to the setting Sun, may his Kingdom come."
~ Samuel Adams August 1, 1776, on the steps of the Philadelphia Statehouse, where he delivered a speech before the formal signing of The Declaration of Independence.

---

You probably don’t care, but here’s what actually is on the donated (NO taxpayer funds) monument :

- The monument depicts the moral foundation of law in America, and bears excerpts from the text of the "Ten Commandments" of God. The monument also bears quotes from: the Declaration of Independence ("Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"); our National Motto ("In God We Trust"); the Pledge of Allegiance ("One Nation Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All"); and the Judiciary Act of 1789 ("So Help Me God").

---

FRONT PANEL:

“The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our government upon the moral directions of the Creator.” —Legislative History

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." —Pledge of Allegiance, 1954

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine."— James Wilson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? — Thomas Jefferson

---

LEFT SIDE PANEL:

“Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” — George Washington

'So help me God.' — Judiciary Act of 1789

“The greater part of evidence will always consist of the testimony of witnesses. This testimony is given under those solemn obligations which an appeal to the God of Truth impose; and if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure.”—John Jay

---

BACK PANEL:

“We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama. “— Constitution of Alabama

In God we trust. —National Motto 1956

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. —National Anthem

---

RIGHT SIDE PANEL:

“The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.” —George Mason 1772

“Laws of nature and of nature's God” — Declaration of Independence 1776

“The transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.” — James Madison

“This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; …upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.” — William Blackstone

---

[FBD]

My last comments to you about this subject, as I doubt you will even consider any of the Founders or judges quotes in post #93:

"We should all be cautious, as were the framers, -- to keep religion out of politics.. They knew first hand of the dangers."

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issues two rulings requiring that Commonwealth to issue marriage licenses to pairs of homosexuals...and Judge Roy S. Moore gets removed from the bench...for acknowleging God, (and donating a monument, full of quotes...from our Founders.)
"for that expression of defiance to our constitutional principles."

- Your concern is misplaced.
(It should be about liberal activist judges) Yet you align your concern with the likes of outraged anti-religious *zealots,* like Steve Duin, who wrote this editorial in the Oregonian.

Regards

[FBD]

My last comments to you about this subject, as I doubt you will even consider any of the Founders or judges quotes in post #93:

"We should all be cautious, as were the framers, -- to keep religion out of politics.. They knew first hand of the dangers."

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issues two rulings requiring that Commonwealth to issue marriage licenses to pairs of homosexuals...and Judge Roy S. Moore gets removed from the bench...for acknowleging God, (and donating a monument, full of quotes...from our Founders.)
"for that expression of defiance to our constitutional principles."

- Your concern is misplaced.
(It should be about liberal activist judges) Yet you align your concern with the likes of outraged anti-religious *zealots,* like Steve Duin, who wrote this editorial in the Oregonian.

Regards

[tpaine]

We should all be cautious, as were the framers, -- to keep religion out of politics.. They knew first hand of the dangers.

- Your concern is misplaced. (It should be about liberal activist judges) Yet you align your concern with the likes of outraged anti-religious *zealots,* like Steve Duin, who wrote this editorial in the Oregonian.

You have a problem with imagining what I 'align my concern'.. In my first remark here, I aligned myself with one of Moore's comments:

#14: To: FBD; yall
I was impressed too:

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.)

Good line.. -- Moores obviously a rational man when he isn't carried away by pandering to political ambitions.
14 -tpaine-