Gut Rumbles

August 15, 2003

i don't blame the guy

sugarmama and I disagree on this one. I believe that Judge Roy Moore is totally correct in his refusal to take down the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama state judicial building.

Just read the Constitution. NOWHERE IN THERE do the words of "separation of church and state" appear. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and forbids the establishment of a state religion (such as The Church of England). That separation of church and state idea is pure bullshit, dreamed up by an opium-smoking judge. That's where a LOT of "penumbras" and "emanations" are discovered in the Constitution.

The Ten Commandments are 10 really good rules. I'm an athiest and I have no problem with any of them. Even that "put no other God before me" rule can be reconciled if I don't believe in ANY gods. No problem. I put you FIRST among the gods I don't believe in. I can do that.

If Martha Stewart put out a phamphlet called "10 good ways to live your life," and invented the 10 Commandments as part of a self-improvement program, no judge in the country would have rectal itch or hissy-fits over that. At least not until Martha appeared before the bench wearing handcuffs and one of those orange jumpsuits for sentencing.

But, I digress....

I see nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments being displayed in a courthouse. All 10 are good rules to live by. If you're in that court facing a jail sentence, chances are that you broke one or more of those very good rules. If you did, you're in that court to receive what you deserve.

Removing the Commandments won't change any of that. But it will be sheer hypocracy on the part of government. As long as we swear a President to the Oath of Office with his hand on the Bible and have "In God We Trust" printed on our money, spare me this anal-gazing bullshit about what separation of church and state really means.

Nobody makes me go to church. Storm troopers don't descend on the Crackerbox to FORCE me to pray. I don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, with or without "under God," if I don't want to. I can use red-letter pages ripped from a Bible as kindling to set the American flag on fire and I won't go to jail for it. That's called "freedom."

But we have to remove the 10 Commandments from this judge's courthouse? I have one simple question: WHY? Just what the hell does this dictate from some opium-smoking ass-sniffer of his own personal gods accomplish? What he is doing is called "government intervention," and that's the exact opposite of freedom.

I'll tell you why he's doing it. He shows just how goddam stupid and politically correct supposedly intelligent people have become after a 20-year brainwashing campaign. We are catering to the Lowest Common Denominator in ALL THINGS today, with the neurotic, the crazy, the malignant and the dumbfucks making all the rules for people who are perfectly capable of leading normal lives without the advice of asswits who wear tinfoil hats. HOW THE FUCK DID THIS HAPPEN?

Easy. We let it happen. The idiots went on a very successful PR campaign. We learned to fear being called "judgmental" and we worked hard on listenening to asswits spout nonsense to prove how "tolerant" we were. In doing so, we lost our goddam minds and allowed the idiots to take over the asylum.

We're going to pay for that mistake in the long run. Sugarmama's post about the judge shows how deeply the "Be an Idiot, or else we'll CALL you an Idiot and Everybody will Laugh at You" campaign has cut.

Man. It is difficult to maintain a bullshit detector today with so much bullshit in the air.



Posted by: DogsDon'tPurr on August 15, 2003 08:26 PM

"Let's hear another Amen..."

Posted by: Laura on August 15, 2003 09:36 PM

I hope this one gets before the Supreme Court. I would love to see the Supremes try to uphold this ruling while sitting in a building whose architecture includes several images of Moses himself holding the tablets.

And you're absolutely right about the First Amendment. It states that the Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion. Last time I checked, a state Chief Justice does not constitute "Congress", and no law was passed in this case. The First Amendment also guarantees freedom OF says nothing about freedom FROM religion.

I'm not a religious person either, but as an Alabamian and a Constitutionalist, I'm glad that Roy Moore is standing up and fighting this nonsense.

Posted by: Robert on August 15, 2003 09:46 PM

You could make an argument that the commandments constitute freedom, ten times over. The federal court is just saying that we don't deserve freedom.

Posted by: Ron Hardin on August 15, 2003 10:02 PM

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

"I wish someone would point out where CONGRESS established a religion. That judge [Moore] is following his state constitution. The only way a provision of a state constitution is invalid is when it directly conflicts with the federal constitution. Which, in this case, it doesn't, so those 11th Circuit guys are wrong. Just plain WRONG."

Blurb from a conversation overheard by me, between an adult neighbor and my 12 year old daughter. Absolutely priceless. Yay!

Posted by: That Bitch on August 15, 2003 11:16 PM

I have a pretty pessimistic view of how this is going to unfold:

The US Supreme Court will not hear this case. If by some miracle they do take it up then Ginsberg, O'Conner, Bryer & Souter will rule against him.

In the end, this is going to come down to the entire weight of the federal government against Judge Roy. When he calls for Patriots to defend his courthouse, I will heed his call.

As several people here have said, I can not see how any reasonable interpretation of the establishment clause would prohibit Judge Roy from erecting this monument. I applaude his determination to stay the course in this matter.

Posted by: JP on August 15, 2003 11:43 PM

I think you should move out here to CA and run for Govonor Acidman! LOL, really good points! But stay were you are because this place changes you, really it does!

Posted by: Jennifer on August 16, 2003 12:25 AM

Couldn't have said it much better myself!

Posted by: rwt on August 16, 2003 01:31 AM

I think the ten commandments are ten very good messages for people to live by. Even if I am not religious.

However, if those Roy Moore posted a plague that said something like "Hate Christians and kill them when you get the chance" or "God is dead" you would be calling Judge Moore an idiot.

Stop making your arguments based on your personal beliefs. Take a step back and be impartial.

Posted by: sugarmama on August 16, 2003 05:36 PM

Regarding the commandment that forbids representational art--really!--I'll keep on sinning, thank you.

Posted by: Brett on August 16, 2003 09:55 PM

While we're on this subject, I will point out that "In God We Trust" (What do you mean by "we," Kemo Sabe?) is not the motto of the United States, which is "E pluribus unum." The rubric about God and trust did not disgrace our money until 1861. Eighteenth century politicians seem to have had a better understanding of the principles of religious freedom than subsequent generations.

Regarding "the free exercise of religion," to use other people's time without their permission to profess one's own faith can hardly be called free exercise for those whose time and views on the religious questions are held in such palpable contempt by many of their believing fellow citizens. To illustrate: if tomorrow the U.S. became 52% muslim and this majority demanded all non-muslims give up their time and show silent respect at public venues such as court and government school while they faced Mecca five times a day, I can hardly imagine the former majority Christians would comply. I submit that their claim that democratic principles justify the use of my time to practice their faith is nothing but an excuse. If they lost that argument by being outnumbered, they would find another. No argument would make them change their mind that non-Christians and unbelievers should respect their views while some Christians freely rain contempt upon those whose respect they demand. So much for the Golden Rule.

As far as posting the 10 commandments--I have no trouble with that, as it is such an important part of our cultural heritage. I do take umbrage when an officer of the court demands I swear on the Bible. I do have the option to affirm, yes, but that gives officers of the court with more loyalty to their religion than the Constitution to call my veracity into question. The last I heard, a court is not a church.

Posted by: Brett on August 17, 2003 10:02 AM

Which version of the Aseret HaDibrot are you going to use? The one is Shmot, the one in D'varim, the Catholic one, or the Lutheran one? They are all slightly different. The minute you pick one - oops! you've established religion. Sorry.

How about the Noachide Laws? They were meant for all humankind and are less specific to the Jews than the 10 Statements, which in halacha are not considered separate from the 613 mitzvot Jews are bound to observe.

I know this post sounds snotty, but people keep trying to make this simpler than it is.

Posted by: Yehudit on August 17, 2003 06:26 PM

'I know this post sounds snotty, but people keep trying to make this simpler than it is.'

-- Ever hear of Occam's Razor? Perhaps people are trying to make this more complex than it is.

'Stop making your arguments based on your personal beliefs. Take a step back and be impartial.'

-- So only Atheists are capable of being impartial?

Posted by: Victor on August 18, 2003 11:40 AM

I must admit that I've never heard the "I'm an atheist, but I have no problem with the 10 Commandments" before. I'm an agnostic, and therefore #1-4 (at least in the Protestant version) are meaningless, #5, 7 and 10 are good guidelines for psychologically clean livin', leaving only #6, 8, and 9 as things that have representations in modern law.

How about the Code of Hammurabi? I realize that there are 282 laws, but I'll bet the percentage of useful (legalistic) commandments is higher.

Posted by: Norbizness on August 18, 2003 03:19 PM

We are all better off when the government steadfastly refuses to endorse or associate with any religion. If "Judge Roy" has the urge to moralize, let him do it in a constitutional way. This isn't that hard to understand, and anyone who disagrees with me is a religious yahoo. I'm sorry, I didn't mean that last part.

Posted by: bill on August 21, 2003 12:42 PM
Post a comment