Today on Blogcritics
Home » ‘Ten Commandments judge’ may seek presidency

‘Ten Commandments judge’ may seek presidency

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Speculation has been that the opportunist who made a name for himself by stationing a huge granite monument to the Ten Commandments in the foyer of the Alabama judiciary building is preparing for an eventual gubernatorial run. Now, the far Right is encouraging him to seek another office – the Presidency. Right Wing redoubt WorldNetDaily.com. has looked into the matter.

Ousted Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore is focused on trying to get his job back but will not rule out a third-party run for the presidency that could threaten President Bush’s re-election chances.

At a recent speaking engagement, the man who became famous for his defense of a Ten Commandments monument was asked during a question-and-answer session whether he would run for president, reported Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.

“Not right now,” Moore said, according to Fund, who noted Moore’s friends say he is undecided about whether to run for president or to wait two years and seek Alabama’s governorship.

Moore most recently claimed the spotlight at a gathering of influential supporters of the religious Right in Atlanta.

About 700 conservative Christians gathered at an Atlanta church yesterday for a rally that included Governor [Sonny] Perdue, former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore and three Georgia Republicans vying for a U-S Senate seat.

The Christian Coalition‘s 2004 Family and Freedom Kickoff was held at Mount Vernon Baptist Church.

Members of the coalition — considered some of the G-O-P’s most loyal and active voters — listened to speeches supporting the war on terrorism, advocating a ban on gay marriage and pushing the public display of the Ten Commandments.

If Moore can sway enough supporters of the Republicans toward a third-party candidacy, he will have achieved a feat not accomplished since some Christian conservatives defected to multimillionaire Ross Perot‘s ill-fated campaign in 1992.

Meanwhile, the renegade judge has continued to press to be reinstated as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. It became necessary to select a special panel to hear the appeal after his former colleagues recused themselves, perhaps fearing backlash if they again go on record as opposing him.

A special 7-member Alabama Supreme Court was sworn in Monday afternoon to hear Roy Moore’s appeal of his ouster as chief justice. Former governor and former criminal appeals court judge John Patterson is serving as chief justice for the special Supreme Court.

The other members are also retired appellate court and circuit court judges. The special court was selected because all members of the regular Supreme Court stepped aside from hearing Moore’s case. Moore is appealing his ouster by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.

He was removed from office for failing to obey a federal judge’s order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state Judicial Building in Montgomery.

The WSJ‘s Fund, who became notorious while battling claims he forced his girlfriend, a fellow Right Winger, to have an abortion, is among those providing publicity for Moore. He devoted a column to Moore Monday.

A lot of people want him to run. Last Saturday, Mr. Moore was a featured speaker at the Christian Coalition’s “Family and Freedom” rally in Atlanta. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported he was “treated like a rock star, signing autographs and getting thunderous standing ovations.” The week before that, Mr. Moore was the speaker at a dinner in Lancaster, Pa., sponsored by the Constitution Party, which has the third-largest number of registered voters in the U.S. and whose presidential candidate, Howard Phillips, was on 41 state ballots in 2000.

. . .There is no doubt that Mr. Moore’s civil disobedience struck a chord with some elements of the population, but are they enough to sustain a presidential candidacy? “If he can get on talk shows and stir up conservative voters he could easily get significantly more than the usual third-party vote totals,” says Richard Winger, a leading authority on independent candidacies and editor of Ballot Access News. He notes that while the Libertarian and Green parties are much better known, the Constitution Party has 320,000 registered voters around the country and guaranteed ballot access in large states such as California and Pennsylvania. Its national convention won’t be held until June 22, giving Mr. Moore time to exhaust the appeal of his dismissal before the Alabama courts.

Moore has proven that a calculating person, with the aid of monied members of the religious Right, can attract attention and a following. However, it is yet to be seen whether the people who support his efforts to impose his values on the citizenry would select his name on a ballot nationally. Even with the Constitution Party as a threshold, he may be unable to attract enough voters to be more than a fly in the ointment. Since Moore’s chances of prevailing in his effort to return to the Alabama Supreme Court are nil, we may get an opportunity to see if his brand of politics translates into actual votes.

Reasonably related

  • Among those seeking a third party candidate farther to the Right than Bush are libertarians and/or neo-Confederates, including League of the South supporter Clyde Wilson.
  • The discredited legal theory of ‘interposition’ is often invoked to justify states imposing Christian fundamentalism on their citizens.

  • This entry aslo appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies.

    Powered by

    About The Diva

    • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

      but will not rule out a third-party run for the presidency that could threaten President Bush’s re-election chances.

      Bad idea. I wouldn’t support the guy for Prez to save my life. He took a stand for religious freedom, but then he went too far in ignoring the law. Running for President would destroy both his credibility as well as the credibility of the Christian Coalition.

      David Flanagan

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      But, Roy Moore wants to stay in the spotlight. A quixotic run for the Presidency would achieve that.

    • http://www.iamrighturpie.blogspot.com/ jadester

      “Moore’s friends say he is undecided about whether to run for president or to wait two years and seek Alabama’s governorship”
      This is probably a stupid question, but if he were to run for president first, and didn’t get in, could he not later go for the governorship as well?

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      Yes, he can run for both at different times. But, he could lose momentum for a run for governor in a state where the other potential candidates are just as conservative as he is if he runs for president. This is partly about a feud within the American far Right. Some of them oppose Bush as not conservative enough, particularly in regard to the invasion of Iraq. Like Clyde Wilson, they also consider his ‘Christian values’ inadequate. Bush can win some brownie points with them by backing federal legislation to ban gay marriage, among other hot button issues. If he doesn’t staunch the outflow, the chances of people like Moore sniping at his candidacy increases.

    • Shark

      I’d vote for ex-judge Roy Moore in a heartbeat. I think it would be GREAT to have a President who interprets every word of the Bible literally.

      Let me explain: Thanks to the Bush economy, I’m out of work and have no health care coverage. I’m in desperate need of quick cash, and thanks to Exodus 21:7:

      “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.”

      …I can simply put my daughter on a streetcorner or Ebay and be within Biblical rights.

      And I’d be especially interested in PRESIDENT MOORE enforcing Matthew 6:5-6:

      Mat 6:5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
      6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

      WHICH SHOULD QUICKLY PUT AN END TO THE BLASPHEMOUS, ANTI-BIBLICAL “PRAYER IN SCHOOLS” CRAP.

    • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

      But, Roy Moore wants to stay in the spotlight. A quixotic run for the Presidency would achieve that.
      If Judge Moore ran for the Presidency, it might actually hurt him more than it helped him. He hurt his credibility when he went too far after the courts ruled the monument removed.

      As Christians, we are to follow the law, even if the law is not exactly what we would like it to be. As you know, I believe deeply in freedom of religion. I believe that the government, under the First Amendment, has no power to restrict us from building religious monuments in public or private places.

      At the same time, Judge Moore did spend state funds for the monument and the Fourteenth Amendment, unfortunately, makes the federal government the watch dog of what the federal government can or cannot do in regards to our religious freedoms.

      The fox watching the hen house. But Judge Moore lost his case in court and he swore an oath to uphold the law. He should have stepped down first before pursuing this.

      And all that to say that there are many Christians who would actively oppose Judge Moore if he chose to run for President, myself included.

      David Flanagan

    • Shark

      Dave, I noticed you didn’t address the issue of just WHICH literally interpreted BIBLICAL pronouncements your folks would care to enforce? Do you accept SOME of the bible as literal and valid, while figuring other verses are figurative and/or invalid?

      Can’t have it both ways, my friend.

      Davy: “…the government has no power to restrict us from building religious monuments in public or private places.”

      Good grief. Private, no.

      Public, government sponsored: Yes.

      (See Bill of Rights/First Amendment, unless, of course, you’d like to overturn that one too)

      BTW: Davy, Serious Question:

      Would you consider the Taliban a decent model of your ideal nation and it’s relationship to religion?

      *Cause that’s where it always ends up.

      *see history of the world for more

    • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

      Shark:

      Talk about taking something out of context… Let me give you the full verse and the meaning:

      And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

      This law was established to curb some very barbaric practices concerning the treatment of women. Wealthy men would purchase a woman from her parents, usually to take as a wife or to betroth to their son.

      At times, after men grew tired of the woman, they would buy and betroth another and then deprive the first wife, OR, wait until the seven-year redemption period and then either kick her out or, far worse, sell her to someone else or to people of other nations.

      Male slaves had to be released without paying any kind of redemption fee every seven years in Israel. That way, at least, if someone was in debt, they would not be banished to prison until they died there but rather had an option to work off their debt, then go free.

      Women who were purchased for the purpose of marriage were then bound to their husbands for life. That law being to protect women from being cast out by their husbands at the seven year mark, unless they displeased the husband, at which point, they were to allow their wives to leave without paying a fee.

      So, why did God mandate such a thing? Jesus tells us why in Matthew 19:3-9:

      Some Pharisees came to him [Jesus] to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’ ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’ ‘Why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.’

      My apologies, Mac, for straying so far from the main topic of the thread.

      David Flanagan

    • Shark

      Dave, your answer is just too funny.

      “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

      Look, I don’t care how you spin it, it says it’s okay to sell one’s daugher as a slave.

      Jeez, it’s basically an advice column for slave traders! Dr. Laura does Amistad.

      I mean, how do ya get around it?

      BTW: I see it’s okay for you to go into elaborate interpretations of scripture that deviate from the literal?

      I thought that was verboten?!

      And would that be okay for agnostics like ol’ Shark?

      Anyway, thanks for the continuing laffs.

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      Your failure to object to slavery is kind of noticeable, Flanagan. Isn’t that one of the Old Testament practices you inerrancy people have smiled on for centuries? Most of your Christian Right heroes, including Falwell, Robertson and, of course, Bob Jones, were defenders of segregation long after most of the world decided it revealed a person’s immorality. (In the absence of the ‘more pleasing to God’ slavery, they are willing to compromise with segregation.) Some, of course, are still that way, including your neo-Confederate pals at Free Republic. I am always pleased to see you reveal your true colors.

      And, hey, don’t even bother with the defense that you are in favor of female slaves continuing to be exploited their entire lives instead of for seven years or whatever. That isn’t even in the ball park of a moral response to slavery.

      (I swear. Sometimes these ‘more moral than thou’ far Right Christian sorts appear to be sitting in their own feces without realizing it.)

    • Bartikus

      The word “SLAVE” did not carry the same meaning as what you perceive to be a slave today!

      I guess you would have to research a little history to know that!

      Good luck in your endeavor for greater understanding Shark!

    • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

      So, did they ever reseach that this guy might possibly be a closet crackhead? And if anyone supports him, they are probably closet-rush limbaugh drug junkies too?

      I mean, that is the only way to explain this insanity.

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      Thanks for your input, Bartikus. It is always, reve–, oops, great to see defences of slavery. Feel free to pat yourself on the back.

      Vic, Moore may be high on drugs, but he is even higher on himself. Guy is such an egotist he makes Donald Trump look humble. I posit Moore actually believes he should be president of the U.S., if not ruler of the whole effing world.

    • bartholomew

      You also Mac….your in the same pile of feces as anyone! Christians know they are in error and are not greater than anyone….the only thing great is that they believe in Jesus Christ (which is not his last name)!

      Incidentally, the 16th president who led the civil war to end slavery in the U.S…..was a Christian!

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      (Shrugging.) More ‘deep thoughts’ and bad grammar.

    • bartikus

      If I speak against slavery as a Christian…I am told I do not adhere to the teachings of the Bible…and therefore a wrongdoer….

      If I defend slavery as a Christian…I am said to be faithful to the Bible(by those who neither believe in it nor understand it) and a wrongdoer still!

      Sound familiar to you Dave Flanagan?

      How bout you Shark and Diva?

    • bartikus

      Even my grammer offends you!

      It is obvious what you really find offensive!

    • Dwaine AKA Scooter AKA D.J.

      BALLS!!!!!

      (Just to lighten up the tone. Hope you find this funny.)

    • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

      There are some really amusing, yet strange people who post here.

    • Reverend Shark

      Bartikus explains the Bible:

      “The word “SLAVE” did not carry the same meaning as what you perceive to be a slave today!”

      Yah, Bart, and “day” didn’t carry the same meaning as today…

      —as in Genesis 2:1-2:

      1 – Thus the heavens and the earth were *finished, and all the host of them.
      2 – And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;
      and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.”

      “Day” meant “around 2 billion years” back then.

      heh.

      *Don’t try this at home—The Management

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      Dwaine. Dwaine. Dwaine. You just said ‘balls’ on a thread where a far Right evangelistic fundamentalist Christian is posting. What’s next? A link to a picture of Janet Jackson’s left breast? (For variety, ya know?)

    • Shark

      Bart goes Christian on Ms. Diva:

      “You also Mac….your [sic] in the same pile of feces as anyone! Christians know they are in error and are not greater than anyone….the only thing great is that they believe in Jesus Christ…”

      —and believe that calling a person ‘feces’ is acceptable behavior.

      Jeezus.

      I’ll bet Davy is THRILLED he’s got such a brilliant, articulate ally in Faith.

    • Shark

      Back to the subject:

      All of this goes to show that it’s not really a good idea to have ‘bibilical’ laws operating in a secular society, especially since a lot of Christians can’t even agree on an interpretation of their meanings.

      According to Davy, most divorces should be outlawed in this country (don’t tell that to Newt Gingrich!) — and selling one’s daughter is fine as long as you don’t “buy and betroth another and then deprive the first wife, OR, wait until the seven-year redemption period and…kick her out or…sell her to someone else or to people of other nations.”

      And don’t even get me started on mandatory animal sacrifices. I kinda like animals.

    • http://www.ambivalent.us Eryk

      “All of this goes to show that it’s not really a good idea to have ‘bibilical’ laws operating in a secular society, especially since a lot of Christians can’t even agree on an interpretation of their meanings.”

      That’s too logical. Throw in some big words to obscure the meaning and an “Amen” towards the end and you may have something.

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      Uh oh! Eryk just peeked David Flanagan’s game.

    • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

      I see it’s okay for you to go into elaborate interpretations of scripture that deviate from the literal?

      Thats not an interpretation, that is the reality of the society that existed at that time and the reason why the law was set forth for Israel. When you chose to pull one line from a whole section, that is NOT literal interpretation, its taking something out of context. I put it into context for you and I KNEW that you and Mac would, of course, immediately slam me for simply explaining the historical context of the law.

      Please don’t equate my explanation as conding the practices of those days. After all, YOU were the one who suggested selling your daughter on the street, I just wanted you to know that the passage had nothing to do with that. That law was laid down to prevent women from being put on the street, not to allow it.

      Now, if you would like me to reference some of the materials I used to place that passage into its proper context, then I’d be happy to do so, just be prepared to do the same. One quick note; your personal opinion of the passage doesn’t count. 😉

      David Flanagan

    • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

      Your failure to object to slavery is kind of noticeable, Flanagan. Isn’t that one of the Old Testament practices you inerrancy people have smiled on for centuries?

      Well Mac, obviously I am in favor of slavery, living here in the 21st century and all.

      Honestly, though, I laughed when I saw your comments because I KNEW that you would attack me just for failing to put in some kind of legal disclaimer like:

      The historical context laid out in this post for the purpose of teaching individuals who know nothing of Biblical history or interpretation but insist that they can take one sentence out of one book of the Bible and turn it into a vast explanation of Christianity is not to be interpreted as an attempt to condone the behaviour of those members of the ancient society in question. Furthermore, any act to to take the exegetical efforts of the author of this post and expand them beyond their strict purpose, though predictable, will be considered to be in violation of good taste and proper decorum.
      (pause, take a breath)
      So there!

      On a more serious note… Mac, you are, no doubt, a hell of a lot more intelligent than I am, and certainly a superior writer, so I KNOW that you are too smart to really think that I condone slavery, much less the kind of mistreatment that women received, even as recently as 30 years ago.

      Hell, the irony of all of this is that you can go to a variety of mid-east nations today and see women treated just as badly, or worse, than what we see happening in Exodus. Want to know what I think of that?

      David Flanagan

    • http://www.blogbloke.com BB

      Thank you Mr. Shark for your interesting interpretation of scripture. You were just kidding – right? Like it or not Mr. Flanagan is right that CONTEXT is everything with respect interpretation (as it is with journalism, the law, etc).

      MD, please provide facts to back up your statement ” Most of your Christian Right heroes, including Falwell, Robertson and, of course, Bob Jones, were defenders of segregation long after most of the world decided it revealed a person’s immorality.” I would be very interested to hear it.

      I notice a disproportionate hatred for all things biblical by some here. Any reason for that besides political? Just curious. I agree there is hypocrisy in the world – including religion but spirituality is something different wouldn’t you agree? Can you justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

    • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

      Maybe the hatred stems from the fact that too many now a days seem to use the bible as an excuse to dehumanise some people and to abuse them or limit their right according to a religion that some people chose and some people do not.

      The bible too often as of late is what is being used to perpetuate an agenda of intolerance and hatred.

    • http://www.ambivalent.us Eryk

      I think you’re mistaking poking fun at radical righties for hatred. The line between spirituality and radical fundamentalism isn’t a fine one. If justifying slavery, in any context, is considered “spiritual” then not only can you throw the baby out but go ahead and run over it with a few trucks.

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      Apparently, BB is one of the few literate persons in the world not to have heard of the near disintegration of several American denominations over segregation that resulted in what is known today as the radical Christian Right. (Many of those people left their churches when the Southern Baptists, among others, sort of repudiated slavery and segregation. That became a foundation for the modern movement.) Though he claims to be a lawyer, he somehow missed out on the fame of Bob Jones University. He must sleep a a lot.

    • Bartikus

      David…you will be attacked no matter what position you take on slavery or anything else! That is the point I was making.

      Who is supposed to be the far Right evangelistic fundamentalist Christian?

      Who called anyone a pile a feces?

      Can anyone who says they believe in Christ say anything without an accusation against them? Did I say anything anymore dehumanizing than anyone else in this forum? Or do the accusations and stereotypes only further prove my point?

      Is calling people closet crackheads
      or closet-rush limbaugh drug junkies without knowing anything about them the way to be more humanistic towards others?

      Did I abuse anyone or limit anyones rights or justify in any way slavery?

    • http://www.blogbloke.com BB

      Madam MD. I asked for the facts – not innuendo or hearsay. Having worked in law you must know the difference. Please back up your slurs with respect to “Falwell, Robertson and, of course, Bob Jones”.

    • bartikus

      If I have offended anyone here….I am sorry for doing so!

      If anyone tried to offend me….I have already forgiven it?

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      Okay. I’m going to make this really simple.

      Discussing Biblical slavery as if slavery is acceptable is like discussing the most humane way to commit homicide based on Bible stories. The starting point for a discussion of slavery for a moral person (not religious necessarily, but moral) is to condemn the practice. When one trots out justifications or spouts endlessly about minutiae of the practice, one is missing the point by acting as if slavery itself is not the problem, but the details of how it is carried out.

      Furthermore, I don’t believe Fatuous Flanagan’s anecdote proves the point he thinks it does. The ruling he describes (believing something he says for the moment) extends the slavery of the women involved. It is the equivalent of saying Sally Hemmings was better off because Thomas Jefferson never freed her.

      Nor does the ‘way back then’ argument hold water. Many Southern Christians were still arguing that slavery and segregation are approved by the Bible well into the 1970s. Some still are. Their cousins, the white South Africans and Rhodesians, were also deeply religious — in a way that allowed them to exploit and dehumanize their fellow human beings. As Vic observed, a lot of dirt can be swept under the rug of religion while some folks distract the eye by waving their Bibles.

    • bartikus

      BB….you already know where that path goes! It is obvious enough already…..

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      BB, the answer is ‘no.’ I am not going to do your work for you. It seems you are almost as lazy as Al Barger when it comes to doing research. I’ve said enough that you should realize there is something about Bob Jones University. That is a good place to start. I’ve also named at least one denomination that broke up over the slavery and segregation issue. That would make a good step two.

    • http://www.blogbloke.com BB

      Batikus, you are unfortunately right that some people will take any opportunity to disparage Christians and/or Christianity. It gives them some sense of a misguided moral superiority. I do not say that I agree with everything you say, nor do I judge as you have every right to your opinion. Where I do take offense however is when somebody’s character is defamed merely because of their opinion. That is wrong both from a moral and legal perspective and cannot be defended or condoned. For the bible also says “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit (Mat 12:33)”.

      MD – just as I thought. You are just blowing in the wind.

    • bartikus

      MD….you are right…..there are Christians capable of evil! I believe they all are!

      However, if they were not capable of it…….
      Why would they need a Redeemer?

    • bartikus

      BB…It was not Christians or Christianity that is disparaged. It is not my character that is being defamed.

      It is not even I whom they are offended by! It is just as it is written………

    • http://www.blogbloke.com BB

      Bartikus, you are indeed being picked on because you are perceived as being a Christian and/or representing the faith.. and yes I know what you mean :-)

    • bartikus

      Slavery remains a problem! That is why Jesus came…..

      For whom the Son sets free…is free indeed!

    • http://www.blogbloke.com BB

      Bartikus I’ll say amen to that.

      “As Vic observed, a lot of dirt can be swept under the rug of religion while some folks distract the eye by waving their Bibles.”

      MD, I’ll say again that I agree there is a lot hypocrisy in the world – including (sometimes especially) Bible thumpers. However, please stop making sweeping slurs against all those who hold to the faith. You do yourself injustice as well as the many sincere people out there.

    • bartikus

      Life and Death are in the power of the tongue….and those who love it…shall eat of it’s fruit!

    • bartikus

      Actually BB….I really don’t see myself as a very good representation of Christ…..

      I am very aware of my nature! It is painful at times…..I know what I am deserving of! I really don’t deserve to be seen as such….

    • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

      Mac,

      I was addressing the quote that Shark used and explaining why his assertion that a literal translation gave him the Biblical right to sell his daughter on the street was actually wrong. And why should I have to clarify my position on slavery?

      Have I ever endorsed slavery in any of my posts ever? In my post to this thread above, I also quoted Jesus who called his fellow Jews “hard hearted” because they would not treat women as God intended, with dignity, respect, and devotion.

      But you ignored that and simply read into my post what you wanted to read in and ignored the rest. I wasn’t surprised, of course, but still, I have to think that you launch these attacks, knowing that your accusations are not true, but doing it because you hate what we believe.

      Just a theory.

      David Flanagan

    • bartikus

      “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5: 11-12)

      Heb 4:12
      For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,
      piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow,
      and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    • bartikus

      >>Moore has proven that a calculating person, with the aid of monied members of the religious Right, can attract attention and a following. However, it is yet to be seen whether the people who support his efforts to impose his values on the citizenry would select his name on a ballot nationally.<< It seems that some are afraid that the “religious right” want to impose their values and teachings on them! I ask….what good would it do to impose or force anyone to follow (i assume) our values when it is asked in scripture: Without love what is our service worth? If people do not love his ways and are forced to do so….what good is it? Just a thought….. I think this scripture gives a good reason to not force anyone into our ways or anyone elses for that matter!

    • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

      David Flanagan still hasn’t said that slavery is wrong, regardless of approving references in the Bible. He has tap danced around the topic, trying to change it to regretting how women were treated in Biblical times. At another point, he said he condones slavery (which he hints we are supposed to take facetiously). But, he has not said slavery is wrong despite his several posts to this thread. At Free Republic, Flanagan is often in the company of overt racists. I have never seen him disagree with them there, either. His behavior is typical of the Christian Right, many of whom still consider segregation a good thing.

      These are the people who would lead us. I, for one, have no interest in going where they would lead us to.

    • Shark

      ~Friends, Romans, Opponents…~

      I’ve already made my point, (it’s known as “The Bill of Rights/1st Amendment”)—and I don’t want to try to resurrect a dead horse. (wink)

      But I do think it fair to address BBs question re. “…a disproportionate hatred for all things biblical by some here. Any reason for that besides political?”

      Fair question, BB.

      Answer: Frankly, (in general) Shark believes “FUNDAMENTALISM” is a bad thing, whether it’s Christian or Islamic.

      Both have quite a shameful, bloody record. (The most famous “faith-based initiative” in recent history was performed at the Twin Towers on 9/11.)

      I’d like to see all forms of fundamentalism gone from the face of the earth. Ironically, we’d probably all get along a lot better without them.

    • http://www.blogbloke.com BB

      Shark I think a better word would be fanaticism. And I would agree to a certain extent. However you must also agree a fanatical argument that tars and paints all of a faith is every bit as fanatical.

      MD, so you feel it is your right to slur another person’s name based on guilt by association do you. Hmmmm.

    • http://www.blogbloke.com BB

      MD it appears that you are in good company because the Pharisees asked the same question of Jesus Christ himself. ‘Mar 2:16 When the scribes and the Pharisees saw him eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, “Why does he eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard that, he said to them, “Healthy people don’t need a physician, but sick ones do. I did not come to call righteous people, but sinners.”

    • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

      I think if the world worshipped me, things would just plain be better all around.

    • bartikus

      Shark….are there any other forms of “FUNDAMENTALISM” that you consider bad….other than Christian and Islamic?

      Are all forms bad or only certain ones?

    • bartikus

      >>I’d like to see all forms of fundamentalism gone from the face of the earth. Ironically, we’d probably all get along a lot better without them.<< Is this a fundamentalist statement? Could this be….fanatical at all?

    • bartikus

      Maybe Ms.tek could be the one to decide what stays and what goes!….lol

    • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

      Great idea Bartikus.

      After a month of me, everyone would be in a constant state of bliss.

      Try it, you’ll like it!

    • bartikus

      Kinda creepy how you tied “biblical” to “fundamentalism”…shark!

      >>But I do think it fair to address BBs question re. “…a disproportionate hatred for all things biblical by some here. Any reason for that besides political?”

      Fair question, BB.

      Answer: Frankly, (in general) Shark believes “FUNDAMENTALISM” is a bad thing, whether it’s Christian or Islamic.<<

    • bartikus

      I’m not really one to pursue bliss…..tried that before…..seems more like a detour to a dead end!

    • bart

      Not much “Tolerance” for the fundies or the bible! The best way to demonstrate that intolerance of others is wrong is to show it….not just say it!

      This is what is said to those from the right….but, never really shown it! Who are the bigots?

    • Mark

      I do believe in your stance about prayer in public however, not everyone who prays follows those teachings!