| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2003 12:25:46 PM |
| Object: |
Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote:
:|This is for all of you that have been posting about how Moore will
:|eventually be vindicated because the Constitution says he has the right to
:|do what he did. Next step is his dismissal.
Where or where is Jeffy Strickland and all the rest of them?
:|
:|
:|Justices Reject Judge's Ten Commandments Appeal
:|
:|By James Vicini
:|
:|WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rejected on
:|Monday appeals by Alabama's embattled top judge, Roy Moore, who has waged an
:|unsuccessful legal battle to display the Ten Commandments at the state
:|judicial building.
:|
:|Without comment, the high court refused to hear two appeals by Moore, who
:|was suspended after refusing to comply with a federal judge's order in
:|August to remove the granite monument inscribed with the commandments
:|because it violated constitutional church-state separation.
:|
:|Moore, who was elected as Alabama's chief justice in 2000, has been accused
:|of violating judicial ethics. He is fighting his suspension, and a hearing
:|has been set for Nov. 12.
:|
:|With two tablets inscribed with the commandments that Jews and Christians
:|believe were passed from God to Moses, the stone marker weighing 5,000
:|pounds (2.3 tonnes) was placed in the rotunda of the judicial building in
:|Montgomery, Alabama by Moore and his followers in 2001.
:|
:|The monument was removed on Aug. 27 after eight associate justices of the
:|Alabama Supreme Court decided to comply with the federal judge's order. It
:|has been locked in a closet since then.
:|
:|Moore has strong support from fundamentalist Christian groups for his
:|championing of public displays of the Ten Commandments. As a lower court
:|judge, he had a hand-carved plaque with the Ten Commandments in his
:|courtroom.
:|
:|Civil liberties groups have criticized him for imposing his personal
:|religious views on others and using his office to promote the Christian
:|faith.
:|
:|FEDERAL COURTS ORDERED REMOVAL
:|
:|A number of civil liberties groups sued in 2001 on behalf of three Alabama
:|lawyers who said they had been offended by the monument's display.
:|A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court ruled the monument must be
:|removed.
:|
:|In one appeal, Moore's lawyers told the Supreme Court the federal judge
:|lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction to Alabama's chief justice
:|requiring the monument's removal.
:|
:|They argued the injunction violated state sovereign immunity and amounted to
:|"a blatant misuse of federal judicial power."
:|
:|In the second appeal, his lawyers urged the high court to overrule its
:|long-standing test dating back to 1971 on what represents an
:|unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
:|
:|According to the original constitutional definitions, they said this
:|monument would not represent a government "establishment of religion"
:|forbidden by the First Amendment.
:|
:|Attorneys for those who opposed the monument waived their right to even file
:|a response to Moore's appeals.
:|
:|The Supreme Court in August rejected a request by Moore for a last-minute
:|stay to prevent the monument's removal.
:|
:|The high court in recent years has let stand other U.S. appeals court
:|rulings that have barred the display of large granite monuments engraved
:|with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of state capitals.
:|
:|
.
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
03 Nov 2003 04:58:31 PM |
|
|
Don't forget the Moore(on) is a justice, not a judge--at least for now.
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 wrote:
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote:
:|This is for all of you that have been posting about how Moore will
:|eventually be vindicated because the Constitution says he has the right to
:|do what he did. Next step is his dismissal.
Where or where is Jeffy Strickland and all the rest of them?
Who knows. They are probably waiting for a statement from D.James
Kennedy.
:|Justices Reject Judge's Ten Commandments Appeal
:|By James Vicini
<snip article>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
03 Nov 2003 11:39:30 PM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith wrote:...
Don't forget the Moore(on) is a justice, not a judge--at least for now.
MK. Perhaps some people think you bigots make other atheists look good
by comparison. I suggest your intolerance makes other atheists look
bad by association. Suppose this were some other conntry and you were
visitors. Would you feel compelled to mock the religion of the
natives?
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 wrote:
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote:
:|This is for all of you that have been posting about how Moore will
:|eventually be vindicated because the Constitution says he has the right to
:|do what he did. Next step is his dismissal.
Where or where is Jeffy Strickland and all the rest of them?
Who knows. They are probably waiting for a statement from D.James
Kennedy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
04 Nov 2003 11:31:48 AM |
|
|
"Malcolm Kirkpatrick" <malcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfbfc9b9.0311032139.3d23fee2@posting.google.com...
Carol Lee Smith wrote:...
Don't forget the Moore(on) is a justice, not a judge--at least for now.
MK. Perhaps some people think you bigots make other atheists look good
by comparison. I suggest your intolerance makes other atheists look
bad by association. Suppose this were some other conntry and you were
visitors. Would you feel compelled to mock the religion of the
natives?
Since it isn't your country, but our country, we have the right to mock
whatever insane moron we feel like mocking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
04 Nov 2003 07:16:00 PM |
|
|
"Dave Thompson" wrote:...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
Carol Lee Smith wrote:...
Don't forget the Moore(on) is a justice, not a judge--at least for now.
MK. Perhaps some people think you bigots make other atheists look good
by comparison. I suggest your intolerance makes other atheists look
bad by association. Suppose this were some other conntry and you were
visitors. Would you feel compelled to mock the religion of the
natives?
Since it isn't your country, but our country, we have the right to mock
whatever insane moron we feel like mocking.
MK. Two points: 1) Mr. Thompson introduces the term "right" to the
discussion. This term is a little mystical to me. No one in this
discussion suggested that he be deprived of his first amandment right
of free expression. To call this a "right to mock whatever insane
moron" is insane and moronic. Rude, anyway. Is that Mr. Thompson's
opinion of all people of faith? Your world view, and mine, and your
neighbor's, are all limited, and false to a degree. No one has a
perfect brain. 2) I am a citizen of the USA. Why is the USA any more
your country than mine or Judge Moore's? Christians outnumber
atheists. Purely in atheists' self-interest, seems to me, they would
be smart to model tolerance. The only time Christianity gets on my
nerves is December, because of the saccharine music, and the elevated
frequency of Bach cantata performances almost makes up for that. I
like a world with different faiths. Makes life interesting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
05 Nov 2003 11:31:47 AM |
|
|
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
:| Purely in atheists' self-interest, seems to me, they would
:|be smart to model tolerance.
Like the dissenters of 1700s?
Tolerance, huh?
Tolerance is not freedom.
Madison's battle agaisnt the word toleration:
41). Topic: Declaration of Rights and Form of Government of Virginia (in
depth) [1-18-00] [part II]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_574362733
(42). Topic: Madison and Va Declaration of Rights (in depth) [1-18-00]
[part III]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_574362734
Virginia Declaration of Rights (in depth) [1-18-00] [part IV]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=o2i98scdl00d11lciri6g6qvevgp9sodqg%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl527410419d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=o2i98scdl00d11lciri6g6qvevgp9sodqg%404ax.com
(44). Topic: Committee's Proposed Article on Religion (in depth)
[1-18-00] [part V]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_574362737
Madison's Amendments to the Declaration of Rights (in depth) [1-18-00]
[partVI]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vph98soge0qgmb3en18e26j4iifv8d6rqs%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl827347558d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=vph98soge0qgmb3en18e26j4iifv8d6rqs%404ax.com
(49). Topic: George Mason, Madison and the Virginia Declaration of Rights
[1-20-99]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_575408885
(50). Topic: toleration
[1-24-00] [I]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_576930036
(51). Topic: toleration [1-24-00] [II]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_576930037
(52). Topic: toleration [1-24-00] [III]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_576930038
(53). Topic: toleration [1-24-2000] [IV]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_576930039
(54). Topic: toleration [1-24-00] [IV]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_576956927
(55). Topic: toleration [1-24-00] [V]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_576930040
(56). Topic: toleration [1-24-00] [VI]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_576930041
(57). Topic: toleration [1-24-00] [VII]
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_576930042
===========================================================================
What is Religious Freedom?
Religious freedom is the notion that people of religion can freely partake
of the practices of their religion without opposition. This would not only
include private devotions, but also acts of religious significance within
the realm of government.
Right now many folks adopt a view religious tolerance, rather than
religious freedom. Religious tolerance allows people the right to practice
a particular religion outside of the realm of government, and prohibits
them from bringing anything of even remote religious significance into the
public sector. This is not, as we shall see, what the founders of our
country had in mind. The founders of our country recognized the importance
of religious freedom, as opposed to simple religious tolerance.
In a pluralistic society such as the United States is today, one
will unquestionably ask, "Which religion? There are so many. Should even
Satanists be allowed to bring their religion into government?" To answer
briefly, no. "Religion" is here defined as some aspect of predominant
religion in the history of the Western Europe. Since that is where the
progenitor of our Constitutional framers originated, those are the
traditions that were primarily carried over. We note many instances of
historical religious devotion within the realm of government at the time of
the founding of our great republic, but all of them stem from some aspect
of a predominant Western religion. Whether we look at Sunday being
recognized as a day of rest or proclamations of thanksgiving, or the hiring
of chaplains, they all pertain to some aspect of significant Western faith.
Even as we don't allow religions which are inherently immoral or
corrupt to practice unchecked in this country, so we should we not
flagrantly allow any twisted philosophy, no matter how bizarre or
perverted, to have a seat at the state's table.
This is not to say that people of non-Western faiths are not
allowed to practice their faiths within the United States, but rather to
simply make the case that we know of no historical precedent for United
States government involvement with unusual Eastern or pagan religion
Religious devotions in the United States government are virtually always
dedicated to the God of significant Western monotheism (e.g., "In God We
Trust" on our currency, "One nation, under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance, "God save the United States and this honorable court" at the
beginning of Supreme Court sessions)..
While religious tolerance is accepted, religious freedom appears to
be waning. Granted, during the conservative revolution of the past couple
of years the radicals for separation of church and state extremism seem to
have moderated themselves somewhat, but still there is much damage left to
be undone. Let's undo it.
===========================================================================
Some comments on toleration
============================================================================
Toleration is not the goal, freedom and equality is the goal.
Toleration is, in the words of Thomas Paine, "Toleration is not the
opposite of intolerance, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are
despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of with-holding Liberty of
Conscience, and the other of granting it. The one is the pope armed with
fire and *****, and the other is the pope selling or granting
indulgences. The former is church and state, and the latter is church and
traffic."
(Thomas Paine, RIGHTS OF MAN)
======================================================
A Discussion of Freedom of Religion And Freedom From Religion
http://candst.tripod.com/freefrom.htm
================================================
Tolerance is not freedom nor is it equality. It is a form of permission
granted or withheld by those in power, those in control. it is at the whim
of others, granted today taken back next week.
As Madison stated, " Who does not see that the same authority which can
establish Christianity in exclusion of all other Religions may establish
with the same ease any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all
other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to
contribute three pence [p*66] only of his property for the support of any
one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in
all cases whatsoever? "
The same authority that can establish any sect of Christianity can also
establish with the same ease any religion that suits them and force any or
all citizens to support that religion, practice it etc.
Toleration places the point of power in the hands of others, and
they can extend this toleration or remove this toleration at will.
Religious freedom places all on an equal footing, giving none
power over any others.
=============================================
1871
Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest upon the
Legislative Powers of the States of the American Union
Chapter XIII
Of Religious Liberty
Those things which are not lawful under any of the American
constitutions may be stated thus:---
It is not mere toleration which is established in our system, but
religions equality.
Source of Information: Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which
Rest upon the Legislative Powers of the States of the American Union, By
Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., Second Edition, Little, Brown, and Company 1871,
pp (467-478)
==================================================
Second, toleration is not genuine freedom; it is the opposite. By giving
preference to adherents of the state church and...
http://candst.tripod.com/spivey.htm
===================================================
No Power to Congress Over Religion: The Separation Clause
....orthodoxy enforced by the state, to toleration-and only later to
religious liberty. Historically speaking, of course, religious toleration
is to be sharply contrasted to religious liberty. Toleration implies the
existence of an...
http://candst.tripod.com/art4piii.htm
==================================================
The Sunday Mail Argument (1810-1830)
....What other nations call religious toleration we call religious rights.
They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights,
of which government cannot deprive any portion of citizens, however small.
Despotic...
http://candst.tripod.com/sundays3.htm
====================================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
05 Nov 2003 11:14:25 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2003 17:16:00 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted in alt.atheism:
MK. Two points: 1) Mr. Thompson introduces the term "right" to the
discussion. This term is a little mystical to me. No one in this
discussion suggested that he be deprived of his first amandment right
of free expression. To call this a "right to mock whatever insane
moron" is insane and moronic. Rude, anyway.
You stopped backpedalling too soon. Try "recognizing reality".
2) I am a citizen of the USA. Why is the USA any more
your country than mine or Judge Moore's? Christians outnumber
atheists.
The nation exists, in part, to protect the minority from the majority.
Purely in atheists' self-interest, seems to me, they would
be smart to model tolerance.
You don't understand reality, do you?
I like a world with different faiths.
You're entitled to your likes. That doesn't mean that anyone else has
to agree with you. Oh, in case you had any doubt, the VAST majority
doesn't.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
04 Nov 2003 06:17:32 AM |
|
|
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote in message news:<dfbfc9b9.0311032139.3d23fee2@posting.google.com>...
Carol Lee Smith wrote:...
Don't forget the Moore(on) is a justice, not a judge--at least for now.
MK. Perhaps some people think you bigots make other atheists look good
by comparison. I suggest your intolerance makes other atheists look
bad by association. Suppose this were some other conntry and you were
visitors. Would you feel compelled to mock the religion of the
natives?
This makes me wonder how you equate "cheering the triumph of law over
pompous stupidity and abuse of power" with "mocking religion". But
then again, maybe that's not much of a stretch.
Liz #658
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
04 Nov 2003 06:22:47 AM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2003 04:17:32 -0800, (Liz) wrote:
malcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote in message news:<dfbfc9b9.0311032139.3d23fee2@posting.google.com>...
Carol Lee Smith wrote:...
Don't forget the Moore(on) is a justice, not a judge--at least for now.
MK. Perhaps some people think you bigots make other atheists look good
by comparison. I suggest your intolerance makes other atheists look
bad by association. Suppose this were some other conntry and you were
visitors. Would you feel compelled to mock the religion of the
natives?
This makes me wonder how you equate "cheering the triumph of law over
pompous stupidity and abuse of power" with "mocking religion". But
then again, maybe that's not much of a stretch.
He's a fundie - 'nuff said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
04 Nov 2003 02:31:27 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:....
mtstack@hotmail.com (Liz) wrote:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
Carol Lee Smith wrote:...
Don't forget the Moore(on) is a justice, not a judge--at least for now.
MK. Perhaps some people think you bigots make other atheists look good
by comparison. I suggest your intolerance makes other atheists look
bad by association. Suppose this were some other conntry and you were
visitors. Would you feel compelled to mock the religion of the
natives?
This makes me wonder how you equate "cheering the triumph of law over
pompous stupidity and abuse of power" with "mocking religion". But
then again, maybe that's not much of a stretch.
MK. De minimus. I survived 50 years in a predominantly Christian
country.
He's a fundie - 'nuff said.
MK. Nope. I was raised in no church. I am no more a Christian than I
am a Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. My formative philosophical influences
were Bertrand Russell, Willard Van Orman Quine, Charles Darwin, and
George Gaylord Simpson. I see little difference between you
intolerant bigots demanding the removal of crosses on public land and
the Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
04 Nov 2003 02:59:47 PM |
|
|
"Malcolm Kirkpatrick" <malcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfbfc9b9.0311041231.3c2686ee@posting.google.com...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:....
mtstack@hotmail.com (Liz) wrote:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
Carol Lee Smith wrote:...
Don't forget the Moore(on) is a justice, not a judge--at least for
now.
MK. Perhaps some people think you bigots make other atheists look
good
by comparison. I suggest your intolerance makes other atheists look
bad by association. Suppose this were some other conntry and you were
visitors. Would you feel compelled to mock the religion of the
natives?
This makes me wonder how you equate "cheering the triumph of law over
pompous stupidity and abuse of power" with "mocking religion". But
then again, maybe that's not much of a stretch.
MK. De minimus. I survived 50 years in a predominantly Christian
country.
I have too, but that doesn't mean I enjoyed every condescending remark or
attempted conversion at the hands of certain Christians. This is supposed to
be a country where we all can worship or not worship the way we choose.
Christians that complain that Christianity doesn't get the respect it
deserves are usually the ones with no respect for the other guy's beliefs.
After a while you occaissionally get pushed beyond the point of being
polite. Objecting to someone else's actions or beliefs is not bigotry. If it
were the Christians would be the biggest bigots of them all.
He's a fundie - 'nuff said.
MK. Nope. I was raised in no church. I am no more a Christian than I
am a Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. My formative philosophical influences
were Bertrand Russell, Willard Van Orman Quine, Charles Darwin, and
George Gaylord Simpson. I see little difference between you
intolerant bigots demanding the removal of crosses on public land and
the Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues.
So you don't see the difference between removing a rather common religious
symbol from taxpayer property and the destruction of an ancient world
treasure?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
04 Nov 2003 08:13:06 PM |
|
|
"Dave Thompson" wrote:...
"Malcolm Kirkpatrick" wrote:...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:....
mtstack@hotmail.com (Liz) wrote:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
Carol Lee Smith wrote:...
Don't forget the Moore(on) is a justice, not a judge--at least for
now.
MK. Perhaps some people think you bigots make other atheists look
good
by comparison. I suggest your intolerance makes other atheists look
bad by association. Suppose this were some other conntry and you were
visitors. Would you feel compelled to mock the religion of the
natives?
This makes me wonder how you equate "cheering the triumph of law over
pompous stupidity and abuse of power" with "mocking religion". But
then again, maybe that's not much of a stretch.
MK. De minimus. I survived 50 years in a predominantly Christian
country.
I have too, but that doesn't mean I enjoyed every condescending remark or
attempted conversion at the hands of certain Christians.
MK. OK. Let's consider condescending remarks:...
"...Don't forget the Moore(on) is a justice..."
... This is supposed to
be a country where we all can worship or not worship the way we choose.
Christians that complain that Christianity doesn't get the respect it
deserves are usually the ones with no respect for the other guy's beliefs.
MK. That I don't see. I don't believe in a soul, but to people who do,
who believe that the soul enters the body at conception, abortion is
murder. They are remarkably restrained, given the horror they see
around them. Like living next to Dachau. From a tactical point of
view, Roe v. Wade was a huge mistake for the materialists. Abortion
would have been legalized piecemeal had not the USSC in a truly
mendacious decision, nationalized the issue and turned the dispute
into a winner-take-all contest.
After a while you occasionally get pushed beyond the point of being
polite. Objecting to someone else's actions or beliefs is not bigotry. If it
were the Christians would be the biggest bigots of them all.
MK. That also I do not see. You seem to have a much lower flash-point
than I do. I get along with Christians, and Hindus, and Muslims. I
don't mind attempts to convert me, since they believe they are sharing
something valuable.
He's a fundie - 'nuff said.
MK. Nope. I was raised in no church. I am no more a Christian than I
am a Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. My formative philosophical influences
were Bertrand Russell, Willard Van Orman Quine, Charles Darwin, and
George Gaylord Simpson. I see little difference between you
intolerant bigots demanding the removal of crosses on public land and
the Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues.
So you don't see the difference between removing a rather common religious
symbol from taxpayer property and the destruction of an ancient world
treasure?
MK. I was thinking of the monumental crosses at Schofield Barracks
(Kolekole Pass) and Punchbowl National Cemetary. I kinda liked them.
The smaller relics (roadside shrines to accident victims, the Ten
Commandments in the courthouse) I saw as quaint customs, like
horseshoes nailed above a door or eating salad with a different fork
from the entree. We are all ambassadors to others, men to the country
of women (and vice versa), Whites to the country of Blacks (and vice
versa), etc. I do not appreciate the representation to the nation of
the faithful provided by intolerant atheists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
05 Nov 2003 11:03:26 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2003 18:13:06 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted in alt.atheism:
The smaller relics (roadside shrines to accident victims, the Ten
Commandments in the courthouse) I saw as quaint customs, like
horseshoes nailed above a door or eating salad with a different fork
from the entree.
So you can't see the difference between eating salad in your home and
the government eating your salad in your home?
I do not appreciate the representation to the nation of
the faithful provided by intolerant atheists.
The US is, by ratified treaty, NOT a nation of the faithful.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
04 Nov 2003 11:32:31 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2003, Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
After a while you occasionally get pushed beyond the point of being
polite. Objecting to someone else's actions or beliefs is not bigotry. If it
were the Christians would be the biggest bigots of them all.
MK. That also I do not see. You seem to have a much lower flash-point
than I do. I get along with Christians, and Hindus, and Muslims. I
don't mind attempts to convert me, since they believe they are sharing
something valuable.
One's religion may be valuable to him/her. It may not necessarily be of
value ot everyone. Everyone is entitled to their own personal choice of
religion, and as individuals may share it if others are willing to be the
recipient(s).
I don't believe that public servants should be allowed to endorse
religion by virtue of their office.
... We are all ambassadors to others, men to the country
of women (and vice versa), Whites to the country of Blacks (and vice
versa), etc.
Etc. ??
then of course it follows that included should be: We are all ambassadors
to others, theists to atheists and atheists to theists.
As individuals (individual citizens) of course.
I do not appreciate the representation to the nation of
the faithful provided by intolerant atheists.
You are equating atheism with intolerance. I don't think you can support
that attitude with proof that intolerance is inherent in atheism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
05 Nov 2003 02:11:23 PM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith wrote:...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
One's religion may be valuable to him/her. It may not necessarily be of
value ot everyone. Everyone is entitled to their own personal choice of
religion, and as individuals may share it if others are willing to be the
recipient(s).
I don't believe that public servants should be allowed to endorse
religion by virtue of their office.
MK. I agree, I suppose. The difference is that I don't call people who
overstep "morons". Ususlly.
... We are all ambassadors to others, men to the country
of women (and vice versa), Whites to the country of Blacks (and vice
versa), etc.
Etc. ??
then of course it follows that included should be: We are all ambassadors
to others, theists to atheists and atheists to theists.
MK. Right.
As individuals (individual citizens) of course.
I do not appreciate the representation to the nation of
the faithful provided by intolerant atheists.
You are equating atheism with intolerance...
MK. No. "Intolerant atheists" then would be redundant.
...I don't think you can support that attitude with proof that
intolerance is > inherent in atheism.
MK. I don't think atheism logically requires intolerance. I think many
atheists are arrogant, and believe that they are smarter than people
of faith. The key to avoiding arrogance while cultivating a
specialization, be it auto mechanics, Central Asian History, or
intelligence generally, is to remember that other people have their
specializations, too. Perhaps more valuable than the "intelligence"
specialization is the "compassion" specialization.
MK. Aside from intellectual pride, socialism seems more prevalent
among atheists than among people of faith. Again, there is no logical
connection, except perhaps that people who live in their heads might
devote more time to dreaming about what a wonderful world this would
be if they ran it. This bothers me. Most devout Christians or Muslims
could list a dozen reasons why people like me should go to hell. Most
devout socialists could list a dozen reasons why people like me should
go to prison. Since I don't believe in hell and I do believe in
prison, I fear socialists more than I fear Christians or Muslims. Of
course, these categories are not mutually exclusive, so I fear people
who would use the State to enforce religion. I probably agree with you
there, but I don't see monumental crosses or "under god" in the pledge
as the threat you'all seem to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
05 Nov 2003 11:09:23 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2003 12:11:23 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted in alt.atheism:
MK. I agree, I suppose. The difference is that I don't call people who
overstep "morons". Ususlly.
But Moore *is* a moron. He certainly can't claim ignorance of the law
- without also admitting stupidity and grand larceny.
MK. I don't think atheism logically requires intolerance. I think many
atheists are arrogant, and believe that they are smarter than people
of faith.
I think that's inherent when speaking of people who believe in an
ancient magik sky daddy myth as if it were real.
The key to avoiding arrogance while cultivating a
specialization, be it auto mechanics, Central Asian History, or
intelligence generally, is to remember that other people have their
specializations, too.
Specializing in being stupid isn't something commendable.
I probably agree with you
there, but I don't see monumental crosses or "under god" in the pledge
as the threat you'all seem to.
This is a nation of laws. Violation of those laws is inherently a
threat to society.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
12 Nov 2003 10:24:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 05:09:23 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>,
Message ID: <liljqv0g77ei69lc77mb88o6qnnhqk3ul7@Pern.rk> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On 5 Nov 2003 12:11:23 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted in alt.atheism:
MK. I agree, I suppose. The difference is that I don't call people who
overstep "morons". Ususlly.
But Moore *is* a moron. He certainly can't claim ignorance of the law
- without also admitting stupidity and grand larceny.
Stupidity and dishonesty I can see, but grand larceny?
MK. I don't think atheism logically requires intolerance. I think many
atheists are arrogant, and believe that they are smarter than people
of faith.
I think that's inherent when speaking of people who believe in an
ancient magik sky daddy myth as if it were real.
The key to avoiding arrogance while cultivating a
specialization, be it auto mechanics, Central Asian History, or
intelligence generally, is to remember that other people have their
specializations, too.
Specializing in being stupid isn't something commendable.
I probably agree with you
there, but I don't see monumental crosses or "under god" in the pledge
as the threat you'all seem to.
This is a nation of laws. Violation of those laws is inherently a
threat to society.
Which many Christians consider it their "Holy Duty" to do so.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
14 Nov 2003 07:28:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:24:05 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 05:09:23 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>,
Message ID: <liljqv0g77ei69lc77mb88o6qnnhqk3ul7@Pern.rk> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On 5 Nov 2003 12:11:23 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted in alt.atheism:
MK. I agree, I suppose. The difference is that I don't call people who
overstep "morons". Ususlly.
But Moore *is* a moron. He certainly can't claim ignorance of the law
- without also admitting stupidity and grand larceny.
Stupidity and dishonesty I can see, but grand larceny?
He collected a salary for his knowledge of the law.
This is a nation of laws. Violation of those laws is inherently a
threat to society.
Which many Christians consider it their "Holy Duty" to do so.
Many theists ARE a threat to society. I didn't think there was any
question about that since 9/11, which was directly caused BY theism.
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
16 Nov 2003 01:36:02 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:...
MK. Discussion deleted...
Many theists ARE a threat to society. I didn't think there was any
question about that since 9/11, which was directly caused BY theism.
MK. The WTC fell to the actions of warm-blooded bipeds, therefore...
They fell to mammals, therefore...
They fell to male humans, therefore...
MK. The above arguments are about as good as many arguments peviously
made in this thread. I expect even the most brain-damaged contributors
will see the flaws.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
17 Nov 2003 03:43:43 PM |
|
|
In article <dfbfc9b9.0311152336.3401c794@posting.google.com> (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) writes:
<
<Al Klein wrote:...
<>
<MK. Discussion deleted...
<>
<> Many theists ARE a threat to society. I didn't think there was any
<> question about that since 9/11, which was directly caused BY theism.
<>
<MK. The WTC fell to the actions of warm-blooded bipeds, therefore...
<They fell to mammals, therefore...
<They fell to male humans, therefore...
<>
<MK. The above arguments are about as good as many arguments peviously
<made in this thread. I expect even the most brain-damaged contributors
<will see the flaws.
Sure. Since the religious fanatics who committed this crime in the
name of their beliefs were also male mammals, religious zealotry
had nothing to do with it.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
17 Nov 2003 11:30:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:43:43 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) posted in alt.atheism:
Sure. Since the religious fanatics who committed this crime in the
name of their beliefs were also male mammals, religious zealotry
had nothing to do with it.
They each had a feminine side, so it was a "woman" thing.
</even farther afield>
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
16 Nov 2003 01:07:04 PM |
|
|
On 15 Nov 2003 23:36:02 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:...
MK. Discussion deleted...
Many theists ARE a threat to society. I didn't think there was any
question about that since 9/11, which was directly caused BY theism.
MK. The WTC fell to the actions of warm-blooded bipeds, therefore...
They fell to mammals, therefore...
They fell to male humans, therefore...
MK. The above arguments are about as good as many arguments peviously
made in this thread. I expect even the most brain-damaged contributors
will see the flaws.
The CAUSE of 9/11 was theism, not mammalianism or bipedalism or
male-ism.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
17 Nov 2003 05:08:18 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick posted:...
MK. Discussion deleted...
Many theists ARE a threat to society. I didn't think there was any
question about that since 9/11, which was directly caused BY theism.
MK. The WTC fell to the actions of warm-blooded bipeds, therefore...
They fell to mammals, therefore...
They fell to male humans, therefore...
MK. The above arguments are about as good as many arguments peviously
made in this thread. I expect even the most brain-damaged contributors
will see the flaws.
The CAUSE of 9/11 was theism, not mammalianism or bipedalism or
male-ism.
MK. That assertion implies an unwarranted degree of confidence, both
in definitions ("theism", "cause") and in human motivation, seems to
me. If people are angry enough, they can find reason to kill in
Shakespeare's sonnets. If they are benign and happy enough, they will
perceive exhortations to homicidal action as interesting political
theatre and no more. So --why- are so many people ready to kill? I
expect that humans fall along a multi-dimensional normal distribution
(roughly) in innate emotional predispositions. On top of this they get
privation or abundance, indoctrination (religious and historical) and
political repression or freedom. Then they may or may not be empowered
by someone motivated by idiosyncratic reasons.
MK. You might even say that technology itself was the cause of the
2001-09-11 event, since technology empowers everyone, and technology
also fostered an increase in the human population (lowering the value
of human life). We approach the day when you will need a psychological
security clearance to study microbiology, physics, or chemistry. The
reflexive hostility which one may see in this thread could be very
harmful, if backed by weapons. It is instructive to observe how quick
people are to descend into name-calling given the anonymity of the
internet discussion groups. What happens when anyone with a normal IQ
and a grudge can kill without discovery?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
17 Nov 2003 11:32:37 PM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2003 15:08:18 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:...
The CAUSE of 9/11 was theism, not mammalianism or bipedalism or
male-ism.
MK. That assertion implies an unwarranted degree of confidence, both
in definitions ("theism", "cause") and in human motivation, seems to
me.
Assuming bin Laden was responsible for it (a reasonable assumption),
there's no implication. He STATED the reason. It was the fact that
the US is not a Moslem country. Now I know it's a reach, but I
"infer" from that, that his reasons were theistic.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
18 Nov 2003 04:04:10 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick posted:...
Al Klein wrote:...
The CAUSE of 9/11 was theism, not mammalianism or bipedalism or
male-ism.
MK. That assertion implies an unwarranted degree of confidence, both
in definitions ("theism", "cause") and in human motivation, seems to
me.
Assuming bin Laden was responsible for it (a reasonable assumption),
there's no implication. He STATED the reason. It was the fact that
the US is not a Moslem country. Now I know it's a reach, but I
"infer" from that, that his reasons were theistic.
MK. Pretty much agreement, so we needn't beat on this much more. Bin
Ladin claimed responsibility for the 2003-09-11 event. I believe him.
He offered a religious justification. However, maybe none of that
would have happened if he'd received more love at home, or not been
switched from breast to bottle so early, etc. That's all. Elsewhere in
this thread I offer examples of atheistic mass murder (Soviet Union,
China, Cambodia). So I don't believe that people need God's backing to
kill, and it's not clear that religious societies are more violent
than materialistic societies. I think people justify the things they
want to do in the language they've learned to use. Religious murderers
will give religious reasons, and atheists will give materialistic
reasons. That's not "cause". God, I'd kill for a beer about now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
18 Nov 2003 11:15:08 AM |
|
|
In article <dfbfc9b9.0311180204.36e56800@posting.google.com> (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) writes:
<
<Al Klein wrote:...
<> Malcolm Kirkpatrick posted:...
<> >Al Klein wrote:...
<>
<> >> The CAUSE of 9/11 was theism, not mammalianism or bipedalism or
<> >> male-ism.
<>
<> >MK. That assertion implies an unwarranted degree of confidence, both
<> >in definitions ("theism", "cause") and in human motivation, seems to
<> >me.
<>
<> Assuming bin Laden was responsible for it (a reasonable assumption),
<> there's no implication. He STATED the reason. It was the fact that
<> the US is not a Moslem country. Now I know it's a reach, but I
<> "infer" from that, that his reasons were theistic.
<>
<MK. Pretty much agreement, so we needn't beat on this much more. Bin
<Ladin claimed responsibility for the 2003-09-11 event. I believe him.
<He offered a religious justification. However, maybe none of that
<would have happened if he'd received more love at home, or not been
<switched from breast to bottle so early, etc. That's all. Elsewhere in
<this thread I offer examples of atheistic mass murder (Soviet Union,
<China, Cambodia). So I don't believe that people need God's backing to
<kill, and it's not clear that religious societies are more violent
<than materialistic societies. I think people justify the things they
<want to do in the language they've learned to use. Religious murderers
<will give religious reasons, and atheists will give materialistic
<reasons. That's not "cause". God, I'd kill for a beer about now.
Certain things are virulently potent at enabling this primal
impulse to trash the neighboring village (or country). Anything
which invites you to subordinate yourself to a purpose larger
than your own seems to uncage the beast. Religion has historically
been particluarly dangerous in this regard ("God was on our
side; they ran like rabbits"). But, as you point out, patriotism
and nationalism are more than dangerous in their own right.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
18 Nov 2003 08:04:11 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick writes:...
<Al Klein wrote:...
MK. Discussion deleted...
<> Assuming bin Laden was responsible for it (a reasonable assumption),
<> there's no implication. He STATED the reason. It was the fact that
<> the US is not a Moslem country. Now I know it's a reach, but I
<> "infer" from that, that his reasons were theistic.
<>
<MK. Pretty much agreement, so we needn't beat on this much more. Bin
<Ladin claimed responsibility for the 2003-09-11 event. I believe him.
<He offered a religious justification. However, maybe none of that
<would have happened if he'd received more love at home, or not been
<switched from breast to bottle so early, etc. That's all. Elsewhere in
<this thread I offer examples of atheistic mass murder (Soviet Union,
<China, Cambodia). So I don't believe that people need God's backing to
<kill, and it's not clear that religious societies are more violent
<than materialistic societies. I think people justify the things they
<want to do in the language they've learned to use. Religious murderers
<will give religious reasons, and atheists will give materialistic
<reasons. That's not "cause". God, I'd kill for a beer about now.
Certain things are virulently potent at enabling this primal
impulse to trash the neighboring village (or country). Anything
which invites you to subordinate yourself to a purpose larger
than your own seems to uncage the beast. Religion has historically
been particluarly dangerous in this regard ("God was on our
side; they ran like rabbits")...
MK. Sorry. That's at issue here. People are compulsive joiners.
Aristotle said that man is the political animal. Humans are
gregarious. In fat times they get together, share food, socialize,
dance, pair off, and reproduce. In lean times, they get together,
choose sides, pick up sticks and rocks until there's enough to go
around, and then pair off and reproduce. I suggest that the words we
use to describe this are less important than the underlying material
variables.
...But, as you point out, patriotism and nationalism are more than
dangerous > in their own right.
MK. These are instances of human social impulse. War between nations
may be more dramatic than conflict between pre-State entities, but it
could well be the case that pe-State conflict killed a larger fraction
of the population. People kill for territory and will steal crops,
which, if done just before harvest, in autumn, is a death sentence.
Humans in groups can build what individuals singly cannot. The herd
mentality has positive and negative aspects. It allows us to work with
people we dislike "for the greater good". When the crowd's in full
throat, they will participate in a gang rape, or at least stand by. It
is this herd mentality which amputates normal human sympathetic
impulses. As when people use their philosophical orientation to
group-identify and cheer the defeat of, e.g., a judge who believes
other than their pack does.
Aloha.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
19 Nov 2003 06:06:12 PM |
|
|
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
MK. Discussion deleted (group-think)...
MK. A typo:...
MK. ....In lean times, they get together, choose sides, pick up sticks and > rocks...
....and kill...
...until there's enough to go around,...
I hope "and kill" was understood.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
19 Nov 2003 11:09:04 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2003 02:04:10 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted in alt.atheism:
MK. Pretty much agreement, so we needn't beat on this much more. Bin
Ladin claimed responsibility for the 2003-09-11 event. I believe him.
He offered a religious justification. However, maybe none of that
would have happened if he'd received more love at home, or not been
switched from breast to bottle so early, etc. That's all. Elsewhere in
this thread I offer examples of atheistic mass murder (Soviet Union
Nothing to do with atheism.
China
Maybe, but it's a stretch.
Cambodia).
Also nothing to do with atheism.
So I don't believe that people need God's backing to kill
I never even implied that they do. But Christianity's been using its
religion as an excuse to kill for 1,700 years.
and it's not clear that religious societies are more violent than materialistic societies.
Never read the bible, eh?
will give religious reasons, and atheists will give materialistic
reasons.
Whoa! Thought I wouldn't notice the dishonest switch from atheist to
materialist? Atheists won't give atheistic reasons any more than
people kill because they don't believe in the Easter Bunny.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
20 Nov 2003 04:07:34 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick posted:...
MK. Pretty much agreement, so we needn't beat on this much more. Bin
Ladin claimed responsibility for the 2003-09-11 event. I believe him.
He offered a religious justification. However, maybe none of that
would have happened if he'd received more love at home, or not been
switched from breast to bottle so early, etc. That's all. Elsewhere in
this thread I offer examples of atheistic mass murder (Soviet Union
Nothing to do with atheism.
MK. Never read Solzhenitsyn's __The Gulag Archepelago__, huh? Atheism
was official policy, as was persecuition of Christians and Jews.
China
Maybe, but it's a stretch.
MK. Not at all.
Cambodia).
Also nothing to do with atheism.
MK. The communist Khmer Rouge persecuited Buddhists.
So I don't believe that people need God's backing to kill...
I never even implied that they do. But Christianity's been using its
religion as an excuse to kill for 1,700 years.
MK. No. --People-- who professed Christianity claimed divine authority
for their aggression. Just as will Hindu's, Muslims, and materialists.
...and it's not clear that religious societies are more violent than > > materialistic societies.
Never read the bible, eh?
MK. Not cover to cover, so. But even if I had (and I read quite a few
bible passages about the Jews using ethnic cleansing to obtain land),
that is only one side of the scale. My point is that people speak of
killing in the same metaphors they use to discuss other areas of their
lives. "More" requires a comparison.
will give religious reasons, and atheists will give materialistic
reasons.
Whoa! Thought I wouldn't notice the dishonest switch from atheist to
materialist? Atheists won't give atheistic reasons any more than
people kill because they don't believe in the Easter Bunny.
MK. I use "materialist" and "atheist" almost synonymously, since an
"atheist" is a "not" ("a-") "-theist" (from "theo", god). Now,
"atheists" believe in something, and if it's not the supernatural
world it's the natural (i.e., material) world. I don't see my usage as
dishonest; I describe myself as a "materialist", which I prefer to
"atheist" because, as I wrote earlier, I was raised in no church. My
position is not a rejection of god, but more like Laplace's position,
when someone observed that there was no mention of God in __Mechanique
Celeste__: "I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You |
26 Nov 2003 07:02:25 AM |
|
|
Associated Press
11/24/2003, 3:10 p.m. CT
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- Anyone who wants to view the trial of former
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore can watch it on video tape.
The state Supreme Court law library hired a production company for $3,000
to videotape the trial before the Court of the Judiciary, with copies to
be available to the public.
"My feeling was that it was just too significant an event to not videotape
it," said Tim Lewis, the library's director. He said he will make copies
available to anyone for the cost of copying, about $12.
"Seventy-five years from now, there are not going to be any eyewitnesses
alive," Lewis said. "Any of us that were in that room are not going to be
alive, so we've in effect given posterity an eyewitness view 75 years down
the road."
Moore was removed from office on Nov. 13 after a trial before the Court of
the Judiciary for refusing to obey a federal court order to remove a
monument to the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state judicial
building.
Dan Black Studios taped the trial from three angles with cameras set up in
the balcony of the Supreme Court Courtroom. Lewis said the taping was done
"with the idea of getting the full flavor of the trial for historical
purposes."
Lewis said he got four estimates and Black was the low bidder.
"I was proud to have been selected to have done it," Black told The
Birmingham News for a story Monday. "It was one of the most historic
events in the state's history."
In-house cameras in the judicial building tape oral arguments of the three
state appeals courts, but Lewis said he wanted something of higher quality
for Moore's trial.
Lewis said his budget, like all state budgets, is tight, but he paid for
the tape by dipping into funds normally used for law books and other
materials for judges.
"It will represent an eyewitness view of a major historical event, not
only for the courts of Alabama but for Alabama citizens in general," he
said.
Terry Butts, an attorney for Moore, said he would have preferred to have
the proceedings televised, as Moore's lawyers requested, so members of the
public could have viewed it and made their own copies without cost.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
