Friday, November 17, 2017

In Defense of Roy Moore and Theocracy

This post is not about the allegations of sexual impropriety by Alabama's former Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.

This post is about the allegations of constitutional impropriety.

Isaiah 64:6 says,
But we are all as an unclean thing,
and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
and we all do fade as a leaf;
and our iniquities, like the wind,
have taken us away.
I understand that a modern English translation of the ancient Hebrew for "filthy rags" is "used Kotex."
Almost as gross as the stuff you can find in the New York Times.
Like: We're With Stupid by Timothy Egan.
Egan says,
Lost in the news grind over Roy Moore, the lawbreaking Senate candidate from Alabama, is how often he has tried to violate the Constitution. As a judge, he was removed from the bench — twice  — for lawless acts that follow his theocratic view of governance.
Fake news.
What "law" did Moore violate?
Moore is right about the Constitution.
This Egan guy is a moron.

(I wrote that analysis of the Federal Court decision against Moore back in 2003, so some of the links might be old.)

Shariah law has been justifiably criticized as a dangerous injection of religion into the public space.
Fake news.
Used Kotex News.
The problem is not that Islam is a "religion" being injected into a religion-free zone.
As though the Founding Fathers created such a zone.
The problem is that it is a FALSE religion

Christianity is the TRUE religion

Roy Moore is correct when he claims that Washington D.C. and the New York Times must come under the jurisdiction of Jesus the Christ and His Word, the Bible. America was built on this idea.

Now imagine if a judge insisted on keeping a monument to the Quran in a state judicial building. Or that he said “homosexual conduct” should be illegal because his sacred book tells him so. That is exactly what Moore has done, though he substitutes the Bible for the Quran.
Egan is a Kotex-pedling Jerk.
America was built on the Bible.
The Supreme Court correctly acknowledged that America is a Christian nation:

Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" -- laws which Blackstone reminded us were found "only in Holy Scripture"

Jefferson (who did not sign the Constitution) believed homosexuals should be castrated.

Everyone believed homosexuality was contrary to the Bible:

Egan doesn't know what he's talking about, or else he is a vicious unprincipled liar.
And the NYT.
Anti-Christian bigots.

More Egan:
I don’t blame Moore. I blame his followers, and the press, which doesn’t seem to know that the First Amendment specifically aims to keep government from siding with one religion — the so-called establishment clause.
The Constitution does not prohibit the government from siding with the True Religion.

My colleagues at the opinion shop on Sunday used a full page to print the Bill of Rights, and urge President Trump to “Please Read the  Constitution.” Yes, it’s come to this. On press freedom, due process, exercise of religion and other areas, Trump has repeatedly gone into Roy Moore territory —  dismissing the principles he has sworn to uphold.
Moore is the only one in this controversy who actually upholds the Constitution.
This would be the thunderous affirmation of everyone who signed the Constitution.
This guy Egan is an anti-Christian, anti-Constitution bigot.
Just like Mitch McConnell and the "Republican leadership."
Republican "moderates" hate Roy Moore and Christian conservatism as much as Egan and the NYT.
Maybe more.

Back to Egan:
One reason that public schools were established across the land was to produce an informed citizenry.
Informed about what?
The religion of Secular Humanism?

No, public schools are the product of the Protestant Reformation, the banner of "sola Scriptura." Common schools were created to make sure "every ploughboy" could read the Bible:

It is Egan, the NYT columnist, who is the victim of educational malpractice.
It is the secular media that peddles putrid fake news.

And way too many Trump voters actually agree with this secularist mythology that the NYT is pushing. Many Trump supporters would agree that they all oppose "theocracy." They are all victims of educational malpractice.

And up until the 1960s, it was common for students to take three separate courses in civics and government before they got out of high school.
And the Bible.
But that ended in 1963.

Returning to a previous quote from Egan:
Lost in the news grind over Roy Moore, the lawbreaking Senate candidate from Alabama, is how often he has tried to violate the Constitution. As a judge, he was removed from the bench — twice — for lawless acts that follow his theocratic view of governance.
Ooooooo ... "theocratic."
The NYT's scariest boogeyman.

The word "theocracy" comes from two Greek words, "theos" (God), and "kratein," which means rule (literally, to seize and to hold on to).

Ben Franklin was a Theocrat. He reminded the delegates to the Convention that gave us the Constitution that

“God governs in the affairs of men”

Another word for "Theocracy" in this sense is "Providence." God intervenes in history.
The opposite of "providence" is "deism."
Deism holds that God does not "govern in the affairs of men."
The Deistic god does not intervene in history.

Not a single person who signed the Constitution was a "deist." Not one.

In 1844, a French deist donated a huge sum of money to Philadelphia to create a school for boys in which -- shockingly -- no clergy would teach.
It was scandalous.
It was front page news.

Daniel Webster was horrified.
Webster argued before the U.S. Supreme Court against the conspiratorial intentions of the deist devise. Oral arguments lasted three days.  (Cases today usually get 30 minutes max. The Obergefell case got less than 3 hours to debate the negation of thousands of years of western civilization and human history by re-defining "marriage" to include homosexuality -- but that was incredibly long by modern standards.)

Three DAYS.

The City of Philadelphia wanted the money.
They promised that it would be used to teach the Bible, but using laymen instead of clergy.

Webster didn't buy it.

The U.S. Supreme Court said that the charge that the school might teach deism
is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country; and therefore it must be made out by clear and indisputable proof. Remote inferences, or possible results, or speculative tendencies, are not to be drawn or adopted for such purposes. There must be plain, positive, and express provisions, demonstrating ... that Christianity is not to be taught....

The Supreme Court ruled that the school
under the auspices of the city government, ... may, nay must impart to their youthful pupils ...  the Bible ...  as a divine revelation ...  its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated."
(It is unbelievable, even staggering, how much Christian history has been flushed down the Orwellian Memory Hole by the modern Supreme Court and the mainstream anti-Christian media.)

The 1844 Court spoke of being asked to
consider what would be the legal effect of a devise in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of Judaism, or Deism, or any other form of infidelity."
The word "infidelity" comes from the Latin word "fide," faith. It means "faithless."
Deism is faithlessness.

It used to be the case that only Christians could take an oath, because an oath was an act of Theocratic worship:

One raised one's right hand toward heaven and asked God to "govern in the affairs of man" (to quote Franklin), that is, to judge the one who violated his oath.
The oath was said to be "self-maledictory."
"May God judge me if I am lying."
An oath is inherently Theocratic.

( Strictly speaking, a "test oath" was an oath of allegiance to a particular "ecclesiastical body" [to use the words of James Madison] or as we would say today, a particular Christian denomination.

This is obvious in the ratification debates:   )

The oath is no longer a form of religious worship, as it used to be called. It is now called a form of "ceremonial deism.""ceremonial+deism"

In other words, taking an oath today is swearing to be an infidel, because, as the Court used to remind us, deism is a "form of infidelity."

Do words really matter that much?
Am I taking things too literally?

Doesn't the Third of the Ten Commandments prohibit us from taking the mere word "God" in vain?

God cares about words.
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, "And to seeds," as of many; but as of one, "And to thy seed," which is Christ.
Galatians 3:16
Even letters matter.

This is why I asked to add the Theocratic language of Article 22 of the Delaware Constitution (adopted Sept. 20, 1776) to the deistic oath required under California law for attorneys:
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust . . . shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I ________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."
My request was denied.
I appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thanks to the New York Times and their fake history for  protecting my "freedom of religion."

Roy Moore is A WHOLE LOT smarter than stupid Timothy Egan, a mental and moral dwarf.

But Roy Moore has something in common with Bill Clinton.
Both are "archists."
Both believe in the moral legitimacy of using the machinery of violence which is called "the government" to advance their agenda. To his credit, I think Moore wants to seize the reigns of power in order to use them less. The size of Moore's government would be much smaller than that of Clinton's. But Moore would emphatically deny being an "an-archist."

For some reason, archists seem to want to exercise power over women. That is demonstrably the case with Clinton, and that is the allegation against Moore. I confess I am tempted to be both an archist and a sexual predator. The first of Martin Luther's 95 Theses were:
1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" ( Matthew 4:17 ), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
"Mortification," related to the word "mortuary," means "put to death." We all must put the archist within us to death.

We must also put the deist within us to death.

Martin Luther is reported to have said:
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.
In our day, one who is not championing "Theocracy" or who is not accused by the NYT of trying to "impose a Theocracy on America" can hardly be said to be a Christian at all.

Jesus is the Christ.
Jesus is the Governor.
All other governors are anti-Christ.