Roy Moore Is No Freedom Fighter

One thing I’ve noticed about defenders of Roy Moore is that, while they love Moore as a symbol for their theocratic Right-wing agenda, he’s really quite embarassing to them as a person. He can get them fired up in private, but his words are far too embarassing to really talk about in public. Jessica Lane took it upon herself to write in about Moore’s defense of our freedoms as Americans; as far as I can tell, the freedom she had in mind was the non-existent freedom to impose your religious beliefs on others from a State office. Yet she never really got down to brass tacks on Roy Moore’s actual words on freedom, so I took it upon myself to quote his words for her and ask whether or not she supported them. As usual, I have yet to receive an answer.

Editors, Opelika-Auburn News:

Jessica Lane’s recent letter urges Americans to stand up and fight for our freedoms. I couldn’t agree more. However, I can’t agree when she writes that One man who has stood up for our liberty and freedom is Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Let’s look at Roy Moore’s opinions on freedom in his Ex parte H.H. concurring opinion.

Homosexual behavior, Moore writes, is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one’s ability to describe it. (Alabama’s sexual misconduct law applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals, so Moore is either ignorant of the law or lying.)

He says legal discrimination against homosexuals promotes the general welfare of the people of our State in accordance with our law.

And, The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle. (Moore waffled, and said that he only to give an example of punishments for crimes, but his statement still clearly says that the government would be within its legal and moral prerogatives to implement such barbaric punishment.)

Moore is no freedom fighter. He wants the power to invade the bedrooms of consenting adults. He stands for a nanny State that robs Alabama citizens of their rights whenever he doesn’t like what they do with them. He believes the government should have the power to imprison and slaughter people simply because they are gay.

Give me liberty or give me death indeed! We must fight for liberty — for everyone, not just the people Roy Moore likes.

Charles W. Johnson
Auburn

20 replies to Roy Moore Is No Freedom Fighter Use a feed to Follow replies to this article

  1. Nolin Micheal

    One must stand in awe to the all most terrible, inhuman, and devilish man on the face of this Earth. He says that this country was founded on the 10 commandments? Does he know his history? I think not. This country was founded on freedom from religion… it is just fact, sorry bible lovers. I have no opposition to people practicing religion, but please keep it to yourselves, because you are poisioning our nation with your susperstition and hatefull hearts. Who are you to believe that people are worse then you, and who are you to cast judgement onto others. You yourself belive that only “god” can do this. As to Roy Moore, every act that this man performs in office is yet other step leading this once tolerable nation into that led and drived by supersition and hate. Get your heads out of your fiction and into a place I like to call reality. :)

· December 2002 ·

  1. Bill Eaton

    Please note that I FULLY approve of Judge Roy Moore’s cause. He has every right to post the Ten Commandments and to condemn homosexual behavior — this behavior has never been acceptable– especially in the US. And while I people can certainly ‘do what they want in their bedroom’ — homosexuallity should STAY IN THE BEDROOM not be promoted and celebrated in PUBLIC !! Bill Eaton

  2. Charles W. Johnson

    Mr. Eaton claims two things:

    1. He fully approves of the recent actions of Chief Justice Roy Moore, including Mr. Moore’s condemnation of homosexuality.

    2. He believes that homosexual couples have the legal right to have consensual sex in their own bedroom.

    However, the following is also true:

    1. Mr. Moore does not believe that homosexual couples have the legal right to have consensual sex in their own bedroom. In his concurring opinion on Ex parte H.H., Moore repeatedly supports the use of legal force against consensual, private homosexual conduct. He chillingly states that “The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution,” and that the State has not only the right, but the obligation, to “use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.”

    As a result, it seems to me that Bill Eaton holds beliefs that the facts show to be incompatible with one another. I wonder which one he will abandon?

— 2003 —

  1. Daniel Strahan

    I agree with Bill Eaton and Roy Moore except that homosexuality should not even exist, as it has been proved fatal to everyone sexually involved in it. The fact also exists that Moore MUST oppose this deviate and learned behaviour because it is THE LAW. A judge must defend the law until or unless it is changed for better or worse. This country was founded on faith in God, not religion, which is different.

  2. Stephen Abel

    This Nation was not founded on freedom from religion but rather freedom of religion. Evidence that our Founding Fathers were Christian can be found in early State Constitutions, in which, professed belief in God was often required to hold public office. Only after the authors of the Constitution passed away, and people began to misinterpert the Constitution, and twisted it’s words to mean freedom from religion, did our nation stray from its Christian roots. It is because of freedom of religion that the Ten Commandments should be allowed in public, the only thing banned should be the requirement that they be displayed.

  3. Aaron

    http://www.str.org http://www.carm.org http://www.leaderu.com http://www.origins.org http://www.discovery.org http://www.cbhd.org/resources/

    It is ever so great that we have the awesome privilege of speaking freely in this country of what our thoughts are on these various “hot” topics. If anyone is interested in being intellectually challeged please go to any or all of the websites above and just read some articles. I can almost guarantee that some pre-suppositions will be challenged and have found these websites to be very informative.

    Thank you for reading,

    Aaron

    PS- I think there is a deeper issue here than Chief Justice Moore and what he is standing for and it has to do with world views.

  4. Dennis Pape

    Chief Justice Roy Moore is 100% right about the Ten Commandments. This is only a mear acknowledgment of God, Our nation was founded on the Moral Law and the Acknowledgement of God. You all need to read the history of our nation, you will fine, our founders acknowledged God. This is not about church & State. This is about God and the duties we owe to God.

  5. Lynn Mullins

    Judge Roy Moore does not embarass me at all. I support him and I am proud of him.

    “Let me ask you, what would our country be like today if our country was not founded on these principles and truths?

    Our country did very well serving and acknowledging our God till we started kicking him out of schools and etc.

    My husband and I pray for him and will continue to do so.

    I often wonder why some people fight against a God that they don’t even believe in. Seems mighty foolish to be fighting with someone who doesn’t even exist.

    Those who do not which to look at those ten conmandments don’t have to. There are many things in cities and towns etc that I don’t like or even like the goverment spending money on but I know that some things others like even if I don’t.

  6. Wayne Conger

    The first ammendment to the Constitution of the United States is worded as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The first amendment gives God fearing people the right to establish religion based on faith in God, and it gives those who have no time for God the right to reject religeous membership.
    This amendment also gives God fearing people the right to talk about their religion to anyone who will listen. If Godless people don’t like to hear people talk about their religion they can just walk away. Judge Roy Moore is exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. If you don’t like his free speech peacibly petition the government for a redress of this grievance. But no judge or politition has the right to deny Judge Moore his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speach.

    Godless people reject the Bible but they have no trouble accepting a painting of the cross of Christ pictured in a container of piss. Is it any wonder that in the last fifty years America has rotted internally to the point where we are now monitored by television cameras and other divices everywhere we go. We, as a people, can not be trusted anymore. We have grown strong externally, but if the core is rotten, then eventually the whole body will become rotten: and we dare to ask God to save America.

  7. Kirby Foster

    I support Judge Moore. I dont feel I have to go into numerous reasons as to why however. All atheists and homos would’nt understand anyhow. Also the 1st amendment gives us the freedom to support our relegion as we see fit, it does’nt give any govt body the authority to restrict that said freedom.

  8. John Q.

    The man is the chief of the Alabama Judicial System. He is a government figure. He as an individual can make any acknowledgement of God he’d like. The opposite of what Kirby says equally applies. The Chief Justice, as head of a gov’t body, and in that capacity (the only way he could have ever gotten the monument in the judicial bldg to begin with), cannot promote his religious beliefs on citizens with differing beliefs.

  9. Donna Alexander

    I don’t understand why we are called a country of free speach, when the people that are suppose to have that right really has no say in anything. Why is only so many people’s voice heard but the other people that have things to say are never heard. I can’t see why our country is that way. When we can’t keep the Ten Commandments in our state captial. Why is that? Because we have some that don’t belive in god, well thats fine and good for them. But what about the ones that do belive in god, I belive we have the right to see it there in our state building if we want. All the people have to do that does not want to look at it is to turn their heads. My self I would love for it to remain there forever. I think we as the people that has a voice for it should be heard, and those that doesn’t have any reason to remove it should be silent. Why has there always have to be a war over everything, and yes thats a war no matter how you look at it. The ten Commandments are of gods words does his words mean nothing anymore? That’s what I would like to know.

  10. George

    Justice Moore is promoting his brand of religion over others in his capacity as Chief Justice.

    He is promoting an idol to be worshipped as do fundamentalist Christians when they try to make the bible the infallible word of God.

    Roy Moore uses his alleged faith to promote himself. He has a very big ego and his only God is himself.

  11. Mary

    Roy Moore is nothing more than an embarassment – mainly to himself. He has “divined” himeself – without divine permission – and has created himself as a “God” who is “entitled” to drag a granite relief of the Ten Commandments into a Federal area. Mind you – Moses (a JEW!) presented the Ten Commandments, and Roy Moore would be ONE OF THE FIRST ON THE BANDWAGON TO DECRY JUDAISM IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIANITY! Because he doesn’t have a clue. Some “Christian” is Roy Moore!

  12. Kim H

    The question at hand is not whether one supports all of Roy Moore’s beliefs, as has been implied. It is whether he should have the right to display the Ten Commandments. Moore campaigned as the “Ten Commandments Judge” and won, proving majority support. Why should he have to curb his religion merely to please those who don’t share it. If the argument is of the judge holding or ruling with a bias, that bias would exist with or without the monument. Removing the monument would do no more good than to please a select few who are more concerned with being “politically correct” than with upholding freedoms.

  13. Ann Tunnell Lauter

    I would like to respectfully offer a suggestion to the people who are so proudly anti-Moore, anti-Bible and anti-God. Don’t you owe it to yourself to find out exactly what you’re fighting against? I’ve never met anyone who really had studied the King James Bible and still criticized it.

    Look at it this way. If Christians are wrong and the end is to rot under ground, then the worst we’ve lost is participation in behaviors that cause unhappiness and grief, illnesses and often death, and we’ve gained while we were here by making the world a little better by loving everybody. We’ve had something that eased our problems and helped us get ourselves and others through situations caused by those who do indulge in behavior which fails to set good standards and causes pain for themselves and others. We’ve helped people in need; we’ve been happy. On the other hand, if the Bible is absolutely true and you don’t believe………any intelligent person can see the difference.

    In this case, Roy Moore has the courage of his convictions and I greatly admire his knowledge and understanding of the law. I have the feeling that some of the people who write in are saying what they’ve been taught, not what they’ve learned. Why not look into what he says and actually determine for yourself whether he’s right? If nothing else you’ll get some new arguments for your appeals.

    And what’s wrong with keeping your personal behavior private? Why try to influence others? I feel so sorry and grieved for those individuals I’ve seen whose lives were being cut short by AIDs. Regardless of how right it seems for you, wouldn’t it be more loving to hope that others escape it?

    Whatever you decide, say or do, I ask that God will bless your life.

  14. Charles Johnson

    Lynn Mullins writes that “Judge Roy Moore does not embarass me at all. I support him and I am proud of him.” She apparently intended this as a response to my preliminary comment that “One thing I’ve noticed about defenders of Roy Moore is that, while they love Moore as a symbol for their theocratic Right-wing agenda, he’s really quite embarassing to them as a person. He can get them fired up in private, but his words are far too embarassing to really talk about in public.” But in fact she perpetuates the very phenomenon upon which I was commenting: that Moore defenders get all whipped up about how he’s under attack from the legions of the godless, how he’s just trying to defend freedom of religion (in some peculiarly contorted understanding of that phrase), etc. etc. etc.–but they won’t dare to actually say what they think when confronted with quotations like the one I cited from Moore’s opinion in /Ex parte H.H./

    Mullins’ post goes on at length about the Ten Commandments issue. But the letter to which Mullins’ was putatively responding is not about the Ten Commandments; it’s about Roy Moore’s chilling public comments, in which he declared that the State would be acting within its moral and legal perogatives to imprison and slaughter people who have violated no-one’s rights, but who happen to be homosexual. Those of us who are not so enthusiastic about a policy of Holocaust against the gay community are understandably concerned about Roy Moore’s words. And Roy Moore’s supporters still won’t say whether they agree or disagree with the words.

    What conclusion are we supposed to draw? That they privately disagree with Moore’s words, but are unwilling to confront him because they think it would undermine campaigns of Moore’s with which they agree? That they just don’t care one way or the other about it, and so shift the subject to other issues? Or that they privately agree with Moore’s bloodthirsty sentiments, but dishonestly conceal their opinions because they know that it’s not palatable to the general public?

    It’s hard to say which of these three interpretations is the least charitable understanding of the behavior of Moore’s supporters. But in the absence of Moore supporters willing to clearly say anything at all about Moore’s comments on homosexuality, and who are constantly eager to change the subject to something completely different from the topic of the letter to which they are responding, it seems nearly impossible to avoid adopting one of these conclusions.

— 2006 —

  1. My Name

    Roy Moore believes the State should use its powers, not specifically “execution”. Perhaps you should read a lil’ more attentively?

  2. Rad Geek

    … should use its powers, up to and including execution:

    The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.

    It [the State] must use that power to prevent the subversion of children towards this [homosexual] lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle. What power? That power refers to the power of the sword allegedly carried by the State. The power of the sword is glossed as the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. If Moore did not intend for readers to understand him as claiming that the physical penalties with which homosexual behavior could be punished could reasonably include confinement and even execution, (that being a natural reading of the standard English phrase such as) then he should not have used those specific examples to illustrate his meaning, and he should not have simply left it at that without suggesting any limits at all on the sort of physical punishment that the State might employ.

    I should note that any form of physical punishment for homosexual behavior — not just confinement or death — is absolutely barbaric. However, the fact that Moore quite happily suggests using the harshest powers of the hangman State against gay people who have attacked no-one and violated no-one’s rights, should give some kind of indication of what kind of person he is. And the fact that none of his supporters are willing to openly condemn his explicit praise of State-sanctioned physical violence against peaceful gay people should give you some kind of indication of what kind of people they are, too.

    I think using physical violence against gay people, just for being gay, is wrong. Including physical violence supposedly authorized by the State, and especially physical violence that can include confinement and even death. The reason being that it’s wrong to assault and murder peaceful people.

    What do you think?

  3. Mark Lawyer

    Well, it is now 2006. Thankfully, this simple-minded, pathetic embarrassment has been rightfully removed from the judicial bench and has seen the end of his ridiculous gubenatorial campaign. Could it be….DIVINE INTERVENTION? I do believe that is is. :) Perhaps he has returned to kickboxing now. :)

Post a reply

By:
Your e-mail address will not be published.
You can register for an account and sign in to verify your identity and avoid spam traps.
Reply

Use Markdown syntax for formatting. *emphasis* = emphasis, **strong** = strong, [link](http://xyz.com) = link,
> block quote to quote blocks of text.

This form is for public comments. Consult About: Comments for policies and copyright details.