Let My People Go!
"This monument, ladies and gentlemen, tells a story. If you look to the front, you'll see on the inset, 'The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.' It was on those laws, the will of the Maker, upon which the Declaration of Independence was premised and upon which the Constitution was predicated."
Roy Moore
Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court
Monument Dedication
August - 2001
In 2002, Chief Justice Moore was ordered by the Federal Court to remove this statue...for obvious reasons...and he refused.
In 2003, he was removed from the bench...for obvious reasons...and this is what he has been up to for the past few years:
I happened to glance at the title of one of his articles and immediately fell in love:
U.S. Constitution: A secular document?
I know I inserted the link but I can't, in good conscience, expect you to read that gorgeous piece of prose, so I was nice enough to clip an excerpt:
Some who mistakenly consider our Constitution to be a "secular" document with no relationship to God will no doubt question the relevance of asking candidates about moral issues. But our Founding Fathers would have considered it strange if we did not insist that our leaders clarify their views on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and the intimate relationship between God and our federal Constitution.
Ok. I freely admit when it comes to this CHIEF JUSTICE'S views, I am one of those who are mistaken. I DO think of our Constitution as COMPLETELY SECULAR, written by people - for people. I think of it as a primary document of western civilization that in a thousand years will probably be looked on as one of the milestones in human social evolution and a real product of that period in history called The Enlightenment.
But I'm fucking crazy!
So, with the state of my mental incapacitation firmly identified, I couldn't help wondering about what this CHIEF JUSTICE meant by talking of the "intimate relationship between God and our federal Constitution"? Because the way I see it, and I know I am just a moron, is that the Constitution deals with a system of government. Among other things, this system is to pass laws and such so that people can live in "freedom" and "prosper" and all those other high ideals that the Declaration of Independence was talking about. Why would God choose to be "intimately" involved in that? Didn't God give his constitution on Mt. Sinai many years earlier? Does He feel that it needs to be revised?
I think the CHIEF JUSTICE'S idea, judging by his choice of art work, is that the Ten Commandments, as told to us in a book written well over a thousand years ago and revised many times since (come to think of it...just like our constitution gets amended), are irrefutably the Law of God. And since they are the Laws of God then they are our laws as well and should be upheld with the backing of the Federal Government. Makes sense to me. What's good enough for God is good enough for America.
With my newfound clarity, and wanting to be a good civic-minded citizen, I looked up our new Constitution. I think it has already been ratified by 22 southern and mid-western states. Now these are the kind of progressive and forward thinking ideas* we need to compete in the new Millennium:
1) Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me
Unless, of course, you are one of the billions of people on this planet, or one of the millions in this country, who do.
2) Thou Shalt Not Make Unto Thee Any Graven Image
This text appears on the graven stone in Alabama. I had no idea what it meant so I decided to do a little research on the web. The Biblical Scripture that deals with this Commandment ( KJV Deuteronomy 5: 8-10) takes this paraphrased law a tad further:
"...or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
Oh boy...I hope THAT part isn't what, "...the Declaration of Independence was premised and upon which the Constitution was predicated," because that sound like Osama talk!
3) Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The LORD Thy God In Vain
CHRIST! I hope that never becomes criminalized.
4) Remember The Sabbath Day, To Keep It Holy
This one is interesting.
It is, once again, a paraphrase and this is the part that didn't make Charlton's stone:
"...Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." ( KJV Deuteronomy 5: 13-14 )
After lying to, stealing from and murdering...That's nine, eight and six for those keeping score at home...the native inhabitants of North America, White English settlers formed colonies and created laws that dogmatically adhered to the Commandments.
Here is one example from the world Judge Moore wants us to live in. It was written on October 22, 1695 in my home state of New York:
Whereas the true and sincere service and worship of God, according to his holy will and commandments, is often profaned and neglected by many of the inhabitants and sojourners within this Province, who do not keep holy the Lord's day, but in a disorderly manner, accustom themselves to travel, laboring, working, shooting, fishing, sporting, playing, horseracing, frequenting of tippling-houses, and the using of many other unlawful exercises and pastimes upon the Lord's day, to the great scandal of the holy Christian faith: Be it therefore enacted ... that there shall be no traveling, servile laboring and working, shooting, fishing, sporting, playing, horse racing, hunting, or frequenting of tippling-houses, or the use of any other unlawful exercises or pastimes, by any of the inhabitants or sojourners within this Province, or by any of their slaves or servants, on the premises shall forfeit for every offense the sum of six shillings ... and in default of such distress, that the party offending, to be set publicly in the stocks by the space of three hours.
Source:
American State Papers
Bearing on Sunday Legislation (1911)
The remnants of these obvious cases of forcing a RELIGIOUS belief system upon the populace could be seen in existence until at least the 1960s when merchants started to openly rebel against them. Today, in New York State, the buying and selling of products, even ones that are considered "immoral" such as liquor and pornography, are at the complete discretion of the vender and the consumer. I think that is a good thing…Free Will.
5) Honor Thy Father And Thy Mother
For how long? Should there be a law against being a rock singer, racecar driver or street magician because Mom and Dad want you to become a Doctor?
6) Thou Shalt Not Kill
Pretty straightforward. I can't argue. It just needs to be applied CONSISTENTLY.
7) Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery
Don't wait up for me Martha...
I got me a job building jails!!!
8) Thou Shalt Not Steal
YES!!! I only wish it applied to soulless corporations as well.
9) Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor
Another good one! But, unfortunately for us little guys, this does not apply to Republicans or their minions.
10) Thou Shalt Not Covet
Another paraphrase from the Alabama Guru but understandable since the full text would sound ridiculous in this day and age:
"…thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbor's." ( KJV Deuteronomy 5: 21 )
Well, maybe not so silly. I have coveted many an ass in my day. Should I have been brought in front of some governmental tribune to face punishment for my thoughts?
And I'M the one who’s fucking crazy?
The Republican Party’s choice of Sarah Palin as vice-presidential nominee was obviously a political ploy. It is a transparent attempt to drive a wedge into progressives, specifically women who were supporting Hillary Clinton. It is also an absurdly cynical move to co-opt the concept of feminism and paint themselves, the people in power for the last eight years, as outsiders - victims of the establishment. Just today as I walked into my office, I saw a copy of the New York Post in the lobby. Glancing at it as I walked by I saw this line, accompanied by a picture of Palin, at the top of the page. Mind you, it was not the headline but right above the paper’s banner:
Sarah – "Obama should have picked Hillary as running mate."
If you do not believe me just listen to any Republican talking points that are being projected at you – at this very minute - on any number of corporate run media news outlets.
But that is only half of the story. They also picked Palin because she is completely in line with Judge Roy Moore and everything he wants our country to be. Those three million evangelicals courted by Karl Rove in 2000 and 2004 - so openly in those days - are now being thrown a bone. McCain is not a religious nut so to get these doomsday repressives all excited the party trots out a uniquely unqualified individual who takes pride in being violent, ignorant and superstitious – in other words just like them. The only solstice I take is in the fact that this pandering, so open in previous elections, has gone underground. There is much less "We were chosen by God" talk coming out of the GOP and more old school fear mongering. I think even they know that is not going to be enough in this upcoming election.
It might be underground but these 17th century views are at the core of their philosophy. It is whom they represent. And although McCain does not come out of that mold, make no mistake, a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for the validation of those views – no matter how they try to dress it up.
But, I’m not worried too much. Palin is already being exposed for the shallowness and meanness she truly represents. I know that really isn’t enough to guarantee a victory but this year the choice is so clear that even people who did not know it in 2000 – or 2004 – have to know it now. It is the choice between hope and fear. Between science and superstition. Between the future and the past. And with having that knowledge the electorate still wants to vote for these clowns - firmly against their own interests - then we deserve what we get.
But as simple campaign strategy, I agree with what Roseanne Barr said on Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday night:
"I wish that he (Obama) would go for McCain's throat because there's so much there to go for and just forget her. Forget her."
Is there anyone out there who did NOT know what the "Bush Doctrine" was?
Larry B
* For further reading GodsTenLaws.com
has a comprehensive list of The Ten Commandments as they appear in three different editions of the Bible – King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV) and The New Living Translation (NLT).
posted by Larry B | 8:55 PM
2 Comments:
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODFkOTU3MjUwYWM4N2I1NzE2ZjU3NGQzZjg0MzYyZjk=
Defining the Bush Doctrine [Greg Pollowitz]
The left is going bananas over Governor Palin's answer to Gibson's "Bush Doctrine" question. Andy McCarthy has a good post on it over in the Corner, but I thought I'd add a little history of the "Bush Doctrine" using the search function at NYTimes.com. The term "Bush Doctrine" looks to have been used for the first time, post 9/11, in mid-November:
A senior administration official said Mr. Bush's speech would be a fleshing out of what the White House calls the Bush Doctrine — the assertion that nations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves.
In January 2002, the editors of the Times wrote:
Mr. Bush appears to be developing an assertive new military doctrine that includes the threat of armed intervention against nations that are developing weapons that may put the United States in peril. The evolving Bush Doctrine implies a preemptive use of conventional force to take out missile launchers, industrial enterprises and facilities that appear to be involved in the fabrication of unconventional weapons. This is a radical departure from what went before. Traditionally, the United States has employed its military forces in retaliation for an attack rather than striking first itself. That should not preclude other options when there is a clear and present danger of attack, but firing first is not a step to be taken lightly.
By March, the "Bush Doctrine" had expanded yet again to include regime change:
In the tug of war between the go-get-'em, nuke-brandishing civilians of the Pentagon and the coalition-minded pragmatists of the State Department, conservatives are now convinced Mr. Bush's sympathies are gung-ho. The Weekly Standard, which has overcome personal strains with Mr. Bush to become something like the president's conservative superego, has taken to calling this ''The Bush Doctrine.''
''On tactics, he may be listening to Colin Powell,'' said Norman Podhoretz, the influential conservative editor and author. ''But he's very clear as to his strategic objectives — not just to clean up Al Qaeda cells but to effect regime changes in six or seven countries and to create conditions which would lead to internal reform and modernization in the Islamic world.''
In September, the Times had an editorial titled, "Bush Doctrine," based on the National Security Strategy paper submitted to Congress. An excerpt:
The tension between idealism and realism in foreign policy runs through America history, and the fault lines are evident in Mr. Bush's policy statement. The paper — a policy summation that every president is required to submit to Congress — seems in some sections to be animated by the most enlightened and constructive impulses of the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and the Marshall Plan. It dedicates the nation to extending the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to struggling countries around the globe. Mr. Bush speaks eloquently in an introductory letter about working with other nations to combat disease and alleviate poverty, and he reaffirms his determination to increase American foreign aid.
At other points, the paper sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced. Given Mr. Bush's lone-wolf record on matters like global warming, and the nature of the issues he now faces, including a looming confrontation with Iraq, it is clear these combative attitudes will be driving Washington policy in the months ahead. The boys in Lubbock may want to pause before signing on for the overly aggressive stance Mr. Bush has outlined.
This, I believe, is the September 2002 that Charlie Gibson refers to in his interview. Gibson only referred to the preemption aspect of it, but the human rights and regime changes aspects are as important. Gibson never mentioned this in his little snarky lecture to Gov. Palin.
By April, 2003, we have President Bush admitting he's not quite sure what the "Bush Doctrine" actually is:
Mr. Bush's overt use of diplomatic pressure against Syria and Iran, two countries that Mr. Bush has identified as sponsors of terrorism, is in stark contrast to the use of preemptive force against Iraq.
Yet at one point in his interview, Mr. Bush acknowledged that he had yet to fully form the ''Bush doctrine,'' or to think through how the American victory in Iraq would affect his vow to deal with weapons of mass destruction on a global basis.
In December, we have yet another version of the "Bush Doctrine" as described in the book America Unbound:
Buttressed by extensive research, the authors demonstrate convincingly that Mr. Bush is not the puppet of the vice president or the Defense Department hawks. He has fundamental beliefs that have reversed America's six-decade commitment to internationalism. His foreign policy for the 21st century marks a decided preference for unilateralism.
As the authors describe it, his policy rests on two beliefs: ''The first was that in a dangerous world the best — if not the only — way to ensure America's security was to shed the constraints imposed by friends, allies, and international institutions.'' The second belief was that ''an America unbound should use its strength to change the status quo in the world.''
This does not mean that America need always act alone. When unilateral actions seem impossible or unwise, Mr. Bush will seek allies, but not to make decisions that would require their approval. His preferred approach is to seek ad hoc ''coalitions of the willing,'' what Richard Haas, a former adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has called ''à la carte multilateralism.''
After John Kerry's defeat in 2005, the "Bush Doctrine" became defined by the left with the buzzwords "preemptive" and "unilateral." Paul Krugman for example:
On the foreign policy front, the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emption and unilateralism sounded very impressive at first. But Mr. Bush's tough-guy attitude wasn't matched by his willingness to commit resources. His administration sought global dominance on the cheap, with an undermanned, underplanned invasion of Iraq that has, indeed, transformed the balance of power in the Middle East - in favor of Iran.
In December 2006, Gary Hart wrote this in defense of Barack Obama:
His inherent internationalism causes him to ponder why, five years after 9/11 and 15 years after the end of the cold war, the United States “still lacks a coherent national security policy,” rightly finding the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and defeat of evil in the world wanting.
In January 2007, there's this description:
In a sense, it was an extraordinary retreat by Bush - and not just because Fatah and Hamas killing each other daily makes a plan for new talks surreal. More, it winds the United States deeper into the whorls of process, and goes against the Bush doctrine that democratization of the Middle East starts with the defeat of terrorism.
September 2007:
None of the leading Republican candidates has been willing to articulate anything like a new direction for how to confront terrorism or what to do in Iraq, despite the fact that the Bush doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy has been widely deemed a failure, even by a sizable chunk of Republicans.
From the Times review of Norman Podhoretz's World War IV:
Mr. Podhoretz, however, remains an ardent supporter of the Bush doctrine of unilateral action, pre-emptive war and the exportation of democracy to the Middle East.
So, it's easy to see why there might be a little confusion on what exactly Charlie Gibson was getting at when he asked about the "Bush Doctrine." Except for the Times, of course. It's crystal clear for them. Here's how they wrote up the Palin interview:
In the interview Thursday, Palin:
—Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.
Asked whether she agreed with that, Palin said: ''In what respect, Charlie?'' Gibson pressed her for an interpretation of it. She said: ''His world view.'' That prompted Gibson to say ''no, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war'' and describe it to her.
Here's what Gibson actually said, however:
The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self defense. That we have the right to a premptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.
Not only was Charlie Gibson wrong about what was enunciated in September 2002, Gov. Palin was 100% correct in asking what the heck he was babbling about as well as 100% correct in what she said.
JKING
I take it then you think she is a good choice?
Post a Comment
<< Home