An impeachable offense

[Pah]

Complete story (most not germane to the thread)

Three associate justices, one judge sworn in
Saturday, January 15, 2005
STAN BAILEY
News staff writer

MONTGOMERY - Three new associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court and one judge of the Court of Civil Appeals took oaths of office Friday in ceremonies at Troy University's Davis Theatre.

The 1,200-seat theater was packed with relatives and friends of new justices Tom Parker, Mike Bolin and Patricia M. Smith, and civil appeals judge Tommy Bryan.

Many stood and applauded former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore as he walked to the stage to administer the oath to Parker. Moore's action was ceremonial, since Parker took his formal oath of office Thursday before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in Washington. Parker said Thomas told him a judge should be evaluated by whether he faithfully upholds his oath to God, not to the people, to the state or to the Constitution

If this reporting holds true, then Justice Thomas would be liable for impeachment for not upholding his sworn oath to defend the Constitution.

Bob

 

[retrorich]

He's probably the most honest judge money can buy. :biglaugh:

 

[michel]

Hi guys;

All the political issues you discuss on this forum are relevent to US or Australia (or was that on MSN with Soul?) ; reminds me of the British poet- and I can't remmber which, who, when he was asked by an admirer what he meant in some thing he'd written said' Madam, when I wrote that, God and I knew what I meant; now.. God alone knows!

I obviously know little about your politics ( I don''t really keep up with ours; causes high blood pressure!), but I remmber my wise old Mum (Who most tragically for me died twelve years ago) had this to say about politicians here, in the U.K:-

"Before the 2nd world war, politicians were devout vocationalists who 'politiqued'(I invented that one now) for the good of the country; after the war, politics became dependent on people who worked at it as a means to earn money - very few of those can be construed as vocationally dedicated, decent folk.

My Mum was lovely; I still miss her a great deal...and Dad, too

 

[TranceAm]

"Parker said Thomas told him a judge should be evaluated by whether he faithfully upholds his oath to God, not to the people, to the state or to the Constitution."

I rest my case "Can a Christian be a loyal American" in the Virgina pledge thread.

 

[Pah]

"Parker said Thomas told him a judge should be evaluated by whether he faithfully upholds his oath to God, not to the people, to the state or to the Constitution."

I rest my case "Can a Christian be a loyal American" in the Virgina pledge thread.

I'm afraid you paint with too broad a brush. Such specific circumstances and statements can not be used to discredit an entire classification. Try "some Christians" and you will get no arguement from many of us.

Bob

 

[Sunstone]

No anti-American judge comes right out and says that he's anti-American. Instead, he says he has a greater duty to God than to the Constitution, the people, their representatives, or the government. That way he hopes no one notices that he is at heart anti-American.

 

[TranceAm]

I'm afraid you paint with too broad a brush. Such specific circumstances and statements can not be used to discredit an entire classification. Try "some Christians" and you will get no arguement from many of us.
Bob

If I paint, as you state, then I only color between the lines that others carve on the canvas.

The Christians that are in one way or another connected to the people in power.
Or the ones that are in power and entwine the church that way into the state. (Clarence Thomas.) impose laws they want to live by, onto others that don't have the same religious views and would live happily ever after without such personal "Liberty" limiting laws. (I don't think that "In the future when we manage to convert them to our way of life/viewpoint, they will give up their resistance." is a correct way to treat adult citizens in a decent way with the respect they deserve.")

Hence: A real Christian can't speak the oath of allegiance and speak the truth.
Catch 22 here (Gladly nothing comes for free.) is that to be able to do this <s>he has to bare false wittness. (And wasn't that a sin?)

For the state (WIth the ongoing world wide commercial "Liberty and Justice for all" ) everyone has to be the same, with the same rights and duty's.

You want to explain why some that have spoken the oath to uphold the constitution and its bill of rights for the Americans, still deny legions of Americans, or agree to deny those legions the rights that are guaranteed to them by forementioned constitution and bill of rights, based on their Christian life views can pledge their allegiance?

And do I have to mention that some of those laws or the breaking of such laws have harsher punishments then a slap on the wrist. I would consider implementing, executing or even supporting such laws treason against your fellow americans that do live the American way. You think you can still pledge allegiance and be a Christian?

For Example: I think it is wonderfull that Christians don't want to drink Alcohol on Sunday for one reason or another. (Throwing up in church comes to mind.)
I think it is rather remarkable for Christians to have laws to make sure THEY can't break their own way of life. I think it is a sin agains the American way of life to IMPOSE such laws on Americans that don't consider themselves Christians
and just want to enjoy a drink whenever they want to enjoy a drink, Even on Sunday.
And when they don't have it at home, they should be able to buy some drink somewhere.

And if one group of Citizens have state guaranteed rights for some to be speciefied human interaction then every other group of citizens, for the state, should have the same rights to said human interaction. (Not?)
And if not, why not?
But please based on something else then Virtual/Religious reasons.

 

[No*s]

TranceAm, I think your post is in error for obvious reasons, but since it is both absolutist and binary, it is quite testable. You say "A real Christian can't speak the oath of allegiance and speak the truth," and assert that we must either impose our morality or we must be hypocrites, and there are no exceptions made.

I would, therefore, put my head on the chopping block. Not for your criticism, but for that of other Non-Christians. Lets test it. How many here think that my beliefs, not a lack of training, would put me in the position of either becoming a tyrant or a hypocrite? My posts are plentiful, and many people have read them. I'll not offer any rebuttal to the analysis unless asked a question.

If the general consensus is that I could be a fair ruler and still hold to my beliefs, then a) Most people on this site are dead wrong and you correctly see me, or b). You are in error and should heavily modify your thesis. It already shows its problems by talking about Christians wanting to outlaw alchahol -- that isn't a movement in either of the two largest Christian Churches in the world, or most for that matter. It is an extremist position unrepresentative of Christianity. That, alone, should raise red flags. However, the above test will work.

In this way, I can test an absolutist binary statement. Since I am a Christian, I will use myself as a test-case.

 

[TranceAm]

In this way, I can test an absolutist binary statement. Since I am a Christian, I will use myself as a test-case.

Well NO's , you can test all the statements you put up yourself, all you want, and for that matter all day long..
And then let others descide via those statements, whether a statement I make is right or wrong.

It is plain and simple..
Amendments that will violate the "Equal for the law." as suggested by Bush. is the reason as put forward by the Bush defenders that he was elected in (AGAIN).
The so to call them ultra right religious "moral" majority came out en masse after encouraged in the local churches to vote for the born again Christinan :biglaugh:defender of Christian lifeviews.
With prodominant the reasons: the "pro life" view and the matter concerning "Gay rights" and an eventual Amendment to avoid having to give them the same right...

I don't care whether you personaly want to prove anything about your person, as long the the politicy as presented by the preachers is hypocrite.

But for the rest: It is PLAIN and SIMPLE and if nessecary I will spell it out for you:

Either, BUSH is lying <AGAIN> the Christians didn't come out an masse and the election was stolen and the Christians accept this OR Bush and his defenders aren't lying and the above mentioned policies are what Christians want.

Now, you want to explain what a hypocrite is.. GO right ahead.
You will also explain , that only a hypocrite can pledge allegiance to 2 domains where one domain is only partly shared by the other domain that as claimed contains/covers all.

 

[No*s]

Your claim above wasn't limited to Bush. You are rewording it. You specified that a Christian must either be a hypocrite or must violate the Constitution to be in office. Let's not redefine it when it's inconvenient. If so much as one Christian can be in office, not violate the Constitution, and not be a hypocrite, your statement is demonstrably false.

Your argument here is rather flawed:

Now, you want to explain what a hypocrite is.. GO right ahead.
You will also explain , that only a hypocrite can pledge allegiance to 2 domains where one domain is only partly shared by the other domain that as claimed contains/covers all.

Unless you believe the State has absolute power, then the domain of conflict is reasonable, and if you believe that, then you must also forfeit the concept of rights, and you must view the United States government as an illegal government that has persisted for over two hundred years. If you deny these, you remove the tension entirely.

Fortunately I, and most people in the Western World, deny it.

 

[TranceAm]

Your claim above wasn't limited to Bush. You are rewording it. You specified that a Christian must either be a hypocrite

Remember "or we must be hypocrites", YOU used that term first. (I didn't want to insult people right of the bat.)

or must violate the Constitution to be in office. Let's not redefine it when it's inconvenient.

Or put words in someone elses writing when conveniant. Even when they are assumed to be true.

If so much as one Christian can be in office, not violate the Constitution, and not be a hypocrite, your statement is demonstrably false.

Only as long as you are cherry picking what you want to answer to:
try again to evaluate these (You forgot these in your reply's when you tried to change what to discuss.) :

Quote:
"You want to explain why some that have spoken the oath to uphold the constitution and its bill of rights for the Americans, still deny legions of Americans, or agree to deny those legions the rights that are guaranteed to them by forementioned constitution and bill of rights, based on their Christian life views can pledge their allegiance?"

Or this one:

Quote:
"Either, BUSH is lying <AGAIN> the Christians didn't come out an masse and the election was stolen and the Christians accept this OR Bush and his defenders aren't lying and the above mentioned policies are what Christians want."

Your argument here is rather flawed:

Of course in your opinion and only as long as you don't have to speak out on (for example.) the above 2 examples from a Christian viewpoint with Gay-Rights as basis.