Roy Moore announces candidacy in Alabama gubernatorial race

Bunyon,

After our little tiff on the South, I've tried to be very kind, but he still hasn't addressed that question (endorsement/coercion) which is critical. Actually, a couple of times, I started out tougher in my responses to him, but I don't like arguments becoming personal attacks myself, so I edited them. I'd like a good debate with him but not interested in a personal battle. And, actually, even in that little tiff, though I was offended at his comments about the South, I don't recall him making any personal attacks.

And thank you very kindly for your career change recommendation. Actually, that was pretty much my dream for years. I'm pretty much a walking Harry Chapin song for "dreams gone by", funny how life comes along. But this subject is definitely my passion, one that I've spent a lot of time reading and studying. I try to study both the history of the period as well as Supreme Court decisions on this issue (and some others) as they come out.

And I must say I've been very happy at the recent spate of threads here at BB on establishment clause issues. I used to spend a lot of time over at Internet Infidels Discussion Board and I must say that, generally, conservative Christians who believe as we do on this issue aren't nearly as well-studied and well-read as those folks. I have pleaded for such a forum here at BB and the closest I got was the History forum when it appeared. It's sad that there's not nearly the interest here at BB as there is over there. The debate here is enjoyable, though. Even though you and I disagree on Moore himself, I think we're in pretty solid agreement on Establishment clause issues. And I've also enjoyed the debates here with Johnv. There is something very satisfying to me about being able to have a strong debate over something I feel strongly about without it becoming a flame war, and I think all concerned here have done an excellent job. IIDB has a forum dedicated solely to church-state issues and I hope that the recent interest demonstrated here motivates some of the mods/admins to think about one here.

Thanks again for your kind comments.

 

You said the 80% claim to be born again. I repeat, that's false. 80% of Americans identify themselves with a Christian religion. That doesn't mean 80% claim to be born again.

None of the state's existing charters, preambles, etc, are overtly, or remotely Christian. Not one mentions Jesus or scripture. At best, they can be said to be deist. Deist is not Christian. Most any monotheistic non-Christian religion qualifies as deist.

That would be on our money. It has only been there for 50 years. We seemed to survive the first 150 years just fine without it there.

Interestingly, that's exactly what happenned during WW2. Thousands of naturalized and American born US citizens of Japanese ancestry were locked up without cause. And more than a few Christians today, on this board in fact, have no problem with it. Yes, it was wrong morally, but unfortunately, it was legal, as was the evil of slavery prior to that. I've said numerous times that slavery was wrong. However, it was legal and permissible. Elective abortion is wrong, but it has never been completely illegal, even before Roe v Wade.

It need not be. It is, however, a respecting of a religious estabishment, which is illegal.

No, I'm saying, and SCOTUS agrees, that endorsement is respecting an establishment of religion.

No, it prohibits the respecting of a religious establishment. Otherwise, Amendment I would read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion" It does not. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Well, we live under the law, my friend, so what they say goes for us, until such a time that such a decision is overturned. Scripture requires us to submit to the government.

It was a correct decision, though, imo, not morally appropriate. The decision said that separate but equal was permissible, at that point in time. However, the ruling was overturned later after years and years of racial separate but equal practice proved that separate was not equal. Had there really been equal facilities for separate races, it's likely that the decision would not have been overturned, at least not at that time.

We still have separate but equal examples today, such as separate changing and bathroom facilities for different genders. In fact, there have been a few cases brought to lower courts that challenged separate facilities, but those separate facilities have been upheld, since no inequality between facilities for different genders has been shown to exist as a rule (unlike in racial cases).

It's clear we're singing from the same hynal here. It's not the process we have issue with. It's the reason for some rulings we differ on.

[ October 13, 2005, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Johnv,

I think our major disagreement is over the word "respecting", but you have yet to address the interpretation of that word I have twice discussed and sought your opinion on previously in this thread.

 

Johnv,

Well, we live under the law, my friend, so what they say goes for us, until such a time that such a decision is overturned. Scripture requires us to submit to the government.

That's what I meant when I said legally yes, but that doesn't make them correct just because they have made a pronouncement. I also said that I agree with judicial review, and I agree their decisions are binding. My point is that a decision from the bench doesn't make that decision correct, which is the reason their decisions are continually debated. I'm talking about as far as the Constitution is concerned, not the Supreme Court. As you said, "It's not the process we have issue with. It's the reason for some rulings we differ on."

BTW, from reading your comments on Plessy v. Ferguson, I'm curious: do believe in a "living" Constitution whose meaning changes with time as to a particular issue?

We still have separate but equal examples today, such as separate changing and bathroom facilities for different genders.

John, you can't be serious.

 

If a living document means the meaning and intent changes over time, no. It is a living document in regards to application only. But that phrase has unfortunately been hijacked by those that espouse judicial activism instead of constructionist judicial interpretation.

What I mean by application only is this: Take the issue of voting rights. Had the issue of women and voting rights been resolved sans constitutional amendment, and a case broght to scotus today on the issue, and, if SCOTUS were to rule that the right to vote is constutionally guaranteed to all person without regard to gender, I doubt there would be many people who would call that activism.

Are separate changing rooms and restrooms not an example of something being permissibly separate but equal?

It appears the word constitutionally applied simply means "to recognize".

 

Johnv,

But that phrase has unfortunately been hijacked by those that espouse judicial activism instead of constructionist judicial interpretation.

We're definitely agreed.

If SCOTUS were to rule that the right to vote is constutionally guaranteed to all person without regard to gender, I doubt there would be many people who would call that activism.

They couldn't because that is guaranteed by the 19th Amendment. As to the "Constitutionally guaranteed to all persons", that is not entirely true because the Constitution doesn't set out guidelines as to the right to vote, except as the 15th and 19th Amendments specify. Constitutionally, except for those amendments, States set those voting guidelines.

My apologies if this qualifies as nit-picking, just want to clarify.

Are separate changing rooms and restrooms not an example of something being permissibly separate but equal?

I was talking about racial separation being protected under Plessy.

It appears the word ("respecting") constitutionally applied simply means "to recognize".

But just as a grammatical structure that doesn't make sense, to "prohibit the recognition of an establishment"? That supposes that the establishment exists. I think many strict separationists use "respecting" to mean, as I thought your argument was, anthing close to an Establishment, such that a posted Ten Commandments, while not an establishment, is close enough to being one that it is prohibited. My argument is, and you still haven't addressed it, that the amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law having anything to do with a religious establishment, whether to make a law establishing a religion (and I've already pointed out that a true establishment, as the Founders faced, was truly onerous) or in any way prohibiting or infringing on the various state establishments which existed at the time, an interpretation that squares much more closely with the early history.

 

I thought I did. My problem is that endorsement would lead to coercion, that is why you can't have endorsement of any kind. I don't trust mankind to control themselves, you seem to think that they can. I would rather not take the risk.

Your arguement that having one (endorsement) doesn't automaticaly mean you will have the other (coercion) for me simply fails the test of history. Has it worked anywhere? Even Israel couldn't get it right!

 

G2C,

Examples from other countries don't work in analyzing this. They don't have:

--our deep-rooted history of endorsements,
--our history of state establishments,
--our history of resisting such establishments on both the national and state levels,
--the same Constitutional protections and limitations.

Exactly how would simple endorsement necessarily, in and of itself, lead to coercion? How has simple endorsement led to coercion in our own history, and no, I'm not talking about periods when the endorsement and coercion were concurrent, because that doesn't speak to causation. While coercion would almost certainly include a level of state endorsement, the opposite is not true.

[ October 13, 2005, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

"None of the state's existing charters, preambles, etc, are overtly, or remotely Christian. Not one mentions Jesus or scripture. At best, they can be said to be deist. Deist is not Christian. Most any monotheistic non-Christian religion qualifies as deist."-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't know how much they have been altered, but the original state charters were/had overtly Christian lanquage. The People who changed the lanquage, are not the people who wrote the constitution. The people who wrote the constitution came from states who had charters with ovetly christians lanquage. So my point is valid. And you counter point is a red herring.

"Deist is not Christian"------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not secular either, my bro.

"We seemed to survive the first 150 years just fine without it there."---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first 150 years had even more overtly chrisitan endorsements, so what's your point?

"that is why you can't have endorsement of any kind. I don't trust mankind to control themselves,"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See this is where we have gotten way of base and forgotten what it was the made us great. One of the many reasons we were the success we were is beacuse the founders also realized that man could not be trusted with power. So they divised the single most ingenious mechanisim of the constitution. The separation of powers. The Idea that man cannot be trusted with power, and has to have checks and balances comes directly from the founders CHRISTIAN understanding of sin nature. If it is our understanding of Christ and our application of his prinicpals that have made us great and if we have always recognized that by endorsment, why is it all of a sudden something threatening that we can no longer be trusted with?

 

You're welcome to post some of those state chaters. I'm not talking about the charters of the british colonies, btw.

The people who wrote the Constitution made no privision for Christianity over any other religion. In fact, the only provion they made for religion was the establishment and free excercise clauses (unless wants to include the ban on religious tests).

Please list the charters as they existed at the time the Constitution was ratified by the states.

Never said it was. But the deists who wrote the Constitution wrote it as a secular document.

Where? In the state charters you mention? Not there.

No, we haven't gotten off base. Amendment I is very clear, and does not distinguish between Christianity and any other religion. If Moore had posted the Five Pillars of Islam, or the Four Noble Truths, or segments of the Roman Catholic Canon or Book of Mormon, a great many Christians would be citing the establishment clause that they currently downplay.

In this instance, the separation of powers comes from proposed solutions to abuse of the broad power of the monarchy. The concept of separation of powers actually came from France. The mode of operation in the Constitution, however, was then-new. That mode is known as checks and balances. The phrase "checks and balances" was coined by Montesquieu. In a system of government with competing sovereigns, "checks" refers to the ability, right, and responsibility of each power to monitor the activities of the other; "balances" refers to the ability of each entity to use its authority to limit the powers of the others, whether in general scope or in particular cases.

[ October 13, 2005, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

"You're welcome to post some of those state chaters. I'm not talking about the charters of the british colonies, btw."-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, if you have to make me work, I'll look em up.

"The people who wrote the Constitution made no privision for Christianity over any other religion. In fact, the only provion they made for religion was the establishment and free excercise clauses (unless wants to include the ban on religious tests"--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's part and parcel of our documents and our fonders papers. Its built right in. That is why moore could make a Christian monument useing nothing in addition to the TC except the words of our documents. You said yourslef it was overtly Christian, but he only used words from our documents. BTW, any one from another relgion could not accomplish the same feat using only our documents. That should tell you something.


"The concept of separation of powers actually came from France"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I am sure the it was France that provided us with the enligtenment to accomplish the world's purest and most succesful democracy- HARDLY. There's sure worked. Napolian, not withstanding. I'm sure the Greeks, Romans, and others provided us with lessons, but it is the Bible that has made the difference in this Nation. You don't see this, and that is why you can't get what I am saying.

 

I know, I'm such a slave-driver

The only document of law is the Constitution. Mention of God, lt alone Christ, was expressly left out. Only the mention of religion, and when mentioned, no specific religion is addressed or specified.

They couldn't? How are phrases like "the laws of nature and of nature's God" exclusively Christian? They're not. Deist or monotheistic, sure. Christian as an exclusive?

What's with the hostility? Perhaps you were asleep in American history class when they taught that France was our biggest ally when we broke from England. In fact, France supplied troops and equipment to fight the British regulars.

See how you're starting to glide away from the point when that point is refuted? The point you made was that separation of powers was from the Bible. I correctly pointed out that it was a French contribution. And so you skirt skirt skirt. I have no problem acknowleging the nation's religious history, and have said that numerous times. This topic isn't about that. It's about whether Moore's actions violated the establishment clause. I believe it did, and the courts agree with me.

 

Well, in and of itself endorsement doesn't mean coercion will follow, but I will concede the point only in a theoretical sense. BTW, your arguement has a bit of a Libertarian ring to it, in my opinion of course.

I guess I am taking it to what I see as the next logical step (which you might argue and then takes the discussion to a theological arena) that mankind is incapable of restraining itself and that it is a matter of time before coercion follows the seemingly harmless initial endorsement. That is if history is any teacher at all.

 

"What's with the hostility? Perhaps you were asleep in American history class when they taught that France was our biggest ally when we broke from England. In fact, France supplied troops and equipment to fight the British regulars."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are alot of fun No hostility, I just think their experiment in democracy is an abject failure, so I don't think we can give them very much credit for our democracy. In fact I would say their failure is because of the inhearent secularization of their revolution. Quite in contrast from ours. (He shoots, He scores)

Just because some French political thinker may have postulated something he probably got from somewhere else, does not mean we (our founders) had to give it any credence. We could have choosen from a plethera of political constructs. We were biblically informed about the sinnful nature of man, and we knew what to do because of it. You don't give Christianity the lions share of the credit for America's greatness? No skirting here! Men only wear those on the West Coast. And in France

"They couldn't? How are phrases like "the laws of nature and of nature's God" exclusively Christian? They're not. Deist or monotheistic, sure. Christian as an exclusive?"-----------------------------------------------------------------

You miss the point. You said the monument was inherently CHRISTIAN, not deist. If you choose words from our founding documents like Moore did to add to the TC's you could never make the monument Inherently Muslim or Hindu. There is a reason for that that you need to come to terms with.

"The only document of law is the Constitution."---------------------------------------------------

The constitution did not develope in a vacume!

Hey Pal, I got boyscout camp out all weekend. Hope you will grant me some time on posting the Charters, if no one else does it.

 

No arguement there. Nevertheless, their contribution to our current form of governance need not be overlooked.

Sure I do. However, that's irrelevant to the implimentation of Amendment I.

Unless kilts have become the rage, that's news to me.

Moore made the focal point of the monument the Ten Commandments, and did so for the purpose of respecting an establishment of religion. The other phrases were relegated to minor token appearance. Have you seen the monument? It's actually a very nice momument. It just doesn't belong on display as he shose to display it.

No, but it operates in one.

Indeed, my own time is quite short. In fact, I'm still taking a beating from my comments on the thred below, and need to take a break:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/5576.html

 

""No, but it operates in one.""

Oh, How I wish the folks who have made a doctrine out of the letter T. Jefferson wrote to the Danburry Baptist would operate that way!!!!

 

G2C,

Well, in and of itself endorsement doesn't mean coercion will follow, but I will concede the point only in a theoretical sense.

Thank you. Now, in a historical sense, from our history, how has coercion followed endorsement?

BTW, your arguement has a bit of a Libertarian ring to it, in my opinion of course.

Now, you've got me curious, G2C. Where do you see the libertarianism? Not arguing your point, but am very curious. I am a libertarian in my economics, but hadn't thought about it in an historical sense.


Johnv, are you ignoring my interpretation of the term "respecting"? You're welcome to wait until you recover from the other thread (I looked at it, though, looked to me like you were eating their lunch, heck of a job! ) but we're now on the 10th page of our 10-page limit.

 

I thought it was the religious right who made a doctrine out of the Danbury Baptist letter. They frequently refer to the "wall of separation" phrase to imply that Amendment I's sole purpose wasto keep the government from establishing a state church/religion.

 

No, not at all. I don't entirely agree, but respect your interpretation of "resepcting" (is that a bit verbose??). I'm simply agreeing to disagree. I hope no disrespect (oops, verbose again) is implied.

 

"I thought it was the religious right who made a doctrine out of the Danbury Baptist letter"-------------------------------------------------------

You are reading to much ACLU type literature.