Date: Wed Oct 08 09:09:22 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: HRH Chapter 2
Attachments:
C:\MyFiles\memos\school.prayer.wpd;
C:\MyFiles\memos\original.intent.wpd;
At 12:12 AM 10/8/97 0500, you wrote:
I was really speaking of folk like me who mean absolutely no harm to the Jews.
Sometimes not meaning harm isn't enough. You ever hear this one? A quote from Martin Niemoller, a pastor in the German Confessing Church who spent eight and one half years in a Nazi concentration camp. He wrote:
First they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Or here's an interesting variation:
First they stole the fourth amendment.
I said nothing because I don't deal drugs.
Then they took the sixth amendment.
I was silent because I know I'm not guilty.
When they came for the second amendment,
I kept quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment,
and I can't say anything at all.
~ M. Pablo
Okay, its time for you to explain the "establishment clause" to me. Case reference would help too. (My copy of the Constitution don't have explanatory footnotes.) Any quotes from Jefferson or Madison? Shucks, I thought they just didn't want a "national religion" (meaning "denomination" in today's parlance). They didn't want another "Church of England" problem. I'm not a little right on this?
I'm attaching two memos that I wrote in 1989 to then attorney general Don Siegelman that may give some direction. Read school.prayer.wpd first, then original.intent.wpd.
Now cool down, take a long deep breath. Slip low into the foxhole. This may be a "Danger Close" mission, as they would say in the artillery. You are using terms like "my God" and "his God" without defining the terms.
Well, I would say "my God as I understand him" and "his God" as I understand him saying it is.
You must have been listening to liberals spout stuff like that. True or false: Wasn't other judges in Gadsden having prayer in their courtrooms before the stuff it the fan?
True. Now, true or false: two wrongs make a right.
Judge Moore didn't cave to pressure from the ACLU. And if you don't know Judge Moore's response when he learned that someone who'd been invited was a KKK member, you owe it to yourself (and everyone else that you relate this example to) to find out and tell the FULL STORY, not just the part that serves your agenda.
Oh, but I do know his response and was careful in the way I worded it to say that his "actions" invited the KKK. And of course, you know how about him being on a white supremacist radio call in show too, although he later denied knowing that was what he was doing. Now, I don't have to say either of those make him a racist or an anti-Semite. My point was: look at the kind of "whackos" (a term we've defined and agree on) that his kind of pontificating attracts. That's great for getting him elected, but I don't think it's very healthy for human or race relations.
Judge Moore is doing nothing more than asking for the God he believes in to give wisdom and guidance to those who must make decisions regarding the life of other people. I commend him for that. He isn't preaching or giving an alter call. Congress opens with prayer.
Congress is different, and an anomaly for reasons addressed in the memos. The church history minor I was talking to yesterday agreed generally with what you said. His problem was that Moore said he would exclude non-Christians from being invited, because we're "a Christian nation." What next, only Baptist preachers, because Etowah County is historically and majority Baptist? It's a slippery slope, as they say.
He isn't a threaten to anyone nor are his actions threatening to anyone. It is part of a nation wide push to rid the U.S. of all vestiges of Christianity. Yes, I think I can identify with anti-Semitism. I can feel it by another label, anti-Christian. And with your experience with anti-Semitism, I really don't understand your allying yourself with them. Don't you see that they'd just as soon turn on the Jews? Talk about intolerance!!! One judge in a little town in Alabama is no threat to anyone. He is being cast as a modern day Daniel, and look who is against him!
Do not ever believe there is a nationwide push to rid the country of Christianity. That's Christian right propaganda.
I've been thinking about this phrase "Christian right." By definition it is a political movement (which is fine) in the garb of religion (and its attendant moral superiority stuff). Politics with the moral force of God behind them. Led by men with personal political agendas. I dunno. There's some inherent problems and contradictions there.
No problem with that. But the simple act of saying a prayer to one's God is suddenly in the 90's a big deal. Sorry, those examples just aren't germane here. They are in no way in the same category.
Prayer in the 90's have become a big deal (again) because the "right" is making it so. Rally around the flag (cross) boys, and follow me. The issue has always been here, and it's because the "right" is pushing the envelope at the moment that the "left" is pushing back. Fundamentally I distrust Moore, because I think he's a hypocrite and he's using God to advance his own personal political agenda. He's using your faith in God to advance himself. He was a nobody before this, couldn't get elected to dog catcher. Mark my words, he'll get caught with his pants down in the wrong house. It is the history of men like him.
I believe I understand the difference. Good thing we didn't have the ACLU around when Washington was running things. I understand he was a praying man too. This "new" interpretation of the First Amendment is fallacious. I believe if you research it thoroughly, you'd prove that to yourself.
Well, I'm a little up on you on that one already, and am studying it again. See the memos again. What you have to be careful about is not buying the snippets of quotes here or there from 200 yrs ago to determine what we're supposed to do with the constitution now. I've read the best arguments from Moore's side, and the State's. I find them disingenuous, legally and intellectually dishonest.
You know that very few have objected, especially until the ACLU got involved. Where is their tolerance? If I were on the jury, I'd appreciate such a prayer. Why should I be denied? Tolerance is a cheap shot used by liberals with an agenda. Those who hark that are some of the most intolerant.
See again the quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller above.
Careful. Name calling is a principal tactic of Democrats and liberals. And I don't think you fit well in either category.
Thank you (I think).
Okay. All clear. You can come out of the hole now. The barrage is over. Hope you got no wounds.
Me? Naaahhh....
Now look what you made me do! You led me into a Roy Moore discussion before I had my case complete. Good work, counselor. You are good! ; )
Kind of unavoidable since it's really what got us started. I can probably make his case better than you, but his points are very few, basically limited to what you said in this email. And he's unable to respond to the issues I've raised. At least you try.
Are we still friends?
Absolutely!
There will be no "perfect world" as long as man runs it. Some, like Hitler, have tried to make it perfect, but their definitions of perfect were screwed up. Personally, I prefer freedom more than perfection.
Myself, I think we should have the freedom to seek perfection, knowing that the seeking is what we are on the earth to do.
“Some might even say that's mighty Christian of me, too, eh? ; )”
You're coming around. : ) All you need are a few more Christian friends like me!
Hey, some of my best friends are Christian....
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment