12:04 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Our first public county meeting

Tonight from 6-9:30 we held our first meeting of the Santa Clara County WTP coordinator, volunteers and guests, at the IHOP in Santa Clara (city).

We had about 12 people all told, and we had a pretty good time. Only one guest was not well-informed about WTP, so only a little time was spent telling him the story. Almost all the rest of the time was spent going around the table, each of us introducing self and telling how and why we got into this movement.

Not much real "business" got done, but I hadn't planned for it to be done. As I told everyone at the beginning, it was planned to be a somewhat informal get-to-know-each-other meeting. We'll start more serious agendas when the regular meetings begin on Sept 9th.

And get to know each other we did. As one attendee said as he was leaving, he was glad we did that, because he found himself impressed with the depth of the group and that they were all thinking people who were in this for reasons that went beyond self-interest or shallowness.

We found that we are a very substantial core group.

This is what I had hoped would happen. Later, as the inevitable frictions arise, we'll all have reasons for staying connected despite small differences. A solid basis for mutual respect. And that means that frictions will result in negotiation and adjustment more often than abandonment. Thus we will grow and meld together as a group, and that should give us power to accomplish things.

Hopefully, my management style, which includes this kind of communion and also the practice of assigning people to do the things they already care about most, will drive us to great accomplishments.

That is my hope and my intent. So let it be done.

        12:24 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Ask and Receive

Blogger-buddy Gerald Klaas asks Mongo's advice.

But not before commenting on my discussion of the relationships of the courts, Alabama, its citizens and the feds. I would like for him to have spent a little more time looking at my argument regarding US Article IV-4-1. I think he'd not have jumped to the conclusion that we disagree.

After all, we both think the federal courts shouldn't have been responding to a First Amendment petition from within a State; he says they don't have jurisdiction, I said it's moot because the proper action lies under Article IV. And we both say that the Ten Commandments is religious.

True, I went into the Alabama constitution because that is really where Judge Moore goes astray, and Gerald didn't appear to spend much time on that.

But still, I don't think there's all that much disagreement. Maybe....

Anyway, Gerald asks Mongo's help:

Gerald: ... I hope he can help me clarify a dilemma in my own mind. ...how do I justify claiming 1st Amendment violations if a State government were to ban books?

Actually, Gerald wants the response to come upon the premise that he disagrees that the feds can enforce First Amendment restrictions against a state.

Happily, he may not have a dilemma after all. Here's why, if he can get satisfaction with it. Gerald lives in Sacramento, California. The CA state constitution has echoing rights guarantees akin to the federal Bill of Rights. (Well, many of them, anyway.)

CA ARTICLE 1, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.

The banning of books by a state is presumably done by the Executive or Legislative branch, and where that's the case, one turns to the courts for relief.

CA Article 1 Section 2(a) gives him his cause of action and confers jurisdiction on the courts to hear and act on his complaint or petition.

What if the banniing is done by a court, as through an injunction preventing the sale or distribution of a book. The relief is through appeal by the author(s), distributor(s) and readers whose lives can be shown to be diminished should the book remain unavailable.

Yet, what if the banning is upheld all the way through the state Supreme Court?

Does he have to give up there?

No.

Consider this little gem:

CA ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

This little beauty incorporates the United States constitution into the California constitution.

So if Gerald can't get satisfaction from the California Supreme Court, e.g., the CA Supreme Court refuses to enforce the CA constitution at Article 1 Sec. 2(a), then Gerald can appeal to the federal court under CA Article 3 Section 1, point of contention being US Article I of the Amendments.

Thus Gerald's dilemma is not the one he thought, but rather whther he is willing to change his mind, because he is wrong, at least in California, in his position that the feds can't enforce First Amendment restrictions against a state.

At the state's own invitation, the feds can enforce any measure of the US constitution against the State of California and any of its officers and subdivisions.

What about other states?

Nevada:

[PRELIMINARY ACTION.]

Whereas,

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four "To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States," requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved,

That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada, and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

ARTICLE 1
Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.
All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States;...

Montana:

ARTICLE I

COMPACT WITH THE UNITED STATES

All provisions of the enabling act of Congress (approved February 22, 1889, 25 Stat. 676), as amended and of Ordinance No. 1, appended to the Constitution of the state of Montana and approved February 22, 1889, including the agreement and declaration that all lands owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States, continue in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana.

Arizona:

ENABLING ACT
Act June 20, 1910, c. 310, 36 U.S. Stat. 557, 568-579
Sec. 20
That the delegates... shall declare on behalf of the people of said proposed State that they adopt the Constitution of the United States,...

More?!

It's all out there. Almost every state has such a subordination clause, either in its Enabling Act, its Ordinance No. 1, or within the actual body of its constitution.

You just have to be willing to look for it.

But you don't need to cite it to invoke federal court jurisdiction. You can simply rely on the US Constitution's own "grandfather clause", which operates so universally that it doesn't need to be cited, it's operation is automatic and understood:

US Article VI Clause 2
This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,...

So... Dilemma resolved? Sorry.

        5:17 PM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

It's not about Christians

I'd like to have this Alabama-thing discussion done with as much as anyone else. But I just can't keep quiet about serious misconceptions and misunderstandings.

My blog-buddy David Goodyear comments, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, that at some time in his past, Allen Hacker was abused by Christians.

Whether that is true is irrelevant, and to think that it might be the reason I've spoken out against Judge Roy Moore's transgressions can only be the result of not knowing me.

I have said that I grew up in an abusive pseudo-christian family. But I have also been far more abused by Humanists in the school system and government.

It might be okay with me to say that my past unhappy experiences with totalitarian dictatorial jerks of all stripes has moved me to take up my crusade for liberty and Free Will against all trespassers.

But make no mistake about it. I don't hate Christians, or anybody else. I am capable of loving my enemies as I kill them.

In fact, in that respect, I do consider myself to be morally head and shoulders above most of the Christians I know--people who hate commies and athiests and 'other' "evil" people. Hate is a waste of self, and I haven't the time for the pain.

I have just as firmly contested with local governments: Palo Alto when their Humanist-dominated politburo spent city money to bring in the Dali Lama and pretended that it was just a cultural event while denying Christans any visible participation in their little "peace and brotherhood ceremony"; San Jose when they stuck a multicultural rainbow up the taxpayers' collective ass and paid for a truly ugly sculpture of an Aztec god to be placed in a city park, where it sits to this day, looking for all the world like a huge dog turd.

And the biggest separation of church and state stink I have ever raised is an entire chapter in my book, On the Precipice of Epiphany, against the Humanist subversion of the public school system.

David Goodyear says that placing an item of religion in a courthouse doesn't turn it into a place of worship. I wonder if he would also say that removing all vestiges of monotheistic religions from the public schools and replacing then with a proactive indoctrination of students into Humanist theory and pantheism doesn't turn the schools into atheist churches.

Of course it does! You just have to understand that the word "religion" describes Christianity, etc., and not the other way around. By this I mean that if you think that for something to be religious it must follow the structural pattern of Christianity, you will never see the enemies of your church coming.

Ah, well, this is a never-ending argument. And it gives me sorrow that my Christians friends are so defensive and territorial that they can't see an ally when he is standing right in front of them pointing to the beams in their eyes.

Remember, only your real friends will tell you when your breath has gone sour.

If you want more from me on this, you'll have to get it from my book(s).

My first, Mind Matters, is free on the AEscir website. Follow the publications and free materials links. The second half is technical, not a breezy read.

Several of my articles on various subjects are also available on that site, some of them in the same place as Mind Matters, some in the Articles section of the Articulate Management subsite.

Some of those articles also got included into my last book, available by clicking the On the Precipice of Epiphany link over there on the right. (Note that this book is not free. Nopr is it any easier to read than my blogging.)

Final note to all my friends:

You should not generalize me, nor try to understand me in common psychobabbel terms. What you need to do is read carefully what I write and stop assuming that disagreement and opposition are anger and enmity. If you do read me carefully, you will see that I include lots of clarifiers and quaifiers, and I try to say things with pedantic precision. True, that often makes reading me laborious and may send you to dictionary.com more often than you'd like, but it also leaves no excuse for misunderstanding such painful writing, or for twisting it into a tortured image of some substitute me.

The typos, now that's another story....

Maybe someday I'll write something on how the word-processor saved me from a lifetime of dyslexic frustration. (I once thanked Steve Wozniak for that.)

Did you know that I can mistype something as many as three characters off from center on the keyboard in any direction and still go back and read it, and tell you what it should have said? Something, Huh? Talent within disability.

Confucious said one's greatest strength is also one's greatest liability. Perhaps the opposite is also true, that there might be a silver lining in a disability that can serve one well.

Whatever the sugar-coating, I had to learn to read very carefully. But I don't think I'm the only one who should make the effort.

        1:05 PM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Questions

To those who are saying that Judge Roy Moore is being wrongly directed by the federal courts in violation of the state's rights of Alabama.

Their argument is that the US constitution cannot dictate to a state, that a state may define its own affairs.

Normally I would agree, but....

1. Have you read the Alabama constitution?

Specifically, Article 1, Declaration of Rights, Sections 1 and 3?

Article 1, Section 1, Equality and rights of men:

That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Article 1, Section 3, Religious freedom:

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Does Alabama Article 1 Section 1 state that all men in Alabama have equal rights?

Yes.

Does Alabama Article 1 Section 1 state that the rights of men in Alabama cannot be removed?

Yes.

Does Article 1 Section 1 state that men are made by God?

No.

Article 1 Section 1 state that men are endowed by a creator, but it does not say what that creator is.

It is true that the Alabama constitution's Preamble does invoke "Almighty God", and thus some may argue that this requires an inference of "Almighty God" throughout that constitution. However, nowhere is "Almighty God" defined as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim version, nor can it be without such a definition being inconsistent with Article 1, Section 3.

Can an Alabama office or official place a religious monument in a public building?

No.

To do so would violate clauses 3 and 4 of Alabama Article 1, Section 3, to wit:

[3] that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship;

[4] nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry;

Does placing a religious monument in a public building violate Alabama Article 1 Section 3, Clause 3?

Yes.

Placing a religious monument in a public building converts that building to a place of worship.

People are required to come to public buildings in order to gain the benefits of their rights to the governmental services provided there. More strongly, in the case of the Alabama State Supreme Court building, people can be compelled to appear in that building as a matter of judicial process.

Therefore, since "no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship", no public building in Alabama may lawfully be converted into a place of worship, at the least unless there is absolutely no possible compulsion for anyone to come there.

Does placing a religious monument in a public building violate Alabama Article 1 Section 3, Clause 4?

Yes.

Taxes were used for building the Alabama Supreme Court building, and are used for maintaining it and the grounds around it.

Further, when Chief Justice Roy Moore places a religious monument in the Alabama Supreme Court building, he makes himself the high priest of his now-established (and illegally-converted) place of worship.

However, Judge Moore is being paid with tax money, the same tax money that paid for the building and pays now for its maintenance. He reinforces his defacto priesthood when he makes speeches or gives press conferences within or on the grounds of that building wherein he witnesses and advocates the God that he believes in; yet at the same time he is speaking as Chief Justice. Therefore, tax money is being used to maintain both a place of worship and a ministry.

Is Chief Justice Roy Moore correct in his declaration that he is upholding the constitution of the State of Alabama?

No.

He is in fact in violation of Alabama Article 1, Sections 3 and 4.

Are those among Chief Justice Roy Moore's defenders who declare this to be a separation of powers issue and a state's rights issue correct?

No.

The pleadings against Roy Moore at the federal court may be in error if they only allege violations of federal provisions, since those pleadings were not necessary to establish violation.

The more interesting question is whether or not the citizens have the right to appeal to the federal courts for a Writ of Mandamus or other order to enforce their state constitution against their top state officials should those officials go rogue. Well,

Do the citizens of a state have the right to appeal to the federal courts for a Writ of Mandamus or other order to enforce their state constitution against their top state officials should those officials go rogue?

Yes.

US Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,..."

When the top judicial officer of a state abandons the republican form and begins to conduct himself and the resources of his office and/or the assets of the state in a manner contrary to that form, the people have a right to appeal to the federal government on the grounds that there is no higher state official to whom appeal may be made.*

US Article IV Section 4 Clause 1 requires the United States to step in and restore the republican form of government to the state in question.

* The only rebuttal I can think of to this would be for the defendant rogue to move for dismissal on grounds that the people have failed to exhaust their available state-level remedies, in that it appears that no one complained to the relevant county Sheriff for relief under Posse Comitatus. However, a weak argument against that rebuttal might be a lack of faith in the Sheriff's willingness to stand up to a "higher" elected officer, particularly a state Supreme Court Justice who in the normal course of things does have the power to issue orders directing that Sheriff. Therefore, given the general level of ignorance in this country among themselves regarding the true powers and authorities of county Sheriffs, and their own recent obsequiousness toward presumed federal authority, this argument might well justify jumping directly to the federal level.

What is the best net result?

The complainants got the correct answer, but to the wrong question.

Had the complainants asked the correct question, they would have gotten the same answer, but they also would have clarified the issue rather than further muddied it.

Case-wise, the best net result occurred in the order that was issued. But for the public, the better net result would have been the clear understanding that a rogue state Supreme Court Justice attempted to subvert state assets in support of his personal religion, and was stopped by the religious guarantees of his own state's constitution, through the proper protections provided the states by the US constitution.

Are the Ten Commandments "religious" in the sense that posting them in a public place by a public official constitutes a violation of the religious rights of people who do not adhere to the Judeao-Christian-Muslim (JCM) supersect?

Yes.

The first four of the commandments are not universal principles, as the defenders of the Ten Commandments prefer to position the entire document; they are religion-specific proscriptions that require the JCM mindset.

To wit:

1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing 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: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

4. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Are these statements of Commandments 1-4 correct?

Yes, well enough.

Actually, there is no explicit statement titled "The Ten Commandments" in the Bible. There is admonishment to keep the commandments, and many commandments given across the pages of the Bible, but no standalone listing of them. Theses statements of them include the explanatory and parallel commandments that fall into the same topic of each. Resource: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c7.htm

Keeping to the point, however, there is no statement possible of any of these four commandments that cannot be construed as religious. They are, in the legal sense, "administrative", in that they set a tone, require a perspective, and dictate personal behavior with respect to a deity as distinct from personal behavior with respect to other people.

While it may be argued that commandments 5-10 are merely universal principles, and there can be strong arguments mounted against even that contention in the case of certain of those, that argument cannot hold with respect to commandments 1-4.

Therefore, my conclusion is that to put all this into the proper perspective, one must break the commandments apart into at least three categories:

1. Universal principles;
2. Widely-accepted rules of thumb;
3. Religious proscriptions.

It is category 3, Religious proscriptions, that makes posting the Ten Commandments unconstitutional under both the federal and Alabama constitutions, and quite likely, nearly all if not all of the remaining state constitutions.

        12:48 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Points of Clarification

Hopefully, my last on Moore (???)

One

In my view, it is not possible for a public official to commit a private act in a public area of a public building.

Everything Judge Moore does inside the Alabama State Supreme Court building is a public act, committed as Chief Justice Moore and not as just plain ole Roy Moore.

This opinion is supported by innumerable court rulings that clearly state that one of the consequences of public life is a diminshing of certain rights, most notably privacy, and that one of the consequences of employment is the right of the employer to make rules about the type of conversations you can start or engage in while in your capacity as an employeee, or while using company resources. That would be a legitimate restriction of speech. There's a sense running through those rulings to the effect that you make certain trade-offs when you ask for privilege.

Therefore, Judge Moore has not been asserting his individual rights, because in his actions as an official of the state, he can only act vis a vis the goup, the citizens of the state. A consequence of his having been given the privilege of the position he asked for.

One could try to argue that he was acting in an individual capacity when he brought his rock into the building after hours. Not that after hours is a bad idea, the thing being big and heavy and there being possibly legitimate public safety considerations. However, if he entered the building after hours as a private citizen, then he was trespassing. Would the guards open the doors after hours so a rabbi could install a menorah? Do any Buddhists or Hopis have their own keys, so that they might come in and create a sand thingie on the floor? And then refuse to remove it?

No. Either judge Moore was acting illegally as a private citizen using a public building to promote his particular faith, or he was improperly allocating a public resource to make a religious statement.

Two

It is irrelevant that past officials at various levels have committed whatever religious acts, statements and proclamations as may have been done from their official positions. All such were unconstitutional.

American jurisprudence says two things about this point. First, an unconstitutional act or law is unconstitutional from inception, not just from the moment it is so declared. So the fact that all these past acts occurred and no one contested them "back then" is not evidence of correctness. People get away with things all the time. Crass as it may sound, getting away with rape because the victim never filed a complaint does not make rape legal.

Second, despite the fact that there is a common law function known as the Doctrine of Acceptance, which says generally that customs long standing should not be disturbed simply because an unenforced law could be revived, the US Supreme Court has long since ruled that this doctrine does not apply to issues of constitutional question.

You put these two legal facts together and you find that it is not true that it is okay to do an unconstitutional thing today simply because it was done in the past and nobody challenged it. Indeed, we must instead say that what was done in the past was as unconstitutional then as the current action is now.

Three

Keeping religious artifacts off public property does not deprive anyone of their religious rights, while putting particular religious artifacts where they cannot be avoided by people doing necessary business with the government does infringe on some people's religious rights.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be quiet, to not speak. And freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. What has been said about the freedom of speech applies equally to the freedom of religion.

What is not understood by Christians is that non-Christians experience unavoidable public displays of religion as religious tests. In my own experience, far too many Christians think nothing of offending the religious sensibilities of non-Christians in any number of subtle ways.

For example, a Christian pastor and I went out to lunch at a patriot confab a little over a year ago. Where I waited to begin eating so as to allow him his profession of grace before his meal, he insisted that I say grace despite the fact that he knew me to be a Deist. He doesn't believe Deism is a religion, so he disrespected me. And when I declined, he took offense. A religious test, the punishment for the failing of which is that I am now shunned by him. Good riddance, I say. Though I do grieve the loss in me of the tremendous respect I'd built up for the man over the past 25 years.

For example, Christians having us over for dinner and demanding that we hold hands and bow our heads while they say grace. It wasn't enough that we would wait and be silent while they performed their ritual. They had to make a big deal out of it and embarrass their kids. Again, we get shunned, and again I say, good riddance.

For example, one of my own brothers, answering the telephone with "Praise the Lord!", and then taking offense because I hung up. And when I went over to his house to discuss some family business, kept punctuating the conversation with "Amen!" and "Hallelujah!", and then getting indignant when I called off the meeting and later took the business up with other siblings instead.

I think I've made the point. But just in case anyone refuses to take it gently, here it is, bluntly.

Declaring the United States to be a Christian nation is offensive behavior in disrespect to all the rest of us. Putting Judeo-Christian artifacts in public buildings creates a potential religious test that might be administered at any moment by any nutcase who thinks we haven't been deferential enough as we passed by.

Putting a sculpture of Quetzalcoatl in one of San Jose's downtown parks and then defending it by calling it merely cultural while all encyclopedias clearly state that Q was an Aztec god, is offensive. (I get my secret revengne on this one, though, in my delight that from behind the sculpture looks exactly like a huge pile of dog shit.)

Anyway. Nobody wants the city's budget director to sit in the back row at Sunday Service and work his calculator and shuffle papers. Not even if he's a member of the congregation. More than a few people, from the pastor on down, would feel quite free to remind him that this is not the place for that.

And they'd be right, of course. Just as right and for all the same reasons that a person in a government building to take care of secular business might say to a clerk hanging a picture of Jesus over his window so thet you see it before you see the clerk, "This is not the place for that."

Are you listening, Roy? You're not Roy when you're Judge Moore. And the rotunda? This is not the place for that.

Four

Here's a little religious test for all you Christians who think I'm making a big deal out of nothing.

If you walked through a government building, and there on the wall above the pictures of the officials who work in that building, you noticed a depiction of Jesus, would your heart be warmed? Would you feel gratified? Would you feel at home, knowing that the people who work in this building profess your savior?

Of course you would. Admit it. You wouldn't be able to help yourself.

And then, admit that all of the opposite feelings are stirred up in everyone who does not profess Jesus, when they see that same thing. And stop dismissing their reactions, in light of the fact that you cannot control your own, either. Just because yours are gratificational and their are negative, doesn't make them wrong. It makes the hanger of the picture wrong.

Government must give us equal treatment and equal access. It cannot do that if its objective space is slanted by a demostrated preference for one point of view over another. When you get right down to it, that's where the dissent lies. And that's where it will win the argument.