The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

The Bible - Luke 18 ^ | about 1970 years ago | Jesus Christ

[AppyPappy]

I didn't hear him demanding that his critics be silenced or removed permanently.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

At the time Rosa Parks made her stand, there were many who thought she was making her perception of a wrong out of whole cloth.

Yes, that would be the prevalent view of Southern populist "states' rights" folks of that time. Amazing coincidence how this notion of grandstanding "form over substance" populism always springs from the same soil, isn't it?

[HurkinMcGurkin]

It seems that only Moore's monument is being singled out here.

Yeh, by Moore.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

You know full well his statements that he is required to acknowledge the God of the Bible, and that he simply couldn't remove it (despite the fact that Alabama functioned for about a baker's dozen decades without that monument).

[AppyPappy]

Then where is it? It sounds to me like the government removed it.

[AppyPappy]

Is that his right to express his beliefs? Or have we taken that away too?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

As I recall (and we can dig those up), he said he couldn't add any other iconic statury or items to the display because they weren't on the same level as his God (or something to that effect).

That isn't speech, that is establishment.

The other thing is that I don't care who Roy criticizes, and I don't care if people want to criticize government in government buildings. The fact is, though, he doesn't get to do what he tried - whats more important, a conservative appellate court agrees with my position.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Huh? That makes no sense as a response to my comment.

[Taliesan]

Shouldn't we excise all reference to the Deity from ALL courts and gov't buildings, including oral references in oaths?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

He can express his beliefs as much as he wants outside that building and away from his official function. Considering that free speech rights are in the same amendment as the establishment clause, it is a simple logical step to balance that out and say "no acts establishing religion". Were we to take your view, the establishment clause would be meaningless, because any government official could try to trump out legal challenges to establishment by saying "I was just engaging in free speech".

[kidd]

Now I have an excuse not to do that silly dance at the next wedding reception.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Taking it out of oaths wouldn't bother me in the least, since everybody lies in testimony anyway.

[Taliesan]

Do you think the men who wrote the bill of rights would object to a statue of the ten commandments in a government building?

[Taliesan]

I didn't ask you if it would bother you. You are apparently making a constitutional argument here. Would that argument, whatever it is, spare the oaths and if so, why?

[job]

What an absolute goon. Everybody lies in testimony anyway? You haven't been in court very much, if at all.

You miss the whole point and arguing a straw man. The monument does not express his particular beliefs, but has a historical significance in that the it is the legal foundation of modern law. Don't steal, don't murder, don't bear false witness, all codified in modern law in most civilized countries. We pay homage to the Constitution, and the Magna Charte, Moore was paying homage to something similar. The fact that it has a dual identity, one legal and spiritual, does nothing to diminish its importance in the western world's legal tradition.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Whether they would have approved or not doesn't matter.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Considering that people do their oaths in so many different approved forms, its a bit of silly tradition that doesn't matter. If you don't want to make a religious oath, you're not forced to.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I'm trying to figure the relationship of the 10 Commandments to ERISA, the Railroad Retirement Act, CERCLA and local zoning ordinances, but I'm drawing blanks. Help a poor guy out, wouldja?

[Taliesan]

If what the words meant to them doesn't matter, then they will mean whatever the majority wants them to mean to mean in any given generation, which means what they mean to you only matters this time.

Which means you aren't really making a constitutional argument; the establishment clause is just a convenient text for making the same argument you would make if the clause had never existed.

[AppyPappy]

The Ten Cmmandments are his god. He meant there was no reason to take them down and they were important to him. You are essentially criticizing him for his beliefs which is fine except the force of law was used to remove those words.