Rosa Parks and Roy Moore: A Case Study In Hypocrisy

[TheGeneral]

Since most Americans have been raised on a steady diet of short-attention span activities, don't hold your breath. The scope of the issues at the core of this debate reaches well beyond bus seats, monuments, state funerals and job dismissals. At the heart of these issues is nothing less than the basic tenets of western civilization, law and government and the basis for our entire way of life! If God's people do not wake up and start thinking these things through, we will quickly lose whatever vestige of justice and liberty are left in America. Indeed, ignorance is not bliss -- it is destructive to the bitter end.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=447

[Paul]

Unfortunately it seems that many of God's people are caught up in the enjoyment of the "breads and circuses" just like the ungodly.

I guess the attitued is that as long as the food is on the table, and the cable bill is paid, then no real effort needs to be exherted.

Tying together the hypocrisy of the glorification of Rosa Park's "stand" and the demonizing of Roy Moore's "rebellion", requires some thought. It's much easier to turn on Fox News or CNN and be told how to think.

I'm not sure what kind of wake up call will work for America. It seems God is sending them, but many in our Lord's church keep hitting the snooze button.

I for one, am constantly sending out links and handing out CD's of "The American View" to members of my church. As the ignorance is broken, I see the momentum picking up, but it is a slow process.

We all need to continue to pray!

[TimV]

While Mrs. Parks stand in 1955 may have been courageous and even monumental, we must emphasize the importance of respecting the laws of the land and the workings of the legal system. Citizens must obey the laws of the land, plain and simple.

More drivel. I can name a thousand laws which Christians regularly break, and many of them need to be broken.

Not one poster here obeys all the land's laws. I will give one very small example. I am a contractor, and in California one MUST carry a 10,000 dollar bond, and one MUST NOT advertise that one has it. There were three or four people advertising the same services I offer in the local paper, and all of a sudden the calls stopped coming in. I checked the ad, and EVERY other person advertising mentioned (illegally) that they were bonded. I called the paper, got them to add that I was bonded, and the calls started again.

Parks had problems, but nobody should take away the fact that what she did was right. Under Biblical Law interracial marriage was only legal after the people had lived in the land 3 generations, showing that the purpose of the Law was cultural rather than intrinsically racial.

The stupid law was an abomination against Heaven, and needed to be broken. She's much more of a hero than a loudmouth whiny judge. If Moore were the equal in bravery of Parks he would have been out there punching the workmen who took the monument away. Instead he goes around making himself a millionaire with huge speaking fees.

Rosa Parks had ten times the backbone of Moore.

[exmarine]

The excerpted quote posted by TimV is a fictional quote by Alabama Gov. Bob Riley to demonstrate the inconsistent treatment of Moore vis-a-vis Rosa Parks. Of course, Riley would be wrong if he said such a thing, and that's the author's point. Civil disobedience is justified whenever man's law contradicts God's law. Francis Schaeffer wrote:

The thirteen colonies reached the bottom line: they acted in civil disobedience. That civil disobedience led to open war in which men and women died. And that led to the founding of the United States of America. There would have been no founding of the United States of America without the Founding Fathers' realization that there is a BOTTOM LINE. And to them the basic bottom line was not pragmatic; it was one of principle.

If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in place of the living God...If we do not practice the bottom line of civil disobedience on the appropriate level, when the state has abrogated its authority, we are equally not living under the Scripture. F. Schaeffer, Christian Manifesto[/B]



I like the article and the analogy. The article makes a good point. What Parks did was correct, as the author points out, and she deserves credit for it. However, unlike Moore, Rosa Parks has been practically deified by the PC culture, but only because what she did jives with current PC cultural trends, not because she was right on principle. I find it very interesting and revealing that she served as a member of the Board of Advocates of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. I can't imagine that she served in ignorance of PP's nefarious mission. Anyone who advocates the mission of Planned Parenthood certainly does not have the moral character deserving of near-worship this woman has received. The copious and overhwelming accolades showered upon her are over-the-top and are dripping with brain-dead political correctness. As they continue to remove the names of Jefferson and Washington, et al., from our schools and street signs, I have no doubt hers will be added.

I find it very odd that people who call themselves constitutionalists or conservatives would attack Roy Moore, as I have personally seen many Republicans do, and now TimV. He didn't defy Thompson's order for publicity or self-enrichment. On the contrary, he lost his standing, his job, his career, his reputation, and his pension. He put it all on the line. What he did took real courage. He did it because he could do not do otherwise and stay true to his God and his oath, and he suffered for it. What he did is in keeping with the finest moral traditions of the American Revolution.

Roy Moore is a man who understands the divine origins of law, and he stands for true Constitutionalism - one of the very few who do. I sent a sizeable donation to his Foundation for Moral Law - because what he did was right. I believe in what he did and I admire the man, as I suspect most here do, and rightly so.

[awaitHim]

What an excellent article! The contrast is so true, however this issue has bothered me for quite a while. There is more to it than the hypocrisy of the media and others.

I believe Rosa Parks was wrong.

When liberals and conservatives both praise the actions of someone I get suspicious. Growing up in the 60s my parents supported Barry Goldwater and opposed the Civil Rights Law which Goldwater opposed. Now it seems that we conservatives have to admit we were wrong and the liberals right in this area.
Not that I am afraid to admit that I and my parents were wrong, but still the end result of what we have today in everyone demanding his rights from the feminists to the homosexuals has been nothing but destructive to this country.
I remember back then using the analogy of a resturant owner having the right to not let people into his resturant if he didn't want them in. It is his resturant and if he doesn't want to serve someone he has a right to refuse to let them in even if his reasons are silly or wrong. To make a law saying he must not discriminate opens up a Pandora's box. What if he doesn't want homosexuals into his resturant but doesn't mind barefoot people?
Jesus said in the parable of the laborers who were angry at the vineyard owner for not being fair in paying them extra pay for extra work: "Is it not lawful for me to do with what is my own..." (Matt. 20:15)
I have many more thoughts on this but I will not express them now.
Another point here is that Rosa Parks was not forced to do anything evil.
Let me say as well what Paul said, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped on to, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant..." (Phil. 2:5-7)

[Paul]

Great point. Parks was not asked to do anything that would force her to violate God's law, but Judge Moore was.

[TimV]

The fact that you can't point to a specific verse that says "Thou shalt give up thy seat to a White man" doesn't mean that the Bible is silent about the subject. The law was unjust, as I pointed out since after three generations except for a few specific exceptions such as the Moabites all races were to be treated the same.

It would be interesting to see what specific verse Moore thinks was violated and if so, what action did he take to obey it? What risk to himself and how far did he take it?

[exmarine]

It would be interesting to see what specific verse Moore thinks was violated and if so, what action did he take to obey it? What risk to himself and how far did he take it?

You simply are not familiar with the case. If Moore obeyed the unlawful order from Myron Thompson, an order which held that Moore could not acknowledge God, he would have broken the 1st Commmandment in that he would be publically denying he sovereignty of God, as well as his solemn oath to the Alabama Constitution.

The order from Judge Thompson was unlawful in at least three ways:
(1) Moore was prosecuted for breaking a law, but no one could cite a law in the U.S. Code or State Code that Moore broke -- because one doesn't exist. A judge's ruling is not a law - judges can't make law of any kind (as per U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1). If he didn't break a law, then how could he be prosecuted? Thompsons turned the Constitution on its ear.
(2) The unlawful order was based on a perverted interpretation of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Accordinig to Thompson's perverted interpretation, Moore is Congress and placing the 10 commandments monument in a State courthouse is the same as establishing a national religion. Clearly, Thompson's order was unlawful. Secondly, Moore has a right under the 1st Amendment to "free exercise" of his religion.
(3) It required Moore to violate his oath to the Alabama Constitution.

Actual dialog from trial:

William Pryor: "And if you resume your duties as chief justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified thta you would today, no matter what any other official says?"

Moore: "Absolutely. Without - if I can clarify that - without an acknowledgement of God, I cannot do my duty. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the Constitution of Alabama. It says so in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I 've read. So...

Pryor: "Well, the ony point I'm trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that in fact if you do resume your duties as chief justice, you would continue to do that without regard to what any othe roffical says. Isn't that right?"

Moore: "Well, I would do the same thing this court did in starting with the prayer. That's an acknowledgement of God. I would do the same thing that justsices do when they place their hand on the Bible and say, "So help me God." It's an acknowledgement of God. The Alabama Supreme Court opens with "God save this State and this Honorable Court." It's an acknowledgement of God. In my opinions, [and] I have written many opinions, acknowledging God is the source - the moral source - of our law. I think you must." From So Help Me God

Pryor's line of questioning may have been in keeping with the highest traditions of subversive godless humanism, but it was blasphemous and contrary to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Clearly, Moore did the correct thing on both biblical and legal grounds.

[TimV]

You are right on the count that I am not very familiar with specifics of the Moore situation.

[awaitHim]

[QUOTE]. Civil disobedience is justified whenever man's law contradicts God's law.


I like the article and the analogy. The article makes a good point. What Parks did was correct, as the author points out, and she deserves credit for it. However, unlike Moore, Rosa Parks has been practically deified by the PC culture, but only because what she did jives with current PC cultural trends, not because she was right on principle.


exmarine, I like what you write, but I am convinced Rosa Parks (as I wrote above) was not correct and was wrong on principle as well. I of course write from a Christian perspective.
There is a difference in the type of civil disobedience. I'm not saying Francis Schaeffer is wrong - but we must distinguish between "obeying God rather than man" and defying authority established by God. The "Protest"ant reformation was civil disobedience that came out of conscience toward God - not just from being tired of not having rights. The martyrs of Europe were persecuted and burned at the stake , going against Papal law because they believed God's word spoke differently. They gladly suffered - not to defy authority for their rights , but in order to obey their conscience toward God.

Suppose the pope had decreed all anabaptists must ride on the back of the bus. They gladlly would have accepted that as they also accepted death. They were not defying the pope for their own rights but for God's rights. Their is a big difference here. Jesus owned the world but gave up his seat.

Rosa Parks and Gandhi type civil disobedience is actually an act of defiance against authority and an act of war. Our country and even Christians have failed to distinguish these two kinds of civil disobedience. We refuse to stand up to this rebellion and actually praise it. This is why every perverted group that wants its own way, if it shouts in defiance loud enough is appeased by our liberal thinking. They must have their rights too. Public prayer and Bible reading is banned - why? Because it offends others beliefs, and they have as much right to the front of the bus as Christianity does. Why should the Bible and Christianity be in the front of the bus? So down the slippery slope we go.

[exmarine]

You make an interesting point, and it's certainly something to think about.

[bluebird]

Much of this sounds like inverted logic.

If this forum is going to be used to discuss bibilical points of view, and I assume then stretched to mean the way we should view the U.S. Constitution -- that will be quite a stretch for most of us.

The issue is the same that the Supreme Court is wrestling with today.

By WHOSE authority? They are wrestling with What authority dictates the final outcome of any judicial decision. The liberal justices like to cite foreign law to push forth their "living and breathing" document theory. The conservative justices cite an "originalist" point of view, giving more, and the highest creedence to the founding fathers' intent. So our country seems to be split more or less down the middle. Constitutionalists Know that the founding fathers' intentions were what made this country great and their principles never change, even though society does.

Now, back to the myriads of interpretations that could be applied to any passage in the Bible. The question remains by whose authority? Did you know there are now over 28,000 Protestant sects. Apparently, each could not agree that the "authority" within their church was correct, so they broke off and started their own church. And so on, and so forth. And so on and so forth. Today, christians still can't come to a "final" conclusion about almost everything because they cannot determine WHO has the final authority on doctrinal issues.

Do you suppose when Christ started His Church on earth, being all knowing and omnipotent, He anticipated this in human nature? I'm guessing, yes.
He knew there had to be a Final Authority and that is why He made Saint Peter, the Rock, that final authority to be Head of His Church on earth.

To this Day, the Gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Catholic Church, though they keep trying. Those who rebel against Christ's church, I believe have taken their eyes off of Christ and put them upon a man. Christ did not choose Peter because he was perfect, in fact, you could argue He chose him because he was the weakest.

The Pope is only infallible on doctrinal issues. As a person, he is a sinner like the rest of us. Christ's church is made up of sinners in constant need of His saving grace. When we put our focus on Him, our footing is secure. As difficult as it is for many to accept -- the Pope was given to us by Christ as a "final" authority on christian doctrinal issues.

Now, if I were to proceed on this board as if all those who had not come to that understanding were out in left field and shouldn't even bother posting here, then I would sound like a number of people I've heard here explain our beloved Constitution in an extremely narrow view.

The Constitution was drafted by men of different religious faiths, and it was meant to allow each of them to worship as they saw fit. The minute any of us starts trying to dictate to the rest of us -- doctrinal issues, we miss the entire point of having a Constitution like the United States has.

In short, the "FREE" exercise of religion is an opportunity to exercise my religion as I see fit, whether or not others agree with my religious views, and even if they are offended by them. We are not guaranteed a right to Not be offended -- though most liberals use that excuse to exclude even the name of Jesus in the public square.

[The Kangaroo]

The difference is Rosa Parks made a principled stand for human rights, whereas Roy Moore cynically manipulated a situation to advance himself politically.

[exmarine]

The difference is Rosa Parks made a principled stand for human rights, whereas Roy Moore cynically manipulated a situation to advance himself politically.

You must have amazing cognitive powers in order to see Roy Moore's motives! I have never met anyone who could look into someone's mind and heart like that. You should apply a job on "Psychic Detectives."

[bluebird]

How absurd to say that Roy Moore was trying to advance himself politically. No one who has listened to him speak, without their minds made up in advance, would draw that conclusion.

For the sake of argument, let's assume you're right. Wouldn't he be quite stupid to choose a tactic that would make him the most unpopular, the most ridiculed and most demonized judge in the country? So either he is completely stupid, OR he has a principle he believes in so strongly he is unwilling to compromise, even for political gain and personal prestige.

People who can't imagine taking a principled stand and live their own lives by compromise, will never understand Judge Roy Moore.

[The Kangaroo]

How absurd to say that Roy Moore was trying to advance himself politically. No one who has listened to him speak, without their minds made up in advance, would draw that conclusion.

For the sake of argument, let's assume you're right. Wouldn't he be quite stupid to choose a tactic that would make him the most unpopular, the most ridiculed and most demonized judge in the country? So either he is completely stupid, OR he has a principle he believes in so strongly he is unwilling to compromise, even for political gain and personal prestige.

People who can't imagine taking a principled stand and live their own lives by compromise, will never understand Judge Roy Moore.

Every political tactic involves risk of some sort. While you are right he has been demonized by many, he has also be lauded by many more. And, perhaps you are not aware, he is running for Governor. And one of the main factors political players look at in these races is what they call "name recognition": do people know who he is? You can't deny he must have a high rating in that area.

Personally I view the disgraced ex-judge as a cynical political manipulator whose main "principle" is the advancement of himself.

[TimV]

I could get heavily into 10,000 bucks every time I show up to speak somewhere.

[exmarine]

Every political tactic involves risk of some sort. While you are right he has been demonized by many, he has also be lauded by many more. And, perhaps you are not aware, he is running for Governor. And one of the main factors political players look at in these races is what they call "name recognition": do people know who he is? You can't deny he must have a high rating in that area.

Personally I view the disgraced ex-judge as a cynical political manipulator whose main "principle" is the advancement of himself.

No, it is you who are cynical and jaded. He is disgraced only in the eyes of those who hold to a worldly, godless, un-American, unconstitutional worldview.

Are you even familiar with the case? What is your position on Thompson's ruling? Inquiring minds want to know.

Moore lost everything in his defiance of that god-hating tyrant Thompson -- His job, his career, his reputation, and his standing with the establishment yes-men. Moore was elected to his office by a majority of the people and removed by a handful of tyrants and blackguards. If there were any justice in this world, Thompson would be impeached and removed from office, then tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. His ruling was an arbitrary mockery of constitutional law and religious freedom.

Do you have firsthand knowledge of Moore's motives for doing what he did? Or, are you ASSUMING based on your presuppositional biases? Since you can't read minds, I must conclude it is the latter.

Yes, he is running for Governor, and thank the Lord! This country needs 1000 more just like him in order to take our country back from tyrants and moral cowards mostly who run it.

I find it odd that you have no criticism for Myron Thompson and William Pryor who turned the Constitution on its ear.

[The Kangaroo]

No, it is you who are cynical and jaded.

I don't believe I am. That seems to be a judgement you have made without any evidence.

He is disgraced only in the eyes of those who hold to a worldly, godless, un-American, unconstitutional worldview.

On that I would disagree. It was he who created an issue where none existed before, solely to advance himself.

Are you even familiar with the case? What is your position on Thompson's ruling? Inquiring minds want to know.

Are you referring to how Moore got his comeuppance? He had it coming.

Moore lost everything in his defiance of that god-hating tyrant Thompson -- His job, his career, his reputation, and his standing with the establishment yes-men. Moore was elected to his office by a majority of the people and removed by a handful of tyrants and blackguards. If there were any justice in this world, Thompson would be impeached and removed from office, then tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. His ruling was an arbitrary mockery of constitutional law and religious freedom.

Strong words, but nothing to support them other than an emotional outburst. Where is evidence Thompson is "God-hating"? Your description of what you call a just result to the case seems more to belong to the operations manual of La Cosa Nostra than a constitutional republic.

Do you have firsthand knowledge of Moore's motives for doing what he did? Or, are you ASSUMING based on your presuppositional biases? Since you can't read minds, I must conclude it is the latter.

I know he is a slick politician who cannot be trusted based on what those in the know in Montgomery say.

Yes, he is running for Governor, and thank the Lord! This country needs 1000 more just like him in order to take our country back from tyrants and moral cowards mostly who run it.

The current administration and its loyal opposition are paragons of integrity compared to Moore and his ilk. They are people of courage and integrity compared to a cynical manipulator like Moore.

I find it odd that you have no criticism for Myron Thompson and William Pryor who turned the Constitution on its ear.

I assume Thompson is the federal judge in the case. I believe the rulings to remove Moore were quite liberal for a miscreant like himself. I believe Pryor acted with integrity. As you know, he did get a Federal Appeals Court bench. I personally wrote a Senator about this, suggesting because Pryor had acted with integrity on this matter opposition to his appointment should be dropped, and apparently that was part of the deal.

BTW, I thought there was no such thing as an "ex" Marine. So by your screen name are you saying you are imaginary like a hobbit or something?

[bluebird]

Quoting Kangaroo: "Every political tactic involves risk of some sort. While you are right he has been demonized by many, he has also be lauded by many more. And, perhaps you are not aware, he is running for Governor. And one of the main factors political players look at in these races is what they call "name recognition": do people know who he is? You can't deny he must have a high rating in that area.

Personally I view the disgraced ex-judge as a cynical political manipulator whose main "principle" is the advancement of himself."

My Response:

Most people who have listened to Roy Moore explain his reasoning know that he is not a "political player." He is not interested in a power grab and glorifying himself. He dutifully and humbly served his God and in the process the state of Alabama as Chief Justice.

I really believe that he did not lay awake at night and say to himself, "how, how can I get more power .... hmmnn, I know, I'll put a humonguous piece of Granite with the Ten Commandments carved on it into the middle of the courthouse and do whatever I can do to get an appellate judge to fire me. I know it would be unconstitutional for an appellate judge to fire me for acknowledging God, but it could happen -- and heck this about me and power! ...yes, one day I will be the powerful governor of Alabama.....yes, yes, that is what I must do....then I will rule the world...today Alabama, tomorrow the world!"

Let's face it, he's not a Democrat! That would never happen.

As I've said before, people who live their lives by compromise will Never understand Roy Moore.

[Joe_Liberty]

Where is evidence Thompson is "God-hating"? . . I believe Pryor acted with integrity. As you know, he did get a Federal Appeals Court bench. I personally wrote a Senator about this, suggesting because Pryor had acted with integrity on this matter opposition to his appointment should be dropped, and apparently that was part of the deal.


How did Pryor act with integrity? Do you agree with
http://www.visionforumministries.org/sections/hotcon/news/2003-08-20_howard_phillips.asp If not, why not?

[The Kangaroo]

he is not a "political player." He is not interested in a power grab and glorifying himself.

With all due respect, no one becomes a superior court judge, Chief Justice, or Governor who is not.

Let's face it, he's not a Democrat!

I'm not sure what that's supposed to signify.

As I've said before, people who live their lives by compromise will Never understand Roy Moore.

Can you name anyone other than Jesus Christ who does not live their life by compromise?

[The Kangaroo]

How did Pryor act with integrity? Do you agree with
http://www.visionforumministries.org/sections/hotcon/news/2003-08-20_howard_phillips.asp If not, why not?

He removed a judge who committed illegal acts and showed an utter lack of integrity.

I don't believe Phillips' article describes the actions of a good judge. The monument brouhaha was clearly a made-up controversey created by Moore to advance himself and exploit the rubes. He had to go. If he does make it to the Governor's Mansion chances are he'll repeat the same sort of erratic behavior which will probably result in his removal from office a second time.

[bluebird]

So Kangaroo, you're not here because you believe in the Constitution Party, then, you're obviously here as a political operative to dissuade Constitutionalists.

Nice try, but you're gonna have to brush up -- your arguments are transparentally incongruent.

But welcome, and have fun anyway.

[Joe_Liberty]

If you haven't yet, I encourage you to listen to the AV interview with Judge Moore: http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=167

[exmarine]

I don't believe I am. That seems to be a judgement you have made without any evidence.

That's rich - someone who has sullied the motives of someone they don't know or have never talked to lecturing others about making a judgment without evidence! The epitomy of hypocrisy.

Which begs the question: What is your motive for besmirching the character of Roy Moore?

On that I would disagree. It was he who created an issue where none existed before, solely to advance himself.

An issue that needed to be created. Unaccountable tyrannical judges are making illegal rulings daily - and must be defied by someone with some courage. If more people did as Roy Moore did, the oligarches in black robes would be powerless as little gnats.



Are you referring to how Moore got his comeuppance? He had it coming.

I see. Explain precisely how. You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the case whatsoever. The only thing you have done is sling accusations.

Strong words, but nothing to support them other than an emotional outburst. Where is evidence Thompson is "God-hating"? Your description of what you call a just result to the case seems more to belong to the operations manual of La Cosa Nostra than a constitutional republic.

I have plenty to support them. First, read the whole thread where I have given plenty to support his actions. It appears to me you jumped in with your slanderous accusations before reading the thread.

Second, if I demand that you cite right here the precise law that Moore broke. If you can't cite a law, then Moore has done nothing wrong. That simple. CITE THE LAW.


I know he is a slick politician who cannot be trusted based on what those in the know in Montgomery say.

Hahaha....as if you have a handle on what those "in the know in Montgomery" say....haha!


The current administration and its loyal opposition are paragons of integrity compared to Moore and his ilk. They are people of courage and integrity compared to a cynical manipulator like Moore.

Clearly, you are just a troll with no substantive arguments whatsoever. Got the Constitution?

Look whose talking about integrity - someone who makes mean-spirited judgments about someone's motives with zero evidence to back it up. What does that make you? In my world, such a person is a slanderous liar and a blackguard.



I assume Thompson is the federal judge in the case. I believe the rulings to remove Moore were quite liberal for a miscreant like himself. I believe Pryor acted with integrity. As you know, he did get a Federal Appeals Court bench. I personally wrote a Senator about this, suggesting because Pryor had acted with integrity on this matter opposition to his appointment should be dropped, and apparently that was part of the deal.

You assume Thompson is the judge? HAHAHA .THIS PROVES YOU ARE NOT EVEN FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE! Anyone who knows this case knows who Thompson is. This proves my point. You are a troll with no knowledge of the case, who has the unmitigated gall to besmirch and slanders a man's character. You are lower than dirt.



BTW, I thought there was no such thing as an "ex" Marine. So by your screen name are you saying you are imaginary like a hobbit or something?

It is of no concern to you Troll.

[The Kangaroo]

So Kangaroo, you're not here because you believe in the Constitution Party

Actually I am unfamiliar with that.

then, you're obviously here as a political operative to dissuade Constitutionalists.

Really? If you jump to conclusions like that regularly I think I'm glad I live in a different house from you.

welcome, and have fun anyway.

Oh, that's something I do every day. Thank you.

[The Kangaroo]

That's rich - someone who has sullied the motives of someone they don't know or have never talked to lecturing others about making a judgment without evidence! The epitomy of hypocrisy.

Sounds like you're getting a little hot under the collar there, sport.

I know a gutless political hack when I see one, and if you look that up in references, Roy Moore's pic is there.

Which begs the question: What is your motive for besmirching the character of Roy Moore?

I've done no such thing. Moore did what he did, now you whine because people call him on it.

An issue that needed to be created.

Oh, there was a need to put a religious monument on a public property the size of a Nissan Stanza? How so?

If more people did as Roy Moore did, the oligarches in black robes would be powerless as little gnats.

I see. So the way to do this is to create an inappropriate public art object and subject the people to it. Seems like that's the action of an "oligarchy" who wants to be powerful as an Orca.

If I demand that you cite right here the precise law that Moore broke. If you can't cite a law, then Moore has done nothing wrong. That simple. CITE THE LAW.

Oh, "if" you demand? Are you at all familiar with something called "the Bill of Rights" which includes something called "The First Amendment" which contains something called "the establishment clause"? You might want to check it out. I am sure the rest of it is Alabama's constitution and its standards of judicial conduct. What are you going to do now, stamp your feet?

..as if you have a handle on what those "in the know in Montgomery" say....

I make it a point to keep in touch with a network of like-minded individuals.

Anyone who knows this case knows who Thompson is.

Some functionary I'm sure. That's kind of like teaching history 1930s style by reciting dates. I'm sure it'd be useful for "Jeopardy" contestants but few others.

It is of no concern to you Troll.

My, my, in my experience a troll is someone who attacks without warning. Listen, just because I don't subscribe to your particular brand of political correctness, I'm no troll. You, OTOH, are uncivil only because you are threatened. Maybe you were a Baby Blue Marine, huh?

[exmarine]

Oh, "if" you demand? Are you at all familiar with something called "the Bill of Rights" which includes something called "The First Amendment" which contains something called "the establishment clause"? You might want to check it out. I am sure the rest of it is Alabama's constitution and its standards of judicial conduct. What are you going to do now, stamp your feet?


So, you can't cite a law then - nothing in the US Code or AL State Code?

But, it's the Bill of Rights you say? Specifically, the 1st Amendment? Now we get down to the nitty gritty. Yes, I'm very familiar with it, but it's clear to me that you aren't. Pleaes explain how Moore broke the establishment clause using the wording of the 1st Amendment as your authority. Specifically, how did Moore establish a religion?

Has the wording changed or does it still say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Using that clear and plain wording, explain precisely how Roy Moore violated the Establishment Clause. First, you can explain when Roy Moore become the US Congress (the only authority with the law-making ability required to establish a religion). When you are done there, you can explain how erecting a 10 commandments monument is tantamount to making a law.

If you can't do it, and I know you can't, then you owe Roy Moore an apology for your slander (libel) against his character.

Clearly, what was trampled was not the establishment clause, but the free exercise clause.




I make it a point to keep in touch with a network of like-minded individuals.

You mean you are one of a group of uninformed slanderous liars? That's scary.



Some functionary I'm sure. That's kind of like teaching history 1930s style by reciting dates. I'm sure it'd be useful for "Jeopardy" contestants but few others.

Yeah, some functionary indeed. It certainly appears from your postings thus far that you aren't even familiar with the case. You jumped into this thread slamming poor ole Roy Moore from the get-go and you have yet to provide any sound arguments or evidence for your statements.


My, my, in my experience a troll is someone who attacks without warning. Listen, just because I don't subscribe to your particular brand of political correctness, I'm no troll. You, OTOH, are uncivil only because you are threatened. Maybe you were a Baby Blue Marine, huh?

Supporting Roy Moore is politically correct? What alternate reality do you live in? No, DEIFYING ROSA PARKS IS POLITICALLY CORRECT. Get your head on straight.

You are a troll in the sense that you write for the sole purpose of getting people to react emotionally, i.e. trolling for bites to your vapid baseless gruel. If you don't like that term, I will be happy to find an accurate alternative.

[exmarine]

He removed a judge who committed illegal acts and showed an utter lack of integrity.


What law did Moore break again?

If anyone acted out of political ambition, it was the turncoat Pryor. We see he now has an appointment on the federal bench. He went along with the corrupt legal establishment and removed Roy Moore for simply acknowledging God - something he swore to do in his oath to the AL constitution. How serendipitous that it occurred in the wake of his illegal prosecution of Roy Moore...

Have you read the Alabama Constitution lately? Doesn't it violate the establishment clause?

Why are you so offended by a simple 10 commandments monument? It seems rather irrational to me. Inquiring minds want to know. Could it be that you hate Roy Moore because you hate Roy Moore's God?

[The Kangaroo]

explain how Moore broke the establishment clause using the wording of the 1st Amendment as your authority. Specifically, how did Moore establish a religion?

Putting up his monstrosity, that's how.

FYI according to the 14th Amendment the 1st applies to the states.

Supporting Roy Moore is politically correct?

Obviously it is for you or you wouldn't be having such a hissy fit here.

[The Kangaroo]

If anyone acted out of political ambition, it was the turncoat Pryor. We see he now has an appointment on the federal bench. He went along with the corrupt legal establishment and removed Roy Moore for simply acknowledging God - something he swore to do in his oath to the AL constitution. How serendipitous that it occurred in the wake of his illegal prosecution of Roy Moore...

Pryor was the one acting with integrity here because he saw a cynical political manipulation at hand and he enforced the law.

Why are you so offended by a simple 10 commandments monument?


Put it on your lawn or a church's, no problem. Put it on public land, big problem; and no need to do other than to say hooray for our team.

Could it be that you hate Roy Moore because you hate Roy Moore's God?

Oh, I don't hate Roy Moore. He's loveable like all rascals are. He's laughing all the way.

But I pity those sucked in by him.

[exmarine]

Putting up his monstrosity, that's how.

FYI according to the 14th Amendment the 1st applies to the states.

Obviously it is for you or you wouldn't be having such a hissy fit here.

I just broke down the 1st amendment for you and showed that Moore did not break the 1st amendment at all, but that Thompson, Pryor & Co. broke the Free Exercise Clause. Apparently, you have a big problem explaining just how Moore = Congress, and how the monument = making a law.

You have no argument other than unfounded and unsupported assertions. Can you read the handwriting on the wall? Your position has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. I suggest you go find a "dumb" forum where people will believe your unfounded and unsupported slanderous assertions and accusations. You have bit off more than you can chew here.

Yes, it upsets me when people like you make statements against a fine man's character. I am forcing you to back them up, but you can't.


Put it on your lawn or a church's, no problem. Put it on public land, big problem; and no need to do other than to say hooray for our team.


I don't care about your opinion or feelings, it is the LAW that matters, and what you say has no constitutional basis whatsoever. Zilch. Nada. Show me using the Constitution where a monument may not be placed on public property. You can't do it. All you have, apparently, are your anti-Christian biases. You are offended by the God of the bible, by Jesus Christ. Well, guess what? There is no Constitutional protection against being offended.

People in this forum are generally well-educated and well-versed on the Constitution. You better pack a lunch if you want to bring your "separation of church and state" baloney in here.

[The Kangaroo]

I just broke down the 1st amendment for you and showed that Moore did not break the 1st amendment at all, but that Thompson, Pryor & Co. broke the Free Exercise Clause. Apparently, you have a big problem explaining just how Moore = Congress, and how the monument = making a law.

It was on government land, therefore a violation.

You have no argument other than unfounded and unsupported assertions. Can you read the handwriting on the wall? Your position has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. I suggest you go find a "dumb" forum where people will believe your unfounded and unsupported slanderous assertions and accusations. You have bit off more than you can chew here.

From you? I hardly think so. You're loud but that's about it.

Yes, it upsets me when people like you make statements against a fine man's character. I am forcing you to back them up, but you can't.

No man of good character would have done such a thing. His actions speak for themselves.

I don't care about your opinion or feelings, it is the LAW that matters, and what you say has no constitutional basis whatsoever. Zilch. Nada. Show me using the Constitution where a monument may not be placed on public property. You can't do it.

I'm not a lawyer and you're no law professor. I say the first amendment says he can't. If you don't agree that's your business, but I'm under no obligation to respond to your little temper tantrums.

All you have, apparently, are your anti-Christian biases. You are offended by the God of the bible, by Jesus Christ.

There you go again jumping to conclusions. Where is your proof? I haven't discussed religion here at all, only the arrogant actions of men. You just like to whine, like so many other powerless blowhards.

Well, guess what? There is no Constitutional protection against being offended.

Then why do you whine so much about the slightest offense to your celluloid idol?

People in this forum are generally well-educated and well-versed on the Constitution.

Miseducated, maybe. You certainly are not the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree in that department. Okay, I'll lob ya an easy one: what's your take on Griswold v. Connecticut?

You better pack a lunch if you want to bring your "separation of church and state" baloney in here.

Oh, really? This isn't Salem in 1692. Without that separation the constitution is as useless as toilet paper.

[TimV]

I suggest you go find a "dumb" forum where people will believe your unfounded and unsupported slanderous assertions and accusations.

From a little scaredy girl who hides behind a name like "exmarine" and who advocates our country (without him) playing world's policeman and nuking major population centers?

[exmarine]

It was on government land, therefore a violation.

By what authority? Yours? That is not in the Constitution at all. The 10 commandments are emblazoned on the Supreme Court also. It is nutty to think that is legal while Moore's case isn't. This is the sort of contradiction that happens when judges rule arbitrarily instead of following the Constitution.

I still have not seen any Constitutional argument from you - just more assertions. Only the LAW counts. You cite no law.


I'm not a lawyer and you're no law professor. I say the first amendment says he can't. If you don't agree that's your business, but I'm under no obligation to respond to your little temper tantrums.


I listed the precise wording of the Establishment Clause. Where does it say anything about government land? I dont' see it. Where is it? You are citing a 1st amendment of your imagination, and the imaginations of the tyrants on the courts.

I must conclude that you have not citations of law or constitional wording that would support your position. Therefore, you have no position.

Discussion ended.

[The Kangaroo]

By what authority? Yours? That is not in the Constitution at all. The 10 commandments are emblazoned on the Supreme Court also. It is nutty to think that is legal while Moore's case isn't. This is the sort of contradiction that happens when judges rule arbitrarily instead of following the Constitution.

I still have not seen any Constitutional argument from you - just more assertions. Only the LAW counts. You cite no law.

I listed the precise wording of the Establishment Clause. Where does it say anything about government land? I dont' see it. Where is it? You are citing a 1st amendment of your imagination, and the imaginations of the tyrants on the courts.

I must conclude that you have not citations of law or constitional wording that would support your position. Therefore, you have no position.

Discussion ended.

I'm no fetishist who thinks I know exactly what the founders intended. If you want legal arguments, read judicial opinions. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on several such monument cases. I trust the wisdom of federal judges more than I trust the silly musings of blowhards on the internet. Whine about it all you want; you may think you're right but that and $3.95 will buy you a Starbuck's like everybody else.

[exmarine]

I'm no fetishist who thinks I know exactly what the founders intended. If you want legal arguments, read judicial opinions. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on several such monument cases. I trust the wisdom of federal judges more than I trust the silly musings of blowhards on the internet. Whine about it all you want; you may think you're right but that and $3.95 will buy you a Starbuck's like everybody else.

I may not be a lawyer, but I know the Constitution better than most Americans, and I know my rights under that Constitution. Again, we see that you have no arguments, just more lame assertions. On the other hand, you allow judicial oligarchs to tell you what your rights are.

You won't find any support for that view in this forum at all.

The U.S. Constitution is my authority and it is the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI, par. 2). Federal judges may not legally contravene the U.S. Constitution, and when they do, such rulings are unlawful.

[SWhiteman]

You are welcome to participate in this forum although you have a markedly different understanding than we do, but you must participate hospitably.

This is not your venue, it is ours, www.theamericanview.com. If you want to continue to treat Christians and those who ascribe to the proper and true American View of Law and Government poorly, go do so elsewhere. If you are unwilling to treat the members of our forum with decency and respect, you must remove yourself, or you will be forcibly removed.

[The Kangaroo]

You are welcome to participate in this forum although you have a markedly different understanding than we do, but you must participate hospitably.

This is not your venue, it is ours, www.theamericanview.com. If you want to continue to treat Christians and those who ascribe to the proper and true American View of Law and Government poorly, go do so elsewhere. If you are unwilling to treat the members of our forum with decency and respect, you must remove yourself, or you will be forcibly removed.

Sir, so you are saying, then, I am expected to be meek and mild while those who subject me to namecalling and scurrilous attacks have carte blanche to continue same?

I have not in any form attacked "Christians" except in the sense attacking John Muhammed for being a mass murderer is attacking all African-American men. I find that an extremely odd assertion. Please provide evidence I have done so if you believe that. Thank you.

[Areopagus]

Putting up his monstrosity, that's how.

FYI according to the 14th Amendment the 1st applies to the states.



LOL! You haven’t a clue roo. Here is your forum homework assignment:“The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama.” http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/grayone.htm

Adamson v. California: “As judges charged with the delicate task of subjecting the government of a continent to the Rule of Law, we must be particularly mindful that it is "a constitution we are expounding,"

After all, an amendment to the Constitution should be read in a "‘sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption.' . . . For it was for public adoption that it was proposed." See Mr. Justice Holmes in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 220. Those reading the English language with the meaning which it ordinarily conveys, those conversant with the political and legal history of the concept of due process, those sensitive to the relations of the States to the central government, as well as the relation of some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the process of justice, would hardly recognize the Fourteenth Amendment as a cover for the various explicit provisions of the first eight Amendments. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...2_0046_ZC.html

Bartkus v. Illinois
We have held from the beginning and uniformly that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the States any of the provisions of the first eight amendments as such. [n2] The relevant historical materials have been canvassed by this Court and by legal scholars. [n3] These materials demonstrate conclusively that Congress and the members of the legislatures of the ratifying States did not contemplate that the Fourteenth Amendment was a shorthand incorporation of the first eight amendments, making them applicable as explicit restrictions upon the States.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...9_0121_ZO.html

In case that homework assignment is too long for your short attention span, begin reading @ Federal Judicial Review of State Laws http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella11.html

[The Kangaroo]

LOL! You haven’t a clue roo. Here is your forum homework assignment:“The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama.” http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/grayone.htm





In case that homework assignment is too long for your short attention span, begin reading @ Federal Judicial Review of State Laws http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella11.html

I don't know. My surname is Anglicized from the original Czech. I went with my da before his death to the SPJST (Czech-American Lodge) and they had this big poohbah from Cleaveland or somewhere who said we should get busy to get our extra syllables back. We were both like what's the point. That's the way you guys saying Marbury was wrong and all seems to me.

[Areopagus]

That's the way you guys saying Marbury was wrong and all seems to me.

You provide good humor, but are still clueless, and you know it. Neither are you searching for any clues. Marbury was decided correctly, but your understanding of it is incorrect.

[SWhiteman]

Sir, so you are saying, then, I am expected to be meek and mild while those who subject me to namecalling and scurrilous attacks have carte blanche to continue same?
No. What I've said is that you must stop. I have advised others to do the same, but you have entered herein as an instigator. There are thousands of forums out there for a wide-ranged debate of ideas. This, with all due candour, is not one of them. We seek herein a discussion from within the Christian religion -- an "iron sharpens iron" approach. TAV is decidedly Calvinist, though many who participate are not. As Christians we freely exchange ideas to come to a greater understanding of important matters.

You, coming from either an anti-Christian frame or reference, or a willfully ignorant one, are not contributing to an "iron sharpens iron" forum -- you are instigating arguments to detract from our intention. My greatest objection with the other forum members is that they rose to the bait. I encourage them to ignore you in the hopes that you will go away.

I have not in any form attacked "Christians" except in the sense attacking John Muhammed for being a mass murderer is attacking all African-American men. I find that an extremely odd assertion. Please provide evidence I have done so if you believe that. Thank you.

You maligned Christian government by claiming that Salem, Massachusetts 1692 was the antithesis of freedom in post #34. You have no understanding of the intricacies of the situation in Salem, nor any understanding of how if the masses had followed the advice of the Christian leader Cotton Mather, rather than the passioned desire to presecute of John Hawthorne and his introduction of "spectral evidence," the hysteria would not have been. In a Christian government, those women could not have been convicted except by the mouths of two or more witnesses.

You started your participation in this forum, and continue herein, maligning the motives (how you know them, I have no idea) of the Christian Chief Justice Roy Moore, and continuing to demonstrate a totally ignorant understanding of the events in Alabama.

You have demonstrated a wholly anti-Christian attitude against the American View of Law and government as expressed by Christians in this forum.

You still have the opportunity to remove yourself. Please consider it.

[The Kangaroo]

The Christian thing to do for me here is to not respond to posts such as this, so I will not.

[SWhiteman]

The Christian thing to do for me here is to not respond to posts such as this, so I will not.
The Christian thing to do would be to not besmirch the name of God, Christians, impute motives when you have no idea, nor bear false witness against Christians.

Otherwise, if you think I'm wrong, to rebuke me. Leviticus 19:17-18. That is the Christian thing to do.

All of your posts will henceforth be subject to removal by me, until you act appropriately, repent, or justify your actions. If you make a claim for justification, I will ask another to mediate between our contentions so as you will get a fair hearing.

[The Kangaroo]

The Christian thing to do would be to not besmirch the name of God, Christians, impute motives when you have no idea, nor bear false witness against Christians.

Sir, with all my heart and with all due respect I do not believe I have done this.

Concerning the Salem Witch Hunt, I certainly did not impugn the participants as not Christian by any means. I simply alluded to the event as an example of the perils of attempting to institute theocracy.

Likewise concerning Roy Moore, you and I have a different opinion of the fellow. I believe he is a manipulative politician; you regard him otherwise. That's entirely okay. Some people like chocolate and some like vanilla. At no time did I suggest Moore was not a Brother in Christ, only that he has flaws as we all do. I did not in any form discuss his religious beliefs.

Otherwise, if you think I'm wrong, to rebuke me. Leviticus 19:17-18. That is the Christian thing to do.

Indeed I do, though the mechanics of "rebuking" escapes me and the scriptural reference flew over my head, especially the part about the mixed fabrics.

It appears you have singled me out for unfair treatment here merely for not being politically correct, which is not an offense according to the forum rules. You have questioned my integrity and my faith, while I did no such thing toward anyone else here including other posters, Moore, and the Salemites. In contrast you have permitted others to namecall against me with impunity and apparent encouragement.

All of your posts will henceforth be subject to removal by me, until you act appropriately, repent, or justify your actions. If you make a claim for justification, I will ask another to mediate between our contentions so as you will get a fair hearing.

Consider such done.