Posted on 04/15/2005 4:56:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
So some say. But ours (speaking nationally and for all states) is a representative government, not mob rule. We are a nation of laws and not men. Religious zealots like Moore argue that they are above those limits, and claim to be God's representatives on earth. In doing so, they simply become men rather than agents of the law.
He was seen to have abused power by citizens who successfully carried their case against him through the courts. Because he made false claims about the nature of our laws, I agree that he should have been censured.
You are misinformed. The citizens of Alabama elected Roy Mooore to the Alabama Supreme Court knowing that he was going to put the monument in the State Judicary Building. He stated that fact many times during his campaign. It was the SPLC along with the ACLU who brought the suit against the monument and Roy Moore.
Furthermore, the justices who voted for his removal (yes, it was unamimous)are now trying to coverup that fact. Two of them were defeated in the last election cycle by Roy Moore supporters. It's only a matter of time before the others are voted out of office.
Oh and BTW, Roy Moore out polls the present governor by 8 points.
And atheism is NOT a religion? Atheists are religious zealots of the worst kind, pressing their religion into every facet of our lives. IMHO
Are you denying that Moore gave the interview to a Christian Identify broadcaster, or are you saying that it doesn't matter? Look it up and prove me wrong. My source is the American Jewish Congress: http://www.ajcongress.org/pages/RELS1997/APR97REL/apr_011.htm
What does that prove? He's a Christian, and he says his relationship with Christ inspires him and makes him stronger as a leader. He also has said that he was chosen by God, and that would be Christ. He's not saying that he was chosen by God to impose Christianity on Americans. He's really careful about that. He's gotten even more careful in his second term.
Are you denying that Moore gave the interview to a Christian Identify broadcaster, or are you saying that it doesn't matter?
So what? For all we know, Roy Moore could have been rebuking the Christian Identity broadcaster for being a bigot.
I'd be happy to hear it, but I'd be surprised. He was probably enlisting their support.
Being from Bama...up until the point where the good judge had that giant stone tablet made up...most folks were approving of Judge Moore. But after dragging up this entire stone episode...for reasons that didn't quiet add up...he kinda lost some favor. I think he can still run for governor and win. But alot of folks from Bama see the judge as motivating a particular base of the population for election purposes only. Its hard to say if he really means what he says.
I strongly disagree, in the case of President Bush as well as Moore.
Those who believe in freedom of conscience will oppose attempts by people like you to impose religious tests to weed out those you consider "zealots" from the government.
Moore and Bush are very different people. If Bush is like Moore privately, he hides it very well.
None of those issues, such as commandments on the eves of the Supreme Court or chaplains or anything else like that compare with Moore's public proclamations that we are a Christian nation and that Judaic documents is the very foundation of our law. His words might sound good to some Christians, but when you really analzye them, you'll see that they are pure anti-Enlightenment rhetoric. America was founded on the idea that governments could not interpret religious faith and doctrines, that the individual was supreme in judging matters of faith and conscience for himself. Moore carefully tried to throw all of that away with his argument that we were legally Christian. We are Christian by choice. The minute it changes into something else is the minute we really start to lose American religious freedom.
The religious convictions of the people are important, not the religious dogma reflected in our laws. His comments do not shake my conviction that Moore was a grandstanding theocrat.
Also, how many years, perhaps thousands of years, of human experience were available before the first word of any religion was written or codified?
They are no longer up for discussion, as they've been codified out, mostly through the federalization of an ever increasing list of things. Strict constructionist judges can not toss out bad law in the same was as activist judges, cuz by definition they would become activist as soon as they ignore the mountian of rulings & caselaw that has been built since the writing of the founding documents. At this point, it would take ammendments to constitutions to un-make "rights" that have been discovered somewhere between the lines in the originals.
I'd argue that our current laws are more just and more fair than they were back then.
Justness or justice & fairness are in the eye of the beholder.
You could have an entire class of children with parents who wished for the teacher to promote Christian ideals in their instruction, but if the class is in a public school, that would not be allowed. OTOH, if you had an entire class of children who's parents wished for the teacher to promote athiest or secular humanist ideals in their instruction, if the class is in a public school... Which group of parents will think the current state of the laws is just & fair? If you can not honestly say both, can they be either just or fair?
The Enlightenment didn't intend for laws to be created out of thin air, although Rousseau's social contract, which inspired our founding fathers, implied this to some extent. Rousseau's ideas evolved and were carried forward to become the socialism and anarchism of today, and I don't think that's what any of us wants. What I'm talking about is the way laws are proposed, passed, enacted, and imposed. Roy Moore in effect tried to say that he was free to interpret the first amendment any way he liked, since he was God's messenger. Where is the rule of law in that? He couldn't wait to appeal his case. He couldn't wait to pass laws in the legislature overriding Thompson, etc... American laws should be rational. They can be argued in terms of "I believe God would prefer this..." but not in terms of "I believe I can impose this on you because it is God's will." There's a big difference, and it's very important. Will laws about stealing and murder be similar to the 10 commandments? Yes, and they're frequently this way under other religions as well. But what about the first four commandments? I couldn't support any of these laws going on our books. The reasons are many, but clearly they put the state in charge of men's faith.
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.