BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery

Subject: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Mobile
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 11:23 AM

OK, so I was just reading the wire reports that the 10 Commandments monument has been moved, and that while it was happening, the lunatic fringe outside the courthouse prayed that the movers would begin trembling while moving the thing. Apparently, any Christian concern for the well being of their fellow human beings isn't a large part of God's plan.

But what I truly don't get, is how the mainstream media can report this story with a straight face, as if these fucking lunatics were normal people like the rest of us, expressing a legitimate Christian point of view.

After all, the mainstream media did such a fine job of suggesting that the 10 million plus peace activists who protested the US war against Iraq in a single day, were the lunatic fringe. So why not these nut cases?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Mobile
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 12:12 PM

Oops! Thread title should read Montgomery, not Mobile. Can a Joe Clone fix that?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Mobile
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 12:30 PM

GUEST, one should really differentiate between Christians and "Pseudo-Christians," those who call themselves Christians, but who pay practically no attention to the teachings of Christ. That's what this bunch of ninnies are. Not everyone who calls himself or herself a Christian is a Christian, and this loopy crowd falls into that category.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Mobile
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 12:35 PM

Sorry Don Firth, you are right. After I posted this, I realized that I should have put the word Christian in parentheses. Then I realized that I'd put Mobile in the thread title, instead of Montgomery.

I'm beginning to think I should have stayed offline today...

From the NYT article:

"Protesters screamed ``God haters!'' and ``Let their wheels crumble!'' as the removal got under way."

I hope that this idiot is not only removed from the bench, but is disbarred for life. What a complete and utter waste of scarce government resources, this whole debacle is. If I lived in Alabama, I'd be ashamed to admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Mobile
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 12:37 PM

if I remember correctly, Judge Moore had the monument created on his own, and had it put INTO the building in the middle of the night, as a fait accompli.

Seems like he knew that this was not exactly a kosher ummmm...legal thing to do.

Seems like all over the world there are religious groups who are not content with the free and open practice of their religion, but insist on the right to impose it on everyone else.

Judge Moore kept saying that the Constitution gave him the right to "acknowlege" God, as if there were no doubt about the matter and HIS version of 'God' was the only one.

Once again..

"Freedom OF religion must imply freedom FROM religion for those who disagree"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Mobile
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 12:44 PM

in case my failure to change fonts made that hard to read:

"Freedom OF religion must imply freedom FROM religion for those who disagree"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 12:58 PM

Ahem, er...Amen to that, BillD!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 01:56 PM

And what boggles the mind is that this guy is a judge! OY!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 02:40 PM

He just happens to be a deeply religous judge!!

Oi, such tsuris!! Molly Ivins comes to mind-- in a related rant she wrote recently:

They are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of economics, the
wrong side of technology, the wrong side of progress and the wrong side of
the environment.

(She was talking about loonies, not Christians).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 02:53 PM

Well, these Christian loonies are also on the wrong side of God!

This guy isn't just a judge. He is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and the Alabaman authorities are just feeding this frenzy by saying they agree with the Chief Justice's desire to have the monument in the courthouse, but insist they must not violate the federal court order.

So those elected Alabama officials, like the Attorney General, are having their cake and eating it too.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 02:53 PM

BTW, thanks for fixing the thread name!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 03:06 PM

He was elected on the basis of having the 10 commandments in the statehouse. He fought an earlier court order to remove the 10 from a court where he was a circuit judge. He's got a fixation, methinks, that he thinks will take him to High Political Office.

Oops! He plumb forgot that getting slammed with a contempt of court charge could derail political plans. And I suspect that the Almighty has more to do that put up with That Bunch Down There.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 03:15 PM

It also strikes me that the Almighty might prefer that the 10 Commandments be kept instead of displayed. Like the one about not worshiping false gods, gods made of stone, perhaps....

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 03:18 PM

Perhaps we could get a recall vote to eject the State of Alabama and the rest of the lunatic Christian good ole boy south from the union.

The right wing nut Xtian cretins wouldn't get too far if they didn't have the federales to kick around, now would they?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Gareth
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 03:25 PM

Hmmm ! Why is it that Heinlien's novella "If this goes on !" aka "Revolt in 2100" becomes nearer and neare to reality ????

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 03:33 PM

Dunno Gareth, but here is a chronology of the events dating back to when Chief Loonie Man was sworn in:

Chronology of events

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: alanabit
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 04:15 PM

Some of the stories I read about the Fundamentalist right in America make me wonder if there is intelligent life on that continent. Fortunately, every now and then a thread like this comes along which makes me laugh so much that I realise there must be. We haven't even heard from Spaw, khandu or Little Hawk yet...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 04:15 PM

from that article....

Moore says, "To restore morality we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs."

right...from ignorance and superstition and desire to force others to shrug about their ignorance and to accept your particular superstitions...*sigh*

It is the height of gall to claim that you 'know' **the** source of human principles of guidance. It requires a contorted reading of history and a gross distortion of reason & logic. But, a clever man can easily do all of those things, hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Mark Clark
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 05:18 PM

Looks to me as though Moore is right at the top of the list to be Dubya's first Supreme Court nominee.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 05:31 PM

Moore's statement, "To restore morality we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs."

I resent the hell out of that!

Moore and twits like him seem to think that they have a direct pipeline to the Almighty, and this gives them the right and the authority to cram their beliefs down the throats of the rest of humanity. They also seem to think that everyone would run around raping, pillaging, and murdering were it not for constant reminders of eternal Hellfire or Heavenly reward. They have no concept that there are people in this world who do not believe in their idea of God, nor of any alleged Supreme Being at all, but who lead ethical, moral lives by anybody's standard because they have thought about it and behave as they do simply because it is the right thing to do. Some of these "unchurched" people lead more exemplary lives than many self-proclaimed "Christians" that I know. They don't need the threat with Hell or the bribe of Heaven.

I know a lot of genuine Christians, and they don't need the heaven or hell carrot and stick either. In fact, although I'm not the most devout of people, I do go to church regularly—but it's a church where they don't talk a lot about heaven and hell, they talk about respect and regard for others (regardless of race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation) and caring for those who are in need. I go there because these people don't stand around running their mouths, they get out and do. I don't see a lot of that coming from people like Moore, but that is what Jesus taught way back when.

I think some of these pseudo-Christians need to have constant reminders (like their graven images of the Ten Commandments) and keep a copy of the Bible handy (like the Boy Scout Handbook) to check every move they make because if they didn't, they would be the ones who do the raping, pillaging and murdering. They need the carrot and the stick themselves, and they think everyone else is like they are.

End of snarl.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: PageOfCups
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 05:35 PM

Well, if a ruling ever comes that posting religious tenets in governmental places is okay because it's "freedom of religion," then I'll be lobbying for the Wiccan rede to be posted right there next to the 10 commandments. Freedom of religion does apply to EVERY religion, right? Right?

PoC
who likes to add "under the Goddess" to the pledge of allegience just to see if people are paying attention...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 05:35 PM

Why feed the trolls, again?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 05:51 PM

Trying to start trouble, as usual, with a thread with the word 'Christian' in the title, aren't you WYSIWYG? Tsk tsk.

There is no trolling going on here, except yours. The rest of us are simply holding a civil conversation about a sensational story about news of the day.

You are making it appear, Susan, that you truly can't stand and/or won't tolerate, anyone criticizing your brethren.

Why even the televangelists are disagreeing over this one--it is Dobson vs Robertson, I hear, with the Wrong Rev. Pat claiming that the laws of man are, in fact, primary in this case, and not the other way 'round. The bleedin' heathen.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 05:52 PM

A few weeks ago on another thread I was discussing the tactics of Bush and Blair,in using their religious beliefs to influence the masses.I was immediately attacked from all sides for daring to refer to "the people " as simple.This action in Montgomery seems to me typical of religious simpletons.
I never cease to be amazed at the ability of these folk to suspend reality...Ake
The People are simple ..and not only in religious matters

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 06:08 PM

"I'll learn to work the saxophone
I'll play just what I feel
Drink Scotch whisky all night long
And die behind the wheel
They got a name for the winners in the world
I want a name when I lose
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide
Call me Deacon Blues"

So pour yourselves a nice Scotch whiskey, and enjoy a little more light reading:

"Just which commandments are the 10 Commandments?"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 06:15 PM

whoever strated this thread, although 'anonymous', was not exactly trolling in the classic sense. I would not have replied at all if the idea was simply to get us fighting among ourselves.

I AM sad that someone, even expressing strong opinion, was afraid/unwilling to have any identity, but it was entirely possible for someone else to have started a discussion of the Alabama situation with a 'gentler' approach, and still have elicited the same basic responses.

The issue involved with the monument is kind of an important one in our society, as it relates to "how to be fair to all and still impose nothing on anyone and not suggest that our government supports any particular version of religion."

This man, Justice Moore, is cut from the same cloth as Pat Robertson and the most extremist Muslim clerics and Mormon Elders.....they would TELL us, if they could, what to do, what to believe, when to think and how to act.

If the situation were that someone were trying to tell Judge Moore he could not put that monument at his church, I would be the first to argue on HIS side!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 06:33 PM

Bill D:

That particular Guest has been persistently anonymous for a long time in these parts, and is not only afraid to say who, but is also afeared to even say why.

But she's pretty smart, other wise...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 06:53 PM

Moore's statement, "To restore morality we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs."

First, the ten commandments are not all about morality. Some of them are; some are merely in support of a prescribed manner of worship of a given soi-disant "diety".

Even those which ARE about morality (as for instance, don't kill, honor your parents, don't lie, etc.), can hardly be said to be "the source from which all morality springs." These precepts had been around for a long time before the ten commandments came down the mountain.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 07:18 PM

Well, I've never shied away from declaring my Faith in Christ here at the Mudcat but I don't think that Jesus would be doing what this judge has done. Might of fact, I strongly believe that Jesus wouldn't want any part of it.

The judge argues that the American legal sysytem is based on the Ten Commandments yet only three of the commandments have found their way into our code of law.

I think it is also important to remember that the United States came about from a movement of folks who who didn't want to be forced to participate in the Church of England. *Protest* ants!

I think it is equally important to recognize the fact that here in the US, where folks have Faith choices, there is a much higher percentage of regular worshipers than in countries with secular governments...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 07:35 PM

The death throes of the Patriarchal Age are getting more strident and violent, aren't they? What I found most disturbing is what I've put in bold in the following from the chonology link:

Aug. 25, 2003: Monument supporters file suit in federal court in Mobile seeking to block the monument's removal. It is filed on behalf of two Alabama residents described as Christians who believe "the United States was founded upon Jesus Christ" and their freedom of religion is being violated.

I'd say those folks need to be rounded up and made to go through a history course. They should be able to answer questions about US history the same way in which candidates for naturalisation do.

In the meantime, as my daughter's fav. bumper sticker says, "God protect me from your followers!"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 07:41 PM

"came down the mountain"

If a omnicient Supreme Diety, no matter what you want to call it, wants to impose a strict set of rules, it, being all-knowing, ought to realize that someone has to go up that mountain and be reminded clearly and without ambiguity more often than every few thousand years! We poor mortals, who think we have free will, keep developing alternate opinions about the matter.

If authority in these matters is simply entrusted to generations of clergy who interpret to suit their own self-interest, is it any wonder that 'doubt' has ensued?

I draw one kind of conclusion from this situation, others see it differently. The **ONLY**
solution to disagreements of this sort is for everyone to act/worship/behave/believe etc., as they wish, in private and not try to impose specific moral and religious codes on the public at large.

What would that mean to those whose idea of proper behavior is to 'witness', 'preach' and 'spread the good news'? It would mean quite a problem, huh? Remember the cute line, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"?

boy, I wish it were all easier.....

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 08:01 PM

Well akenaton, I agree with you 1000%, but would also point out that all politicians profess to believe in some mainstream religion, Blair and Bush included. But that doesn't make any of them sincere about their professed beliefs, as the course of history and current events amply demonstrates. So the question becomes, how intelligent does one have to be to manipulate the religious fervor of sheep?

Now, before you all jump on my case, I am referring to the Xtian Loonie shepherds herding their flocks, and parading before their false gods, the Fox and CNN camera crews. I have no quarrel with folks who just go about their religious business without attempting to dictate their personal relgious (s)creeds to the general public, their neighbors, friends, work colleagues, children's teachers, public librarians, the local and national media, the judiciary, Congress, and all administrative branches of government.

Whoever the ringleader guy is down there in Montgomery, I just saw him ranting on MSNBC. When asked, he said he absolutely would not allow religious representatives of ANY religion but his to have decorative (please, let's not get carried away and refer to the monument as art) representations publicly displayed in the courthouse in a constitutionally allowed manner. Something about Hare Krishnas and MUSLIMS not being there when this country was founded.

He also didn't say whether his set of commandments were the one, true, proprietary sort of commandments I expect they are. But these loonies are so pig ignorant, they appear not to even know that there is no one, true set of commandments that all Jews and Christians agree upon.

But really, we shouldn't confuse them with facts like that. It is so much easier for them to use pictures to tell their story, rather than an articulate argument, in or out of a court of law.

Today, there were no struggles among them to read between the lines of the Republican right's patriotic-neurotics righteous scripting of this holy non-event. Thank God we were allowed to witness those manly Xtian men, shaking their fists in anger, screaming their rage to the heavens, to countenance their trembling anguish, right in front of the Fox cameras. Fox knows how to get the ratings--just give us those old time manly Xtian men, defending the commandments in a self-righteously sexy (in a Charlton Heston as Moses sort of way) to the REAL feminine flock of Professional Christian Wives and Daughters. The pictures at 10 will soon have those sinning women begging their masters to discipline them. They shall pronate their sinful, trembling, lascivious flesh in missionary positions under their NASCAR bubbas, and it will all be SO HOT in a Xtian Loonies sexualized way, that they all will continue their protest in Montgomery, and worshipping at the sacred altar of Fox all the way through the September sweeps...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 08:09 PM

GUEST
Very true....and very funny..

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 08:23 PM

oh, crap, 'guest'... it gets tiresome when someone on my side of the issue gets so carried away with nasty rhetortic that the message is lost in the stream of invective and verbal 'dumping'!

You can make a point without the layers of hyperbolé, can't you?...No, I guess not...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 08:24 PM

They are just getting started though--I hear Wrong Rev Attorney General of the Xtian Soldiers fired the opening shot in the porn wars today, just in time for September sweeps.

You have to keep feeding the Xtian loonie men, you see. This way, they can be tantalized and titillated with clips from porn films showing manly men humiliating, mutilating, and raping emancipated women and bimbos who are sexually unattainable to dumb ass men like themselves. The war porn syndrome has worn off. They need something sexier for the sweeps to keep Fox (ahem) on top.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 08:30 PM

Bill D, your prudery and humor deficit is living proof of why mainstream US society remains to the religious right of everyone on the planet except the ayatollahs and a handful of Hindu fundamentalists.

Please God, spare us from sanctimonious American posters, and deliver them to extolling their virtuousness in their own damn thread of self-righteous indignation.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 08:58 PM

This thread actually started off as an interesting discussion. It's a shame ANON.GUEST decided to switch back to his/her/its normal line of pseudo-intellectual gratuitous insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 09:01 PM

You're starting to lose it, GUEST. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 09:03 PM

Oh, this is the guest who says "whilst?" i didn't even know he was gendered to the feminine.

I went into the pro shop today at a golf course today, and a woman was there, telling the pro she got stung by a bee at the second hole. He didn't even pause or look up but just told her to "tighten your stance" (??)

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 09:08 PM

Don Firth, I beg to differ. I have lost nothing. My sense of humor and irony is fully intact. Although I do understand such things as a sense of humor and irony are often lost on more than a few American posters here.

I see all the usual Mudcat suspects have twitchy troll trigger fingers tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 09:23 PM

All the usual suspects would be artbrooks, Don Firth, and GUEST,heric?   The Three Amigos?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 09:30 PM

I think your being unfair on GUEST...these fundamentalists deserve to be exposed in a forthright manner ...If they got the upper hand we would all be squealing....

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 10:09 PM

Don Firth: Why don't you do a better job of choosing your friends. You and guest "jerk" are bookends when it suits your purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 10:20 PM

My, my you boys blush easily at a bit of harmless sexual innuendo.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 10:42 PM

Sorry I can't help myself fellas. But I have found the solution to the commandment crisis:

Click here!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 10:47 PM

(hi Bill)

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 11:12 PM

(hi, bill, part 2)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Deckman
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 11:22 PM

Hi Don ... YAWN! ... Oooopes! Excuse me please. I was sooooo bored while reading this stupid thread that I guess I just sorta fell asleep for a few moments.

There are a couple of things that really confuse me about a subject like this, as you and I have said in person several times.

First of all is the stupidity of the subject! You have your GAWD, I have mine. Mine is not yours ... yours is not mine. What's the issue? You have NO authority to force your GAWD on me, Nor do I.

Recognising that, everything said elsewise is .... verrrrry .... booring!

Looking forward to seeing you Sunday. The shop is very clean, the acoustics are swell, Judy is cooking like crazy. (yawn) CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 12:09 AM

The FUNNIEST part of the fired judge's protest speech was when he said
"We are tired of sodomy in our streets"

Are they just bored or is Montgomery AL really a wild and crazy town.

Heck I have never even seen that in Los Vegas.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 12:19 AM

Ah, best watch your step defending me akenaton. These guys take things way too personally, I suppose because they are just such good Christians. They aren't in any way tolerant of agnostics like myself, who are so joyously irreverent about Christians generally and Christianity in particular. They are deeply insulted when agnostics come in here and challenge their pious sense of themselves as Christians. It's always THOSE Christians who are the problem, never themselves. So they claim my irreverence about their Christianity is an insult and an affront to them.

Never mind how insulted and affronted some of the rest of us are by organized religion generally, and Christianity specifically.

C'est la guerre.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Chip2447
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 02:41 AM

I find it somewhat amusing that the judge in this case said that the Federal government couldnt intervene, and then the very next day was crying to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Federal courts ruling that the monument had to go...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Pied Piper
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 08:02 AM

How anyone can believe in a religion that assigns god a gender escapes me.
It seems to me that most religious people are Loonies of a greater or lesser degree, these fine distinctions seem irrelevant.
They all believe that there particular set of unsubstantiated fictions is RIGHT and when push comes to shove will kill anyone that does not cooperate.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 08:16 AM

Christian? Me? ANON.GUEST is more ignorent than I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Deacon Blues
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 09:17 AM

The subject of the thread is Christian loonies, not anonymous guests. How about we all stay on topic?

The biggest problem I have with many Christians, loonies or not, is their misperception that the US is a Christian state, when it is in fact a secular state, and the fact that so many of them lie about going to church and being good Christians.

The media routinely banters about figures like the ones I saw on CNN I think it was, last night. "77% of Americans think the monument should not have been moved!" they declared. The media also routinely uses bad statistics (polling which uses self-reporting, and it is well known that people will self-report in ways to make them look good on questions like "do you regularly attend church". They lie, in another words. Gallup and other polls routinely report that about 40% of the US population are regular church goers. However, when surveys are taken of actual church attendance by counting the numbers of people with their asses in a pew, that figure falls to about 20%.

So what is the morality of a) believing the lies the right wing Christians tell; b) telling lies to make it appear as if one is religious when one is not?

My answer: most US Christians are a bunch of phonies, and like the rest of the Republican right, use their religion to club others into submitting to their repressive, regressive agenda that favors the wealthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 09:47 AM

The preamble to the constitution of the State of Alabama:

"We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, 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..."

Section 3 of the constitution of the State of Alabama:

"That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles."

The impression that I have been getting is that Roy Moore is trying to prove a point, ergo, that 1) the State of Alabama does recognize the existence of God in their constitution, and 2) a public display of faith does not go against the state constitution unless it is placed there "by law." By the same token, placing a monument in a public place does not constitute making a law establishing a religion - since the State of Alabama is not Congress, and the monument is not a law.

Here's what I think. One, there are such bigger fish to fry and this really isn't worth people wasting worry over it. Two, I'm not sure I appreciate the use of religious faith to prove a constitutional point. Three, some of these people may very well be loonies, but they're standing up for something they believe in. Maybe you don't agree with it, and that's fine. But don't fault them for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 10:03 AM

(hi, bill)????
you'd stoop to say "hi" to a humorless prude? Wow! What IS this place coming to?

Didja hear the one about the prude who walks into the whorehouse and asks the Madame for ..... oh, never mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Deacon Blues
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 10:04 AM

"But don't fault them for it."

I disagree. Manipulation, lying, misrepresentation of facts are all things these people deserve the fault and blame for--as do their tactics. Not the tactics of civil disobedience or legitimate (even if illegal) protest. But the political tactics of charlatans and carpetbaggers. They also deserve fault and blame for use of those tactics.

You have summarized the arguments being used by Moore succinctly Casual Observer. Where I disagree is with your interpretation that these people are operating with an open and sincere religious agenda, rather than a secretive and subversive political one. To create a judicial crisis at these levels has nothing to do with the religious beliefs of one judge, and is truly despicable. This manufactured "religious crisis" has everything to do with the political agenda of the Republican right, who routinely manipulate and exploit Southern prejudices to their own partisan political advantage, in a blatant attempt to undermine our secular democracy. And I most certainly fault them for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Pied Piper
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 11:20 AM

I'm shore all your American Nazis are very sincere in their hatred and bigotry doesn't make 'em nice people.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Deacon Blues
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 11:41 AM

I often flinch when I see people use the word Nazi in online conversations, but Pied Piper is right to invoke the term in this instance. This group of Southern extremists are the religious wing of the American Nazi political movement.

One of the parties to the federal lawsuit who sued to have the monument removed, is the Southern Poverty Law Center. At their website, they say this about Moore:

"Moore became known as "the Ten Commandments judge" in the 1990s after two highly publicized lawsuits contested his hanging a Ten Commandments plaque in his Etowah County courtroom. He also gained national attention for incendiary remarks he made in a recent legal opinion that declared homosexuals "inherently evil" and implied that the state has authority to confine and even execute gay people."

Do you suppose 77% of Americans support those beliefs?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 11:54 AM

GUEST,pdq, I don't know what you're talking about. If I could PM you, I would ask you that way, but I can't, so. . . . Oh, hell, forget it! This thread has degenerated to the usual stupidities surrounding this subject. I've got more productive things to do. I'm gone.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 12:08 PM

Bye! Bye! Anyway, there are 50 other threads where you can ply your 24/7 Bush-bashing.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 12:13 PM

I'm not convinced Roy Moore is operating with a sincere religious agenda. I believe I stated that I'm not sure I appreciate the use of religious faith as a test to the Constitution. It is exploitative. But I also believe that some of those people are sincere, or at least think they are. Perhaps they do not realize they are being misled as to the true nature of the situation. I'm sure many of them believe it's about religion, when in fact it's about constitutionality. They may not realize that the windmills they're fighting are really just...windmills.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Deacon Blues
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 12:17 PM

I think a lot of these "religious controversies" could be short circuited if all levels of government purged the Christian ethos from government, once and for all. No more swearing to the Christian god in oaths, no more swearing not to lie on the bible in courts of law, no more invoking "one nation under god" crap. Just cleanse the entire system of all remaining vestiges of Christian domination of this country.

On that point I agree with Moore. We have only begun to purge the Christian rule from our secular state. Let us hurry and finish the job, and end the hypocrisy once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 12:41 PM

Well, yes, but there are numerous other gods out there to worry about: the dollar, military supremacy, youthful good looks, material goods, fame, etc...which are probably influencing everyday decision-making far more than the classic "God" of the Christian religion could ever hope to...

So, what are you gonna do about that?

Whatever things people place the most faith in...those ARE their gods. And for a majority of people today that which they place the most faith in is money. The old movie "The Magic Christian" demonstrated that in a humourous fashion.

The reason it says "In God We Trust" on American money is not because people actually trust in God, but because money IS the dominant god of this culture and of their hopes and dreams. Therefore the statement as printed on the coin is completely appropriate...and utterly tragic at the same time. To remove it would devalue not the deity of traditional religion but the coin or the bill itself.

To prove my point: Build a traditional religious shrine (to anything at all) somewhere and a paltry number of pilgrims and tourists will visit it. Build a casino, and fifteen thousand or more crazed worshippers will pour into it daily in search of that in which they place their ultimate faith.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Deacon Blues
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 12:46 PM

I forgot to mention, in regards to the sincerety of the protestors, that the state of Alabama has the worst education system in the US. It comes in at 50. As its Southern neighbors have grown and prospered, Alabama has lagged behind, especially in educational achievement. Education there is chronically underfunded, due to it's feudal tax laws. In 1990, The Birmingham News, the state's largest newspaper, wrote an excellent series of editorials advocating tax reform. The series won the Pulitzer Prize but failed to sway the Legislature.

The state's tax code is firmly rooted in the 19th century, when the canon of white supremacy governed politics and agrarian interests controlled the economy. Determined to protect the interests of wealthy property owners, Alabama lawmakers -- many of whom were wealthy property owners -- enshrined much of the tax code in the state constitution, written in 1901. As a result, taxes are not only among the lowest in the nation, but the tax code is also among the least progressive, hoisting a staggering load onto the backs of the poor while sparing the wealthy much of a burden.

Enter the scene, one Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama tax law professor. While studying theology during a sabbatical, she wrote an essay criticizing the Alabama tax code, which imposes an effective tax rate of 12 percent on the poorest and 3 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers, as lacking Christian charity. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, a conservative Republican and evangelical Christian who has long opposed tax hikes, agreed with Ms Pace Hamill, and got a tax reform referendum on the ballot for Sept 9th, to raise his state's total taxes by more than a billion dollars, by raising taxes on the wealthy while also lowering taxes for the poor.

The United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Alabama Southern Baptist Convention, among others, have joined with Riley and support his tax reform proposal. But since the culture of Southern right wingers and Christian conservatives believe that ANY tax increases are sinful, there is a backlash campaign against the proposal from the Republican and Christian right, both in Alabama and nationally. Even though the national Christian Coalition president Roberta Combs has praised Riley's tax reform plan, the Christian Coalition of Alabama opposes it. Several national conservative groups, including Americans for Tax Reform, have pledged to work against the proposal.

Considering that context and background to the 10 commandments controversy, is it any wonder that these poorly educated evangelists believe that the 10 commandments are the foundation upon which the American judicial system was built?

Let us not confuse exploitation and manipulation of the poorly educated, brainwashed Southern evangelical cult by the rich and poltically powerful, with sincere belief in "the cause of Christian martydom". These people have been brainwashed into believing themselves to be victims. That is the way they are most useful to right wing Republicans, who need to keep them stupid and gullible, so they'll vote the way they want them to. You can bet they don't want better educated Alabamans, any more than they want to see tax reforms.



bais leading a revolutionary campaign to raise his state's total taxes by more than a billion dollars while also lowering taxes for the poor.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 12:58 PM

OH! So that's what's bugging GUEST,pdq. What does "Bush bashing" have to do with this thread? Unless, of course. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 01:07 PM

There are always two sides to every coin.

A time or two, before, in this forum, I have mentioned that I am an atheist married to a Jehovah's Witness. We all have our heartfelt and well-thought-out points of view---we think. I know that when the stands conflict it will cause anguish for all. These are not loonies. They are folks like us who have strong feelings on many topics that divide people in this much too in-your-face society these days. Good people, it just isn't black and white. And some things, when nobody is being killed over it, are simply not worth fighting over. This, to my way of looking at it, is one of those times. Please----set a better example for our president here in the USA.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Deacon Blues
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 01:37 PM

It is impossible to gain any meaningful understanding of complex, multi-faceted issues and events, by simplistically reducing them to cliches about there being "two sides".

I will say it again. Many of the parties involved in this manufactured, sensationalized "controversy" are neither sincere, nor well intentioned. This situation has nothing to do with anyone's personal religious beliefs, and everything to do with the secretive and manipulative political agenda of the radical right in the US. The demonstrators are carpetbagging "ministers" and their gullible, poorly educated Southern evangelical cult followers. The "10 Commandments Judge" is himself a cynical and manipulative politician, in this for his own personal and political gain. The Republican leaning media outlets are playing this story to the hilt, to keep feeding the right wing's political and religious dupes and fools, or to create the illusion of legitimacy, and to bestow that legitimacy upon the agenda of the Republican right. That agenda includes imposition of Christianity on the secular US state through the judiciary, in order to sidestep the Constitution's ban on doing it through the legislative branch. That agenda is actually treasonous, but no one will call it that. Rather, they focus on the smokescreen of the Ann Coulter's, who demonize their political opponents as "enemies and traitors" as a tactic of distraction.

I also disagree with Little Hawk's contention that cleansing all levels of government in the US of it's Christian ethos, would be a waste of time and resources. It would do more to dispossess the political right of their success in imposing their devious and treasonous agenda, than any other strategy could do in a hundred years of partisan fighting over control of the government, the economy, and the resources of the country. These people need to be exposed for the frauds that they are, which is impossible as long as the politicians keep appeasing the Christian right with a wink and a nod, and the Christian ethos so prominently displayed in the nation's everyday mythology and symbolism.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amergin
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 01:48 PM

Little Hawk forgot to emntion one other god to worry about....william shatner.....

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 04:18 PM

Try a few of these enlightened organizations, to get a grip on who these folks are:

http://www.dixienet.org/

http://www.ccbama.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 04:33 PM

Yes, Shatner-worship is a pervasive and highly disturbing problem, all right. Fortunately, only harmless idiots generally fall prey to it... :-)

Well, Deacon Blues, I would be as happy as you to see the political right in the USA robbed of their success in using primitive Christianity to manipulate public opinion. I would be happy to see politicians of any stripe thwarted in using religion in that fashion.

And I believe in God...but I don't belong to any given religion. To put it another way: the caveman-mentality "god" that religious fundamentalists seem to imagine (a combination of Santa Claus and the "Hanging Judge") is not what I imagine when I think of God. Not even close. I imagine an energy and intelligence that informs and imparts and loves and is inseparably joined with all that exists, right down to the atomic level.

Fundamentalists would envision me as some sort of dangerous heretic...as would most practical politicians, I suppose, given the fact that I am about equally suspicious of the hidden motives of both camps...their primary motive being greed for power and control over others.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 04:38 PM

Geez, Art Thieme's simplistic, BillD is a prude, Don Firth doesn't know how to pick his friends...what's gyrl to do?!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 04:49 PM

Oh, LH, you're just projecting again!!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 05:01 PM

Think so? Maybe I should seek a career in the film industry! :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 05:29 PM

Sure, if you eradicated Christian ethos, it would only be replaced by something else. But let's not obscure the issue by confusing Christianity with religion. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Art Thieme, I think your comments are very well-put.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 06:10 PM

Wisely said, ole Art.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 06:47 PM

Well, posibly I misspoke. Alas, the "two sides of the coin" phrase may be a bit of a cliche. I should've used the other more inclusive cliche which says, "There are 360 degrees on every circle" Maybe even 90,000,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way----And for each of those stars there is a strongly held opinion on which people will march, protest, scream and even strap bombs on themselves and end their one-and-only LIFE. From my point on the big cirrcle, it seems that this is the only life they are going to have----no matter what mumbo-jumbo their wishful thinking (hope ?)) thought patterns have led them into.

I just hope that their conclusions are a comfort when their human frames are blown apart in a blinding flash.

People, none of it means a damn thing in the long run. Sit down and relax. Turn off your computer and read a good book.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Gareth
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 07:27 PM

Funny Art, I took your advice, unfortunatley the nearest book to hand was If this goes on

The Reverend Nemiah Scudder for President, anyone ??????

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 07:33 PM

Well, this is the only life they're ever going to have that's exactly like this one, anyway, so why waste it bickering over religion? I agree. It's not worth fighting over.

Any number of good books out there, after all, as Art suggested.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 08:52 PM

Are we discussing wounded male egos here, or the thread topic?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: LadyJean
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 10:48 PM

Niccolo Macciavelli advised any prospective princes to push Christianity for the peasants, but avoid it themselves. Whenever a politician waxes religious, I catch a whiff of Macciavelli. I'd have to know more about the judge's record, on and off the bench, before I called him a Christian. Does he temper his justice with Christian mercy? Is he a friend to the poor? Does he try to love his neighbor even when his neighbor is a scum sucking slimeball. (That's the really hard one!)
It has occurred to me that if taking the Lord's name in vain were illegal, you'd have to arrest most of us. Perhaps they could make it illegal in Alabama, and raise some revenue for the state, by fining everyone who says Oh My God!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Kim C
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 06:40 AM

Yeah, but then you have to define exactly what "in vain" means. I think we had a thread on that some time ago...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 08:33 AM

The Ten Commandments are Jewish to start with anyway, and Muslim as well (restated in the Quran). If sticking them up on a monument counts as "establishing a religion", that must be a pretty wideranging kind of religion.

Now worshiping a document written by a bunch of blokes 200 years ago as Holy Writ, that does seem a bit like establishing a state religion...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 09:55 AM

The trick is not to Worship the 1st Amendment, just to believe in the separation of church and state as a good thing for the people thereof. Then what was written a couple of centuries ago makes a lot of sense - let people reach their own consensus without resorting to the supernatural, or to royalty, or to anyone else's so-called right to tell you what to think.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 10:29 AM

But what church is supposed to be involved here? The joint Catholic-Protestant-Jewish-Muslim-Mormon Confabulation?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 10:46 AM

Yes - the Church of the God of Abraham. Covers all Christian, Jewish and Moslem believers. Excludes any non-monotheist, whether theistic or atheistic.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Deacon Blues
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 10:54 AM

McGrath, here in the states we have this phenomenon known as evangelical Christians. They may be from a number Protestant sects, but those who are usually working the extreme right wing political agenda are also referred to as fundamentalist Christians. The Protestant sect that group of so-called Christians are usually affiliated with is Southern Baptist. Because of the history of the US apartheid system, there are black Southern Baptists sects, and white Southern Baptists sects. Is that confusing enough for you?

There is no true equivalent to the Southern Baptist Protestant sect anywhere else in the world, that I am aware of. It is uniquely American. Their religious roots are mostly Calvinist from what I can tell, but I don't know much about the history of the Southern Baptist religion. Maybe someone else can comment upon it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Deacon Blues
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 11:05 AM

BTW, I was going to mention that the link provided above to Dixie Net is to a site run by the League of the South, a hate group with branches across the Deep South. You can read about the hate groups by clicking on this link to a US map at the Southern Poverty Law Center here:

http://www.tolerance.org/maps/hate/index.html

It is an excellent website.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 11:11 AM

if you read carefully what Roy Moore says, it will be clear that he is doing a convoluted part rhetorical, part legal, part religious spin to support his position.

"We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment."

" No judge has the authority to impose his will on the people of a state, and no judge has the constitutional authority to forbid public officials from acknowledging the same God specifically mentioned in the charter documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. "

He is claiming that that the constitution requires him/us to "acknowlege" God..etc..etc..and that stopping him breaks the law!

One presumes that if he found himself in a country whose constitution had said merely "you all be nice to each other, hear?" that his postion would be otherwise...hmmm?

Is "right" dependant on who gets there first and gets their choice of words put into a document? And if so, can a 'majority' change those words later and amend "right"?

Look back at that word "acknowlege" which Judge Moore uses constantly! It is a key to the whole issue. If I don't believe in a god, how can I "acknowlege" one? "Acknowleging" presumes that one accepts the existence and authority of what one is "acknowleging". The whole POINT of separation of church & state is that different people "acknowlege" different dieties or manifestions of dieties (or none at all) and that the only fair way to operate is to allow all, but officially support no specific one!

Naturally, this does not set well with those who have a serious emotional committment to ONE version of truth!...And they flatly do not care what arguments or pressure or twists of logic it takes to get their set of rules in place.

Once more..

"Freedom OF religion must imply freedom FROM religion for those who disagree"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 11:18 AM

Here you go McGrath--this page gives a quick overview of the controversies surrounding Southern Baptist religion and religious history. Don't worry if you are still confused after reading it, as most Southern Baptists are just as, if not more, confused about their denomination as the rest of us are.

http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm#Views%20of%20Baptist%20Origins

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 11:21 AM

This discussion/controversy is a perfect example of the issue being lost in the maelstrom. I would ask the his honor one question. What would his response be if I decided that I was going to disobey all of his rulings that I had a moral issue with? Respect for the rule of law is what makes for a stable society. This is another example of the right wing demanding the good old days, except where it doesn't agree with their view of what the good old days really were.

The supposed "Judeo-Christian" values that our system of laws are built on are really universal principles of right and wrong that are found in many philosophies, value systems, and religions.

I am sure that these protestors are sincere, and probably nice folks. What the hell does all that have to do with the issue.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 11:25 AM

BillD, you have to understand that Moore's position isn't about god per se. It is about this particular religious sect's extremely narrow, recently invented interpretation of how to approach the scriptures (see the above link), and by extension (because of the reference to god in the constitution), to the constitution as their religion's legal code.

These lunatics are a rapidly shrinking sect of Southern Baptists, who through their religious right jihad of the past 25 years, not only hijacked the largest religion in the US south and west, but the political establishment in those regions as well.

Most lunatics are harmless. The leaders of this right wing jihad are the living definition of dangerous lunatics.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 11:34 AM

Someone please quote for me that part of the Constitution where the phrase "separation of church and state" is actually used.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 11:41 AM

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



Note that this is the tip of an iceberg as far as church-state legal discussion is concerned.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 11:42 AM

Bill: Moore is in a deep pickle. I believe he believes he is ethically and morally obligated to accept that what is called revealed law illuminates civil law. This is a very deep philosophical, bedrock part of legal theory. I don't believe him to be a bubba, nor Machiavellian.

Fundamentally, law is the search for justice. The laying out of a Constitution is only one step in the machinery for seeking out and implementing justice. Theorists speak of natural law, i.e. an ethical truth of the matter that could be sought out with a perfect legal mechanism. It contemplates a truth that is outside the human mind. Most people reject the concept, and (rather cynically) replace it only with human whims, desires, self-interest and folly as explaining the legal system.

Moore believes in revealed law, as I said, and he supports his position that it has valid (indeed mandatory) application, by reference to ancient English law, which has been expressly adopted by many US state constitutions, including Alabama's. He further backs it up with citations to classic theorists, such as Blackstone.

You may have noticed that I have been delaying the description of revealed law. Yes, that is because I did not want to get too many of you all riled up at the outset. Revealed law refers to the illumination of natural law by, as McGraw terms it, Holy Writ. That is, by divine revelation. Yes, by Scripture.

Now, if some of you have not stroked out yet, let me continue by saying yes, he takes it over the top. He uses his personal predilections when interpreting scripture, as so many are wont to do. He can, as is the nature of law, support what he wants to accomplish by the way he shines his flashlight on the source, in this instance scripture. That's what lawyers do. So it can offend the hell out of anyone who doesn't want that source referenced. But his right to do so is, indeed, supported by authoritative writings in England and America.

"Separation of Church and State," as many point out, is an ambiguous and incorrect statement of the constitutional proscription against the state sponsored establishment of religion. Question whether a belief in revealed law by a judge is State sponsored establishment of religion. You can argue it both ways. But the essence of the argument reaches fundamental principals. No one is going to scream their way into winning that argument.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 12:15 PM

GUEST, heric said: Question whether a belief in revealed law by a judge is State sponsored establishment of religion.

Judge Moore's belief in revealed law is NOT "State-sponsored establishment of religion", plainly. He may believe as he likes.

BUT his use of his State-originated powers makes his actions relative to the monument State-sponsored action. Then we have the argument as to whether that action is tantamount to establishment of religion or a religion. I happen to believe that it does.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 12:29 PM

Acting as a State representative in his role as Chief Justice of Alabama, he caused the construction of a religous code inscribed in stone to be placed in a state government public building. That pretty well covers the question as far as I can see.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 12:39 PM

Yes that's pretty simple. But I thought the question also encompassed whether he is a charlatan (and whether all fundamentalists are ignorant and detestable, which I won't address.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 12:40 PM

heric..." But the essence of the argument reaches fundamental principals. "

I believe this is essentially what I said, with elaboration and speculation added.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 12:49 PM

Yes, Bill. I believe the same. (I can't tell whether you think that's a bad thing, though.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 12:52 PM

Well, in one respect all organized religion is charlatan in its nature, or at least a serious compromise.

And as always, the justification offered is "necessity", the all-time favorite whinge of dictators, controllers, autocrats, facists, and other low-lifes through the centuries.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 01:15 PM

ok, heric *smile*...just wasn't sure whether you were elaborating or restating or 'missing' my point...It do get complicated like this!

(and of course, if you agree with me, it is a GOOD thing..*grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 01:24 PM

On his monument, did anyone specifically notice Commandment #2? How does Chief Justice Moore square that command with his stone 'image'?

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Image \Im"age\, n. [F., fr. L. imago, imaginis, from the root of
    imitari to imitate. See Imitate, and cf. Imagine.]
    1. An imitation, representation, or similitude of any person,
       thing, or act, sculptured, drawn, painted, or otherwise
       made perceptible to the sight; a visible presentation; a
       copy; a likeness; an effigy; a picture; a semblance.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 01:39 PM

It do especially when we're mucking about in troller threads such as this one. I do think the motivations of a character like this Moore guy are truly fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 01:47 PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That says to me, that the government can't make any laws about religion, and they can't stop anyone from practicing whatever religion they choose, wherever they choose to practice it. It doesn't say that all vestiges of any religion should be removed from all public buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 02:46 PM

The judiciary, though, is a part of the state. The state that shall make no laws regarding religion. That includes de facto creation of law through judicial decision-making, ie what is often referred to nowadays as "judicial activism". The sort of judicial activisim Moore is engaging in is a tactic being used by the radical right to do an end run around the constitution's first amendment, and the legislative branches of government.

People need to be very clear about this. The ultimate goal of this group of dangerous lunatics, is to have their narrow, fundamentalist Southern Baptist sect operating de facto as a state religion. They are not willing to tolerate ANY other religions, and say so all the time. They are not willing to tolerate Buddhists, Muslims, Jews (even though they keep invoking the Judeo word), Catholics, or anyone else's religion, in THEIR legal interpretations. That too, is what makes them so dangerous.

These people are subverting religion, the law, and the secular democratic traditions the country was actually founded on.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 03:54 PM

Here's one of history's experiments with state religion. Generally not a great benefit.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 05:10 PM

Southern Baptists don't own the Ten Commandments.

I stillcan't se how any of this has anything to do with establishing a state religion.

All sounds like two bunches of fundamentalists squaring up to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 05:42 PM

McG: The meaning of the phrase has evolved to mean a prohibition on state-sponsored promotion of any religion. (Or, at least, promoting anything less than all religions - But even then some atheists will bring suit, b/c then they've been excluded.)

If state (taxpayer) funds are involved, directly or indirectly, for something such as maintenance of a religious whatever, there's trouble.

For example, if a government entity leases land to the Boy Scouts, and Boy Scouts espouse religious viewpoints, then the lease must be at fair market value. (The Boy Scouts can try to be non-denominational, and even try to present evidence of Jewish and Muslim members, but that's not good enough to prevent suit by atheists.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 06:35 PM

It is not a case of establishing a religion; the body of law that has accrued since the First Amendment on this point has built up a strong tradition against the state favoring any one religion. Since not all religions use the word God or even the concept, it is generally considered outside the pale for any governmental agent to promote any aspect of God in an official capacity. And rightly so, too -- if anything in the universe is truly a private affair it is the individual's standing before God, and vice-versa.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 06:59 PM

We have a political problem here and not a religious one. The moral authority is being used to service a political end. What else is new? It's the history of religion. The question as to what the Founding Fathers would say about the way the law is being handled in Alabama is quite clear. They would be appalled.

I think the Statement is ambiguous but not incorrect. It's subject of course to interpretation. This is the nature of laws in general.
They need to be updated to fit present times and they must be tested in court to determine their validity.

I think one way to handle it would be to insist on the Code of Hanarabi from early Indian culture to be placed alongside of the Commandments since many scholars agree that this was the basis for the Commandments historically. This would give the proponents of the Commandments a little necessary education.

Frank Hamilton








"Separation of Church and State," as many point out, is an ambiguous and incorrect statement of the constitutional proscription against the state sponsored establishment of religion. Question whether a belief in revealed law by a judge is State sponsored establishment of religion. You can argue it both ways. But the essence of the argument reaches fundamental principals. No one is going to scream their way into winning that argument.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 07:06 PM

It should be noted that the Southern Baptists (and I am not one) is a religious body with a specific belief structure. I have no idea if Justice Moore is, or claims to be, a Southern Baptist. There are a lot of very conservative, or fundamentalist (if you prefer) Christian sects in the deep South. This is the official policy statement of the denomination on the issue of separation of church and state:
We stand for a free church in a free state. Neither one should control the affairs of the other. We support the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with its "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses.

We do, of course, acknowledge the legitimate interplay of these two spheres. For example, it is appropriate for the state to enact and enforce fire codes for the church nurseries. It is also appropriate for ministers to offer prayer at civic functions. Neither the Constitution nor Baptist tradition would build a wall of separation against such practices as these. Their website is here.

There are nut cases to be found in any organized religion, including atheism, but it is often useful to find out what the actual position of the body is before beginning to throw stones.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 07:15 PM

"it is generally considered outside the pale for any governmental agent to promote any aspect of God in an official capacity."

So how come it seems the acting President of the US can't make any kind of public statement without mentioning God? I'd have thought that was a more serious breach of this "principle" than any carved bit of stone.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 07:23 PM

Because he is a git.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 07:35 PM

Art brooks...Thats not good enough ..What about all the gits who voted for him..Recently,I heard Alister Cooke interviewing some American college students about foriegn policy.I was appalled to hear most of them reply that they didnt know much about it but they were "sure their leaders would never do anything wrong".
Why are so many Americans so politicaly naive.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Deacon Blues
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 08:21 PM

I do think Moore is raising a legitimate point when he says that we invoke the Christian god all the time in government sponsored events, buildings, and rituals. He is correct to draw attention to the hypocrisy of those in the US who say on the one hand, we must have separation of church of state, and on the other, we must invoke the Christian god in all of our important rituals and ceremonies (ie swearing in and oath taking).

It is hypocritical, and the practice should be ended. In this day and age, when there are so many religions, denominations and sects of religions, agnostics, atheists, and people who profess to worship in non-traditional ways (ie New Age pagans, wiccans, etc) we shouldn't be invoking the Christian god in any of our government documents, rituals and ceremonies, etc. The time has long since passed when we should cleanse all levels of government of ANY vestiges of religion, period. The invocation of the Christian god is something our secular nation shouldn't do anymore.

Now, if Justice Moore would care to assist in elminating the hypocrisy by cleansing all levels of government within the US and it's territories, in order to be literal minded about all this, I'm right beside him on it!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 08:24 PM

It is not political naivete -- it is naievete about life and what humans are really like. This comes from inexperience, up to a certain age -- you don't handle enough reality as a child to be able to make very good judgements. After a certain age, around 18 perhaps, the same disability is attributable to television.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amergin
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 08:32 PM

cause in the schools kids are taught the leaders are infallible...

the thing with washington and the cherry tree is taught as fact...it is taught as fact that lincoln only went to war to free the slaves... and that the confederates were all slave owning traitors....and that communism and socialism is evil...
\
the true history of the us is rarely taught...the labour fights...the free speech fights...all swept under the rug....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 01:54 PM

Being a git - though I'd say twit is closer to the truth - might be a reason for Bush doing it, but it doesn't explain why it doesn't get him into trouble, if the law really is that clear-cut on all this.

Looked at from outside it really does seem that, leaving aside places like Saudi Arabia, there can't be a country in the world which has a more established national religion than the USA, in real and effective terms.