1:58 PM -:- Posted by Allen    

More on Moore

To begin with, I respect people who stand up for what they believe.

But I also know that stubbornness is the hallmark of stupidity: "Those who lack the capacity to perform at a particular level also lack the capacity to comprehend that they lack that capacity." Thus they cannot know what they cannot know. Thus they assume that they do know. Thus they are stubborn, because they can't hear arguments to the contrary.

People of faith are similar to this unquestioning blindness. So are people who are caught up in wishful thinking. Those of you who are on Larken Rose's mailing list have seen him discussing the effects of wishful thinking in detail lately.

The idea that this is a Christian nation is wishful thinking. True, this nation was colonized by Christians. But it was founded by both Christians and Deists. In those days, Deists had to hide their light under a bushel basket, so to speak, to avoid being shunned and ignored if not economically ruined by clannish Christians. So between the fact that many Deists never identified themselves as such, and today's rampant revisionist writings by certain wishful-thinking (self-deluded) Christian "historians", it is difficult to know to what extent the founders were actual Christians.

And we also have a really big unanswered question as to what is meant by "Christian". When I read the words of Christ, I am a Christian in that I agree. But I don't find those words in the bible, per se. I find them via reverse translation, doing a lot of hard work with concordances and multi-language dictionaries, and such.

On the other hand, if I have to agree with Paul, then that is not "Christian", that's "Paulinism", more commonly known as Papism. That's not me. And while most Protestants think it's not them, the truth is, if they quote the old testament and say things like, "Render unto Caesar...," then they are not Christians, they are dissident Jews and Paulinist. Not Christians.

Christ said that the old law would pass when he is come again. Christ comes not as Man, but as comprehension; not in a body in the material world, but as spirit descending upon one, in understanding. So when Christ manifests within you, then the old law is passed, and there is only Christ's law: Love god and love one another as yourselves.

So if you're out there screaming Deuteronomy, you're not Christian, you're Jewish.

And if you're sucking up to Caesar, you're not Christian, you're Paulinist.

This is how it is that Thomas Jefferson and I can say that we are Christians in ways that most people will not understand, and that in fact it is they who are not Christians. This is why our bible (the Jeffersonian bible in his case, and endless metaphysical translation scrolls in my case), are so different from the book all these not-quite Christians are carrying around.

Our bible does not serve as a club. It recognizes that no one comes to god (whatever that is) except by an act of free will. Pseudo-Christians hate free will, worship original sin (Papism again), and use their book as a bully-club.

BUT.

None of that matters before secular law, because we have the First Amendment. No government official at any level in this country can sanctify one religion over another. Not my local mayor, not POTUS, not Judge Moore.

I am getting bored with people asserting that Judge Moore is asserting and defending his own religious rights.

Judge Moore waived that argument when he put his rock on public property. I've made that point and will not reiterate it in detail; just scroll down if you missed it.

It's been suggested that since Christ is not on Moore's rock, the rock is not Christian. And it's been suggested that the Ten Commandments are common to all religious thought. Both of these are wrong, for almost the same reason.

The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian. Therefore, Jesus, Daniel, and all the other Judeao-Christian lawgivers are there by direct implication. However, Buddha, Confuscious, Lao-Tsu and the Dali Lama are not. They are not, because their religions don't fully agree with all ten commandments. This may be incredible to you, if you think only the Children of Abraham are religious.

Children of Abraham? That's what I call the Judeao-Christian-Muslim super-sect. One giant religion, split into three major factions, each then additionally split into a few or many sub-sects. All these people are believers in the god of Abraham.

And ignorantly, almost all of them assume that everyone else is a pagan and not religious.

Judge Moore stands there and spouts god, never realizing that he is talking about an entity, potentially itself only the fiction of wishful thinking, that simply doesn't exist for over half the world's population. And, truth be told, neither does it exist for over half the US's population.

So when Judge Moore says he's not being Christian, he's just acknowledging God, he's still violating the equal rights of more than half of the citizens in this country who don't accept that god. He's violating their rights because he's making his religious statement using public property and money.

This is not merely a state-level issue. Alabama, like all the other states, is a whore for federal "money", and for as long as that is true, how each penny of that money is spent in Alabama is of just as much interest to us all as how any penny of it is spent anywhere else.

How that money is being spent in this issue is against my religion. Religions are involved in a competition, a contest for the hearts and minds of men. Judge Moore, taking advantage of his position, paid with our tax dollars, using a public building he is supposed to manage according to the law, which building is also paid for with our tax dollars, is in blatant violation of several state laws, and the federal and Alabama constitutions.

It's been noted that I should not be concerned that Judge Moore is demostrably prejudiced, because at least I know his prejudice. And that I should not fear being judged by someone with his moral standards. But that's a near-sighted advice, since its author doesn't know my details. I do not want to be judged in a secular court under ecclesiastical law. I don't agree with all of eccleastical law's positions. And I am not an adherent of the bible most people use.

Specifically, just to help everyone understand: Even though I am in a monogamous marriage by choice, I do not believe monogamy to be a natural tendency. I won't debate this just now, don't get your panties in a bunch. Bottom line is, if my wife and I decide to change the nature of our marriage on that point, that's our private business. And it doesn't matter to me that the popular bible says, 'one man and one woman'. It also says to stone adulterers, and I won't do that either. Simply, I am not a subscriber! So there's no way I'm going to walk into a court where I know that the judge is not only prejudiced against my world-view, but I also know that he has taken a defiant, self-destructive and legally incorrect position in public to effectively say that he doesn't care what the law is, in matters of religion he is going to do what he wants to do. The only thing I can trust the guy to do is to violate the law. And with it, all too probably, my rights.

In that sense, Judge Moore is an anarchist. And unlike my favorite brand of libertarianisn, "rational anarchy", he is not rational, by my standards. No one who proceeds strictly from faith can be rational on any faith-dictated point. Not even me.

Also, it has been wondered that I would choose group rights over individual rights. Boy, is that a confused assessment, my friend. In the first, and only, place, Judge Moore is not exercising an individual right. He is using public money and property to make this statement, and therefore, he is not making an individual statement, he is making a publicly-subsidized (group) statement. Thus I never made any such choice because no such choice ever existed.

I've said I defend Judge Moore's right to his view, his beliefs, and their proper expression. But unlike Judge Moore, I respect the equal rights of others. He refused to allow competing icons next to his rock. He is using state resources to promote a specific religious perspective, that of the Children of Abraham, to the exclusion of all others. That's illegal and unconstitutional.

And I'm being the big guy here, by the way, because I'm defending the proper exercise of his rights by a guy who is obviously lacking in the capacity to see that he is lacking in the capacity to fully comprehend the venue in which he is operating.

In that analysis, I'm glad that all this happened. Sincere or not, this man should not be a top judge. He isn't qualified. Worse, he doesn't know and can't know that he isn't qualified. So he is stubborn, obtuse, and in error. And he always will be, because he lacks the capacity to rise above all that.

We all have our ceilings, and none of us knows his own. We all live under that limitation. The dangerous ones among us are those who won't admit it. Unfortunately, stubbornness, wishful thinking, and blind faith are all the same thing in this regard. Those are the symptoms of our universal ignorance that make public dangers and potential tyrants out of those of us who yield to them.

If you think you can just walk by that rock and not suspect that you'll be misunderstood, scorned, or even punished if you disagree, and if you think that a man who does what Judge Moore has done and continues to do will give you a fair sheke when it comes down to the contest of philosophies of law, then you simply haven't been to court often enough.

You haven't seen the terrible truth, that the real reason we don't have a libertarian society is not because of tyrants, it's because by and large people aren't ready to be anything more than tyrants themselves, given the chance and the power to dictate the lives and actions of others. In short, we're just not up to real liberty. That's why a self-annointed group of planetary babysitters has presumed to set itself up to take care of us miserable waifs, to save us from ourselves. Don't believe me? Look back at the original Catholic Church. Give some real thought to terms like "children" and "flock". Think things have changed? Read Bill Clinton's guiding light, Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope.

The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions.

Judge Moore is sincere, and within his particular capacity to comprehend the world and cosmos around him, he is of the best intentions, despite his limitations.

And, therefore, on his own private road to hell.

The really sad part is that he's carrying so many hitch-hikers along for the ride. Some of them are friends of mine. They don't see that their admiration for a sense of integrity in the man is clouding their view of his position.

But hey, people are gonna do what people are gonna do, right or wrong, wise or stupid.

It is what it is.