Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore...

[Wake up CALL]

was ordered removed from office by the Alabama state Court of the Judiciary. Love him or hate him you just have got to be happy he will soon be a thing of the past!

Bye Bye Birdie (http://www.nbc5i.com/news/2634985/detail.html?treets=dfw&tml=dfw_natlbreak&ts=T&tmi= dfw_natlbreak_19501_11290111132003)

[ACPlayer]

He'll be back in different clothing.

I will let others elaborate.

[Wake up CALL]

You mean reincarnated as a liberal politician? Yeah, I suppose it could be worse, he might have found this message board.

[elwoodblues]

This one seemed like a pretty easy case. Part of his oath of office was to uphold the law. He willfuly disobeyed a valid court order (regardless of whether you agree that it was a "good" court order, it was a valid court order). Therefore, he should be removed.

I wonder how he would have responded if, in his court room, someone said that they would wilfully violate his orders because of religious convictions...I doubt that he'd say "okay then, go about your business."

[J.R.]

That would depends on the which religion the lawbreaker had placed his/her faith in.

[John Cole]

He ran on a pro Ten Commandments platform. That's it?

[elwoodblues]

Nope, that isn't it. He erected a monument to the 10 commandments in the court rotunda (weighing several thousand pounds). A lawsuit ensued trying to get the monument removed. The US district court ordered the removal of the monument. The judge refused to remove it. The Court of Appeals ordered the removal of the monument and he still refused to remove it --- his collegues on the court overruled his decision to not remove the monument then had it removed.

[elwoodblues]

Does anyone else find it ironic that very few of the 10 commandments which this judge argued are the foundation of our laws are actually laws that can be enforced??

1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. <font color="blue"> Unconstitutional </font>

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. <font color="blue"> Unconstitutional </font>

3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything 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. <font color="blue"> Unconstitutional </font>

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. <font color="blue"> Unconstitutional </font>

5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long. <font color="blue"> No law against this... </font>

6. Thou shalt not kill. <font color="red"> Score 1 for the 10 commandments! </font>

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. <font color="blue"> This one is fuzzy --- I think there are some states that have an adultery statute, though they are rarely, if ever, enforced </font>

8. Thou shalt not steal. <font color="red"> Go 10 commandments, go! </font>

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. <font color="red"> Again, fuzzy (perjury unlawful, but lying in general is okay) -- though I'll score this one for the 10 commandments </font>

10. Thou shalt not covet 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 anything that is thy neighbor's.
<font color="blue"> Coveting is just fine --- no crime here </font>

[Wake up CALL]

Great analysis elwoodblues. I suppose 3 out of 10 isn't bad! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACPlayer]

Footnote: he lost his job because he ignored the Courts final ruling.

Alabama, now needs a new Supreme Court Chief Justice.

[John Cole]

Elwood,

No, I mean he ran for the post on a pro Ten Commandments platform. Just dwell on the absurdity of that a bit.

Q: "Why are you running?"

A: "I'm in favor of the Ten Commandments."

[brad]

US supreme court has ten commandments displayed

btw, since when does US federal district court have jurisdictrion over alabama supreme court building?

[blueboles]

I was under the impression that it did not. But could someone that knows enlighten us?

[elwoodblues]

The Federal Courts have jurisdiction here because the State court violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The language of the First Amendment has been interpreted to apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The First Amendment was first applied to the States (I think) in 1925 when the Supreme Court declared in Gitlow v. New York that: "For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press--which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress--are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States."

Later, in 1940 in Cantwell v. Connecticut, the court held that the protections against the establishment of religion also applied to the states. The court wrote: "We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws."

[Cyrus]

Good post.

And let's not forget that greed is the very foundation of capitalism! Coveting success, social status and money is the driving force behind greed. This guy wants to see greed outlawed?!

"10. Thou shalt not covet 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 anything that is thy neighbor's. <font color="blue"> Coveting is just fine --- no crime here</font> "

[adios]

According to Roy Moore the issue is about whether or not God can be acknowledged in public sector in the state of Alabama. From the article by Moore:

"We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment."

Furthermore Moore has this to say about the issue:

"The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

Moore is stating that the State of Alabama has every right to acknowledge god while the Federal courts say that the State of Alabama does not have that right, apparently even if it's in the Alabama State Constitution. Looks like an issue regarding the dividing line between Federal sovereignty and state sovereignty to me.

In God I Trust (http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003926)

In God I Trust
Why I'm standing up for the Ten Commandments in Alabama.

BY ROY S. MOORE
Monday, August 25, 2003 12:01 a.m.

MONTGOMERY, Ala.--The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"
Those were the precise words used by Judge Thompson in his closing remarks in open court. Today, I argue for the rule of law, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgment of God in the public sector.

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.

By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order, violated the rule of law.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and my fellow justices have argued that they must act to remove the monument to preserve the rule of law. But the precise opposite is true: Article VI of the Constitution makes explicitly clear that the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it, are "the supreme Law of the Land." Judge Thompson and the judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have all sworn oaths which bind them to support the Constitution as it is written--not as they would personally prefer it to be written.

By subjugating the people of Alabama to the unconstitutional edict by Judge Thompson, that public officials may not acknowledge God, the attorney general and my colleagues have made the fiat opinion of a judge supreme over the text of the Constitution. While agreeing with me that the Constitution is supreme, and that the opinion of Judge Thompson was contrary to the Constitution, the attorney general has argued that he must follow an order he himself believes to be in direct violation of the supreme law of the land.





One of the great influences on the Founding Fathers, common law sage William Blackstone, once pointed out that judges do not make laws, they interpret them. No judge has the authority to impose his will on the people of a state, and no judge has the constitutional authority to forbid public officials from acknowledging the same God specifically mentioned in the charter documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
My decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office. Had the judge declared the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary slavery to be illegal, or ordered the churches of my state burned to the ground, there would be little question in the minds of the people of Alabama and the U.S. that such actions should be ignored as unconstitutional and beyond the legitimate scope of a judge's authority. Judge Thompson's decision to unilaterally void the duties of elected officials under the state constitution and to prohibit judges from acknowledging God is equally unlawful.

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains--as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like "separation of church and state," to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.





The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.
Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Moore is stating that the State of Alabama has every right to acknowledge god while the Federal courts say that the State of Alabama does not have that right, apparently even if it's in the Alabama State Constitution. Looks like an issue regarding the dividing line between Federal sovereignty and state sovereignty to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

US Constitution Article 6 Clause 2 (the parts in blue are the relevant words):

<font color="blue"> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; </font> and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, <font color="blue"> shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding </font>

[adios]

Which precedes the ammendments that Moore cited when he wrote:

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.
Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.

Are we talking about a treaty made by the US here?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Are we talking about a treaty made by the US here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, the 14th Amendment has been routinely interpreted to apply the protections of the First Amendment to the states through its Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause reads: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The word liberty has been interpreted to include the protections of the first amendment. Thus, to simplify, we can fairly read the 14th Amendment to say "nor shall ALABAMA deprive any person of THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT without due process of law."

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
US Constitution Article 6 Clause 2 (the parts in blue are the relevant words):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why did you cite US Constitution Article 6 Clause 2. What does that have to do with it then?

[ QUOTE ]
The word liberty has been interpreted to include the protections of the first amendment. Thus, to simplify, we can fairly read the 14th Amendment to say "nor shall ALABAMA deprive any person of THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT without due process of law."

[/ QUOTE ]

Referring back to Moore's wrote:

"The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

Apparently the Thompson and Moore are in agreement regarding the issue which is “Can the state acknowledge God?”

In the complaint brought by the ACLU no mention of the 14th amendment was made and all the reports I’ve read about Thompson’s order (which I haven’t found text for) indicate that Moore was violating the 1st amendment.

ACLU Complaint (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/complaint.pdf)

So methinks that the 14th amendment that you’ve introduced into the mix here wasn’t considered as a relevant issue in the original complaint, the decision by the Federal courts, or by Moore. Looks to me like Moore and the Federal courts are at odds with interpreting the 1st amendment.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
So methinks that the 14th amendment that you’ve introduced into the mix here wasn’t considered as a relevant issue in the original complaint

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think the 14th Amendment wasn't an issue in the case/decision, you are (without question) incorrect. The 14th Amendment is the means through which the various constitutional provisions apply to the states.

[ QUOTE ]
Then why did you cite US Constitution Article 6 Clause 2. What does that have to do with it then?


[/ QUOTE ]
I probably wasn't clear enough for you.

Article 6 Clause 2 (paraphrased) says: The Constitution is the supreme law, state judge's have to abide by it.

Amend 1 (paraphrased) says: Congress cannot establish a religion

Amend 14 (paraphrased) says: No STATE shall deny a person of Liberty without Due Process

Liberty in 14th has been read to include the protections of the 1st Amendment. Therefore the Federal Constitution says no State can establish a religion without due process of law.

Interpreting the Federal Constitution, the US Court of Appeals held that the monument violated the 1st and 14th amendments. Because the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land (see Article 6 clause 2), the judge must follow the ruling.

[andyfox]

Judge Moore is a nut.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/030122/moore.shtml

[adios]

Thanks for clearing it up. I did find the decision by the Federal court and it stated Moore violated the establishment clause of the first ammendment which was made binding on the individual states by the 14th amendment. Here's what the 1st amendment states regarding the establishment clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Here's an article regarding the Establishment clause and this case:

How high is the ‘wall of separation?’ (http://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/goldberg.php)

How high is the ‘wall of separation?’
The demarcations are detailed, nuanced and still being explored by the courts

By Bruce Murray
FACSNET Editor
A porous wall
Like many of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, those granted in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment are not total or clear-cut.


The Pledge of Allegiance – with the words “under God”; school vouchers, and the presence of the Ten Commandments on public property are examples of where total separation of church and state breaks down.

“The Constitution doesn’t mandate a complete separation of church and state. It mandates tolerance of all religions and affirmatively requires accommodation,” said Charles Goldberg, a First Amendment attorney based in Denver.

Goldberg spoke at the Sept. 4 FACS seminar, “God and Law: Religious Liberty and the Courts,” in Seattle.


“God is inherent in much of the American fabric. In 1789, the very week Congress approved the Establishment Clause, it also enacted legislation to pay for chaplains to say prayers before Congress, and that has been in effect for 214 years,” he said. “The First Amendment accommodates all religion. ... So where’s the line between permissible and not permissible?”

Establishment vs. separation
The First Amendment does not contain the phrase, “separation of church and state”; it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Establishment refers to the designation of an official state religion, as was the tradition in Europe and among the individual American colonies.

Thomas Jefferson, in a Jan. 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, explained how non-establishment is connected to separation of church and state:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the Whole American people which declared that their legislature should make ‘no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation of church and state,” Jefferson wrote.


“Separation of church and state” is still a frequently used mantra, but “wall of separation” isn’t often invoked by the courts today.

“It is important to understand how we’ve evolved, and what modern jurisprudence has determined in the last 40 to 50 years,” Goldberg said.

The Lemon test
The U.S. Supreme Court, over the course of the past 50 years, has laid down most of the ground rules for the intersection of religion in public life.

In the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, the court ruled that public funds may be used for the purpose of the transportation of children to parochial schools.


“The Supreme Court made some accommodation. They decided there is no absolute separation,” Goldberg said.

In the 1971 case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court placed restraints on the connection of education and religion. The case involved a Rhode Island program that subsidized the salaries of parochial school teachers. The court held that the Act fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause.


In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger devised a series of criteria, the so-called Lemon test, to determine whether or not a law meets constitutional muster.
Using these criteria, a law violates the Establishment Clause if:

It has no secular purpose.
It advances or inhibits religion, OR
Fosters excessive government entanglement with religion.
A law that matches any of these criteria is considered a violation of the Establishment Clause, according to the Lemon test.

“Most courts still come back to the Lemon test even though a number of courts have determined it to be in disrepute,” Goldberg said.

The Ten Commandments
In Glassroth v. Moore, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore violated the Establishment Clause by placing a monument to the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the Alabama state courthouse.

“The monument and its placement in the rotunda create the impression of being in the presence of something holy and sacred, causing some building employees and visitors to consider the monument an inviting and appropriate place for prayer,” the court wrote.


The court applied the Lemon test as follows:

Was there a secular purpose?
No, the purpose was to promote religion – and Moore’s own statements support this, the court found.
Was the intention to advance religion?
Yes.
“Applying Lemon, the district court determined that Chief Justice Moore’s purpose in displaying the monument was not secular. It based that conclusion on the chief justice’s own words, on the monument itself, and the physical context in which it appears,” the appellate court wrote. (pg. 32)

In addition, the court chastised Moore for disregarding the lower court’s order for him to remove the monument.

“The rule of law does require every person to obey judicial orders when all available means of appealing them have been exhausted. The justice of a state supreme court, of all people, should be expected to abide by that principle. ... the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail,” the court declared. (Pg. 50)

“The Court threw the gauntlet down,” Goldberg said. “They said the rule of law requires people to obey judicial orders, and the chief justice should abide by that principle.”

In your face
But the Ten Commandments are not always unconstitutional in public settings. Just a month before the Moore decision, the Eleventh Circuit declared that a Georgia county seal containing the Ten Commandments did not violate the Establishment Clause.

The seal’s design, placement, size, history, and the original motivation for adopting the seal were all taken into consideration. The court compared the seal with other depictions of the Ten Commandments that courts had struck down.

“All of these cases involved displays that were large or ‘in your face’ and occupied a place of prominence or special honor, often dominating the other objects surrounding them,” the court wrote.

The court noted the limitations of the Lemon test and the individual subjectivity of such Establishment challenges.

“Despite the Supreme Court’s reliance on these three tests, it has emphasized that there is no bright-line rule for evaluating Establishment Clause challenges, and that each challenge calls for line-drawing based on a fact-specific, case-by-case analysis,” the court concluded.

Stories to look out for
One nation under ___
Few recent issues have raised more emotion than the Pledge of Allegiance and the challenge of its phrase, “one nation under God.”

In Newdow v. Congress, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 that use of the pledge – with the phrase “under God” – is unconstitutional in a public school setting.


The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the case before the end of this year's session.

Red, White and Blaine
Colorado recently adopted a school voucher program that will likely be challenged under the state’s Blaine Amendment.


More than thirty state constitutions contain such clauses, known as "Blaine Amendments," that explicitly prohibit the use of state tax dollars to support religious organizations. Such provisions were named after the author of a failed amendment to the US Constitution that would have banned the spending of tax dollars for parochial schools.

Goldberg urged reporters to find out if their state has a Blaine Amendment and see how it is applied.

“Will the Blaine Amendment allow public money to go to Catholic schools? Or will it bar parochial schools from getting funding?”

Apparently since Moore is religous, when the Lemon test mentioned in the article was applied the test failed. Then the article mentions a Georgia case regarding the Ten Commandments being displayed on a county seal:

But the Ten Commandments are not always unconstitutional in public settings. Just a month before the Moore decision, the Eleventh Circuit declared that a Georgia county seal containing the Ten Commandments did not violate the Establishment Clause.

The seal’s design, placement, size, history, and the original motivation for adopting the seal were all taken into consideration. The court compared the seal with other depictions of the Ten Commandments that courts had struck down.

“All of these cases involved displays that were large or ‘in your face’ and occupied a place of prominence or special honor, often dominating the other objects surrounding them,” the court wrote.

The court noted the limitations of the Lemon test and the individual subjectivity of such Establishment challenges.

“Despite the Supreme Court’s reliance on these three tests, it has emphasized that there is no bright-line rule for evaluating Establishment Clause challenges, and that each challenge calls for line-drawing based on a fact-specific, case-by-case analysis,” the court concluded.

So I guess what I can conclude is that the problem was not necessarily displaying the 10 commandments but the way they were displayed i.e. the "in your face" nature of the display using the words of the court. Ok. Perhaps we'll see more on the dividing line between "In your face" and "not in your face" from the courts in subsequent decisions.

[John Cole]

I'd just love to see which "rhyming poems" he quoted from.

[andyfox]

I note your "Ghost Riders in the Sky" sign-off. (Was it Frankie Laine who had the big hit?) If you haven't heard Mickey Katz's Borscht Riders in the Sky parody, you haven't heard anything (Katz was Joel Gray's father). "Yippee yi-ooooo! Yippie von Schtingle! De Borscht Riders in The Sky"

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]
According to Roy Moore the issue is about whether or not God can be acknowledged in public sector in the state of Alabama.


[/ QUOTE ]

Moore may claim that this is what the issue is about, but he's wrong. Acknowledging god in the public sector is not the problem. Obviously it is allowed in certain situations, such as "In God We Trust" on money. However, Moore's monument was specific to one religion at the exclusion of others, and that's what caused the problem. If that were not the case, I doubt there would have even been an issue.

[Cyrus]

I don't see any absurdity. I see what in marketing they call 'strong positioning'! It's when you carve a position in the market's perception of yourself as unassailable as possible. Just dwell on the strength of it a bit:

Q: "Are you really running in favor of the Ten Commandments??"

A: "That's correct! And I don't think anybody's against 'em -- are you?"



/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

...has been, from day one, to promote Roy Moore.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

And let's not forget that greed is the very foundation of capitalism!

And oppression is the very foundation of socialism.

"Capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth. Socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

I'll take greed over the collective mindset any day. Who ever heard of a socialist poker player?

[ACPlayer]

Is "capitalism is the unequal ...." a quote from someone or your own. Just curious. You had it in quotes and that led me to wonder.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It's a quote, but I don't remember the sourse.

[Cyrus]

I believe the exact quote is by Winston Churchill and goes like this :

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

The moral argument of Socialism is definitely stronger than Capitalism's. The aspect of equality is not to be so easily dismissed. However, its advocates chose to march towards Socialism by dictatorial means. This has destroyed Socialism's credibility. In addition to that, Capitalism is founded, at least in theory, on the unfettered freedom of individuals to pursue their interests, which is one of the highest moral objectives! But us capitalists better not get smug on the basis of a few quotations. Capital formation, as we know it, from the industrial revolution onwards, is a very recent event for Man. To claim that we have discovered the end-all and supremely wise method of managing our 'house' is, well, hybris. And the overwhelming evidence in our 'house' urgently points towards the need for organised and state-driven intervention (eg greenhouse effect) rather than allowing the free market to fix everything.

And that grouchy old beard, Marx, was not too off in his critique and analysis of capital formation: we have had from his time up to now catastrophic war after catastrophic war. This allowed for the violent destruction of capital formations and the beginning anew of the game of creating wealth. It remains to be seen what our ever-increasing, ever-progressing and ever-expanding economy, a global economy well into the era of turbo-capitalism, can accomplish with continuous global peace.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

--Cyrus

[John Cole]

Perhaps with the image of the bearded Marx firmly in mind, one student produced this howler: "Karl Marx wrote about the theory of class stubble."

[John Cole]

Andy,

It was Vaughn Monroe who had the hit with "Ghost Riders." Ever hear the parody of "Pennies from Heaven" called "Benny's from Heaven"? Never been able to track it down.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

However, its advocates chose to march towards Socialism by dictatorial means.

This is because socialism is *by nature* dictatorial. Enforcing equality destroys freedom. People are *not* all equal.

Marx's error was a faulty assumption in the labor theory of value. He failed to account for synergy in the creation of a product, thus concluding that the only way to create profit was to underpay for one of the raw materials (e.g., labor).

War existed long before capitalism, and socialism is responsible for the slaughter of more innocent people than even religion. Or rather, as Rand would put it, socialism is just another form of religion, a means for the authoritarians to hold sway over the masses.

But us capitalists better not get smug on the basis of a few quotations. Capital formation, as we know it, from the industrial revolution onwards, is a very recent event for Man.

I agree with you on this. But just because capitalism is not perfect does not mean we accept other, less efficient systems.