Former Justice Roy Moore is Confused

[ThorsteinVeblen]

His intepretation of the "Rule of Law" and the 1st Ammendment is completely unique and the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.

How does a so obviously unstudied and ignorant man who has no understanding of the issues at hand or the Constitution of the United States of America come to be a Cheif Jusitce?

What the hell is going on? The guy is absolutely incompetent and ignorant of the history of Law and the history of this country.

How the hell did he pass his bar exam much less become Cheif Justice?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

1. i take it

youve never been to Alabama.

[Patriot_Spear]

16. LMAO...you're killin' me!

'Bout lost my coffee on that one...!

[markus]

2. How do people who believe in Creationism pick science textbooks?

You lie on your resume.

I don't think that Moore is ignorant of law and history. He has a fabulously distorted view of them.

[Skidmore]

3. There is a certain type of Christian who believes

that they are entitled by God's grace to demand complete adherence to the letter of the Bible by all others but themselves. When others in society don't see it their way, then very unChristian like behavior ensues or they continue to assert and vociferously restate their position ad naseum.

Judge Moore is one such individual--and his followers are like him.

[DBoon]

6. Christian Reconstruction?

Belief that the US Constitution should be trash and replaced by an old-testament-based theocracy. Scary stuff backed by the $$ of wealthy Ahmansons (S&L barons in SoCal).

See:

http://www.4religious-right.info/religious_right_dominion_religious_institutions2.html

[ellie]

9. That is the most unAmerican thing I have ever heard

The whole lot of them should be locked up or shipped off to an island so they can practice their own brand of "Americanism."

How's that for tolerance?! Screw 'em!

[trof]

4. to quote a recent saying

"It ain't rocket surgery".

[CO Liberal]

5. How Did Dan Quayle Pass The Bar Exam???

I've never found a satisfactory answer to THAT question......

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

7. He's not the only one, and it's not liimited to his state.

There are a sizeable number people out there in America that believe this country was founded on the christain religion, and that all the laws were written based on christain belief, First Amendment and various essays by the Founding Fathers to the contrary.
As for how he passed his bar exam? I don't know. Crib notes?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

8. English Common Law is not based on Christian

Theology.

This country was founded on Deism which denies the divinity of Christ.

The God of the founders is not the Christian god nor the god of Chief Justice Moore nor the holy ghost nor Christ.

[olacan]

12. This will

not make me real popular here, but so what.
I for one do not see a problem with the posting of the Ten Commandments in a public place. If you do not wish to believe or read them walk on past. There have been times in the past when I said that a particular television program was not suitable for transmission. The answer I got back was well don't watch it, does your television have an off button? So if that argument works there why does it not work in this case? I have never had anyone tell me I could not go to my church of choice, or that I had to go to their church.
Now I will say, what Judge Moore did was wrong when the court ruled against him he should have followed the law.
Reaching for my flame retardant clothes, fire extinguisher in hand go ahead flame away.

[karlschneider]

14. Big difference. People of all (or no) religions are at times obligated to

be in public places. If I a summoned for jury duty, for example, I have to be in the court house. Nobody can require me to go into a church.

[AlabamaYankee]

18. Moore's case is more extreme

He is actually on record as stating that, in effect, he would take into account an individual's belief or nonbelief when he rendered a verdict. The monument in question, 5000+ pounds and the size of a washing machine, was placed in the middle of the State Supreme Court rotunda, so that anybody wishing to enter the buildiong for any reason had to walk past it. This is much more of an "in your face" approach than merely hanging it on a wall somewhere.

The decision was both proper and necessary in this case.

[gratuitous]

19. Except . . .

While my television has an "off" button, and I am not obliged to support any privately owned station with my tax dollars, I am obliged to build, maintain and keep up public buildings with my tax dollars. As such, I'd prefer that the space in them be used and dedicated to the public good, not the private beliefs of a select few.

As a Christian, I find it not only distasteful -- and unscriptural -- to see others forcing their peculiar (that is, singular) interpretation of their religion on the public; it's worse when they seek to use public funds and publicly supported spaces. Mr. Moore is perfectly free to practice his religion, but not with my money. That's why the television/public building analog doesn't hold up.

[msmcghee]

22. It's not a matter of popularity.

It's a matter of not being able to understand the simplest, most basic part of the concept of freedom.

Your inability to see the difference between a TV set and a public building, owned by ALL the citizens of the nation - where citizens are required by law to show up and do business with the government - is astounding.

Try this - imagine a federal courtroom where the judge is an atheist. He puts up a sign behind him that says "God is a bad joke".

You have to be there to deal with a legal matter. You tell the judge that the sign offends you and your beliefs. What if the judge says, "Oh, so you're one of those Christians. Just don't read it if you don't like it. Now what was that you were saying about your income tax?"

I don't expect you to get it - but I guess I'll keep trying.

[GinaMaria]

24. Public vs. Private

Television stations and studios are privately owned. Just like you can put the 10 Cs on your front lawn and there is no issue there. It's your private property. Public property is a different matter. Court houses are public.

[NoKingGeorge]

31. I do not want to enter a government building and see that

the folks there worship L.Ron Hubbard and they may deny my permit application for a Christ statue.

btw: When aWol pushed the faith based initiative, ya know who made a personnel appearence on the hill to get funds for 'church' expansion?
Tom Cruse for Scientology.... Your tax dollars at work.

[CivilRightsNow]

21. Have you checked out our foreign aid to Israel?

How sure are you of whose God is whom? Everything has been so spun by the religious men of these times. How Laocidean. :)

I think that the democratic party alienates alot of possible voters. Here's an example. My mother in law is an exhippie, taught at a protest school with Joan Baez, travelled around Europe, lived in the Haight.. etc. She is a socialist at heart, no matter how responsible she has felt she needed to become with age. She wants national healthcare, she even thinks we are going to get it within the next 5 years.

Yet...

She is a republican. And she votes, so does her whole women's group. These arent rich women. They are women that homeschool and have beautiful summer gardens and rocking chairs on creaky porches. They are Christians. Democrats seem to really dislike displays of religion or acknowledgement of it, which is generally a hard thing for most Christians. I think Jesus would have been a libertarian, personally. :)

I dont think people who arent Christian can understand that it's not just a Sunday or "in the privacy of your own home" type of thing. It should not impose it's will upon law, this is true. I think that is the pervading issue here, but I do think that his election was a shout from a very vocal portion of the voting public that they agree with his will. The deep south has an American beauty all it's own in the power of church member mobilization.

[msmcghee]

23. I have never heard a Democrat who is offended . .

. . by religious displays, per se.

I, for one, am one Democrat who is very offended by people of any religion, inserting their religious beliefs into my publically owned space.

Keep your God out of my government - and we'll get along just fine.

[CivilRightsNow]

25. Exactly, look at your response :)

But how about the historical stance of the Democratic party, opposed to the polarlized vocal minority?

It was slightly different if you explore Presidents prior to Bill Clinton. When Bill got the blowjob we obviously had to shift our focus, do a little spin. It wasnt good for Bill to give any public speaking engagements that neccessitated reference to God. I mean really, we bitch about the rethugs doing it, and you dont think our own party would wag the Dog a little if it suited them.

I dunno, just an opinion, obviously. Your mileage my vary. :)

[msmcghee]

26. I'm not sure I completely understand your reply.

But I'll give it a try.

I think Dem pols are forced to "bow to God" in public - or face the wrath of the repukes who would immediately be all over them for the slightest indication that they were non-believers.

I don't hold that against them - as I think the fault lies with the pukes for shamelessly politicizing anything and everything (even very personal issues like extramarital affairs and religion) if it could possibly get them a few votes.

Wag the dog? You missed me there. B-)

[CivilRightsNow]

32. Heh.

The basic premise is that religion is an integral part of society and that to negate it's power results in failure. We must acknowledge it's existance in all forms. If you think about the times in which the framers existed, a good argument can be made that they were in favor of a Godless government because they could not fathom a Godless society.

[msmcghee]

37. Say what?

The basic premise is that religion is an integral part of society and that to negate it's power results in failure.

I go for weeks without ever seeing or hearing a reference to God in my daily life - other than news stories about idiots like Judge Roy Moore and such. That doesn't make religion an integral part of society. It is a part of society, and I have no problem with that (except for tax benefits religions recieve) - but it's not integral, yet. Thank goodness.

We must acknowledge it's existance in all forms.

Who the hell are you talking to. Me?

If you think about the times in which the framers existed, a good argument can be made that they were in favor of a Godless government because they could not fathom a Godless society.

Yeah? Bush* made a similar argument last week about how the increasingly violent attacks by Iraqis against the US forces was good - because it shows how desparate they are - i.e. that we are winning. You sure seem to follow their logic well.

[LeahMira]

30. Why is it hard?

Democrats seem to really dislike displays of religion or acknowledgement of it, which is generally a hard thing for most Christians.

Why should it be hard for Christians? I'm Jewish and I don't expect to see my religious symbols in public places. In fact, I don't want to see them because I also see how much Christmas has been robbed of much of its spiritual message and I don't want to see Hanukkah turned into just another "excuse" to shop from October to the end of December.

[CivilRightsNow]

33. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion...

Mine is:

To prevent displays of belief by an individual or even acknowledgement of their religion and the role it plays in their life is hard for a person who believes in many of the varying world religions. This isnt unique to Christianity. I was only using it as the conversational point of reference.

There is a difference between not wanting your beliefs to be coopted by the money machine and not wanting to show or see symbols of your faith.

Im proud of my faith. I, as a Christian, believe that I have found my individual path to God. Regardless of how politically correct it is to hide ones light under a bushel. I encourage others to find theirs. So, as such, I see the point as more exposure and diversification instead of removal or sanitization.

[no name no slogan]

29. It's the Plymouth vs. Jamestown dichotomy at work

Part of the schizophrenic nature of our American society can be traced back to the first two English settlements in our country: Plymouth and Jamestown.

The pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock and founded a colony where their own religion could be practiced freely-- and where they were free to impose their beliefs on others in their colony, if they chose. They had little regard for things "of this world", and saw their true existence as being that in the afterlife-- in "heaven", if you will.

Jamestown, OTOH, was founded by a bunch of godless captitalists more interested in making a fast buck than getting into heaven. Religion was not as important to them as it was to the folk up the coast in Plymouth.

IMHO, it's this history that has shaped much of the debate in this country as to what is "American" and "un-American". That's why we have more religious fundimentalists than most middle-eastern countries, and also more plutocrats than most Latin-American countries, too.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Slick Semantics

This guy is REAL slick...claiming the Constitution is only accountable to god (or his and his follower's version) citing the 1st ammendment through the 6th ammendment side-pocket. He twists the rule of god with law of man in a semantic game where he can convelute and exploit his agenda (personal power).

Now wasn't it convenient that this noise came down while the Senate Jerry-kids marathon was still going on.

Moore hinted on CNN that he may run for his old Chief Justice seat again...for vindication...and I'm sure the guy would win with 70% of the vote. That would make him fodder for the next step...as the ultimate morality cop of the Western World. And there are a lot of big money people who will be behind him. He's a great distraction to the real looting going on.

[Jacobin]

11. That face......inbreeding perhaps?

[Gin]

13. God...rapture him please....on the other hand....the more he talks..

the more his dillusion becomes obvious.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

15. He will be disbarred and therefore ineligible for the office.

[AlabamaYankee]

20. We can only hope so

The Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center (one of the original plaintiffs) is petitioning to have him disbarred, but that's a seperate issue. His grounds would probably be Moore's continued intransigence and refusal to acknowledge the validity - and the legitimacy - of the Federal Courts' rulings.

[SemperEadem]

35. Before Charles I, kings of England were of the belief that they were

accountable to non on earth but God... him being relieved of his head must have cured that mindset for the rest that followed after the Restoration.

I believe more folks in government have a monarchist mentality than most are willing to admit.

I'm sure if the parallels between his mindset and those in history who embraced it, too, were harped upon, it could be spun to damage him.

[Jacobin]

36. Unfortunately, I think we have lots of closet royalists

in the U.S. who would just love to worship a KingPresident like LordGodBush.

His supporters really are quite craven.

[Sting]

17. Not only do I question Moore...

but I also question how the hell John Ashcroft passed his bar exam.
Sting

[LeahMira]

27. Dumb like a fox...

What the hell is going on? The guy is absolutely incompetent and ignorant of the history of Law and the history of this country.

If nothing else, Moore is an opportunist. Some of the FReepers are claiming that he plans to run for President with the Constitutional Party. I'm wondering in how many states the Constitutional Party is on the ballot. Actually, I'm wondering what the heck is the Constitutional Party... but maybe he needs some encouragement. He could draw a lot of ultra-fundamentalist votes away from you-know-who.

[msmcghee]

28. I'd love to see him run. eom

[Zynx]

34. I just go a devilish idea.

Let's have about 50,000 Dems pose as right-wing, southern conservatives and try to get this guy to run for president as a religious conservative. Wouldn't it be great?

I no there is no chance of it, but it is worth thinking about. Can you imagine how he would fuck over Bush in the South?