Ah, Wednesday, and it̢۪s nice and quiet in Cake Eater land this
morning. No jackhammers, no big machinery ripping up pavement. They got
that done yesterday, and as best I can figure, they̢۪re not going to
do another damn thing for quite some time. Yep. That̢۪s right. It̢۪s
all dirt right nowâ€Â¦and wet dirt, at that, because it finally rained
last night. We̢۪ll see if they actually get the pavement down before
it snows. I don̢۪t have high hopes. I think we̢۪ve been abandoned for
the time being.
--Crazy in Alabama
What is up with the people in this state? Could someone please tell the
residents of Alabama that this sort of crap is the reason why most
people think only Mississippi is more backwater than they are? Please.
I̢۪m begging you. Oh, let̢۪s hold a candlelight vigil at midnight so
that everyone can see how committed we are to fighting for a big stone
edifice carved with the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn. Better
yet, let̢۪s say a few prayers, because we all know that̢۪s going to
get the ACLU on our side. We̢۪ll pray for their souls, that they might
not burn in hell for being Godless infidels, and that will show how
generous we are. I cannot even wrap my mind around how absolutely,
positively stupid this all is. What is the furor about? According to
Judge Moore, it’s about “â€Â¦the acknowledgement of God.” He elaborated:
``We must acknowledge God because our constitution says our justice
system is established upon God. For (the judge) to say 'I can't say who
God is' is to disestablish the justice system of this state.''
Well, ok. Let̢۪s dissect that statement, shall we? The Judge is
absolutely correct when he makes the claim that our constitution
directs that our justice system is established upon God, or more
correctly, upon Judeo-Christian law. This is easily proven by simply
following the daisy chain of precedent back to England, and Common Law,
which was influenced by the Normans, whose laws were influenced by the
Romans, which, ultimately, was influenced by the Ten Commandments. You
don̢۪t have to be a legal scholar to suss out that the laws that are
on the books currently prohibiting murder, originally came from the Ten
Commandments. The idea of God is inherently implied in the Ten
Commandments. He
gave them to Moses, after all. If the good judge had simply kept to
this argument, like he had in the past, that our law is fundamentally
based upon the Ten Commandments and that he was specifically paying
tribute to that precedent, I don̢۪t think he̢۪d be in as much trouble
as he is. It̢۪s a well documented statement of fact. But he chose to
bring religion into it. Fine. Live by the fiery sword, and chances are
you̢۪ll die by it, too.
Where the Judge errs in his argument is in bringing it into the
courthouse, and ultimately, into his rulings. Because the minute he
makes the decision to say who God is, is not to “disestablish the
justice system of this state,” but rather to make a subjective
decision on the notion of God as ordained by organized religion.
Let̢۪s not give the Judge more credit than he is due. He is not trying
to fight for his beliefs, as he states, but rather is attempting to
decree whose beliefs are right and proper. And while Judeo-Christian
law covers a goodly number of people, it perhaps does not cover
Buddhists, whose traditions are different, especially when it comes to
the death penalty. What about the Hindus? Or the Moonies, if you really
want to go out on a limb. What about animist African religions? The
list could go on. I̢۪m sure the framers of the Constitution, who no
doubt the Judge likes to say were good, God-fearing Christians, never
in their wildest dreams would have thought that we̢۪d have a surge of
immigrants from the far flung corners of the world and whose religious
beliefs were as wildly divergent as Protestant Christianity wasn̢۪t
in that day and age. Let̢۪s have a little reality check here, please.
The Judge, by his own description, is a fundamentalist Christian. He
has stated this more than once and that is fine. I have no issues with
his right to believe whatever he would like to believe. By the
Constitution, that is his right. But when he brings his
notion of who God is and what his standards are, he is subsequently
denying others their right to believe, or not believe as the case may
be, in their own idea of God. And before you object to that statement
and claim the good Judge might actually bring in other religious
traditions into his thinking, I would politely ask you to think again.
Fundamentalist Christians actually believe that they're the only
"right" ones out there. Everyone else is going to hell and they're
going to heaven. I'm not joking, either. They actually believe this,
and if this is what the Judge subscribes to as his idea of God, well,
the rest of us are in trouble, aren't we?
Before you think I̢۪m a card-carrying member of the ACLU, think again.
I̢۪m not. Nor am I an atheist. I̢۪m a Catholic who was educated in
Catholic schools for twelve years and I go to Mass every now and again.
I just simply believe that the majority doesn̢۪t rule in this
circumstance. If you can̢۪t include all religions and their ideas of
God into legal decisions, you shouldn̢۪t be using God in the decision
at all. It̢۪s simple common sense. All or nothing. I would really love
to see Judge Moore bring Catholic or Buddhist beliefs to a debate about
the death penalty, which we all know Alabama is so fond of. It̢۪s
obvious he wouldn̢۪t
bring those beliefs into his rationale because they inherently conflict
with his own, hence rendering his argument about disestablishing the
justice system once you cannot say who God is as moot. The man̢۪s
argument is flimsy and biased. Religion, in any shape or form, has no
business in a courtroom or even on the steps of the courthouse. --Just
admit you had crappy lawyers the first time around and be done with it.

As Sullivan would say, here̢۪s the money quote:
""We cannot accept discrimination between victims of acts of
terrorism," said French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Cecile Pozzo di
Borgo."

Oh, so that̢۪s what it̢۪s about. It̢۪s about discrimination or being further down the hierarchy of grief than you would like. I get it now. I̢۪m so
much more sympathetic to your actions now. God only knows we wouldn̢۪t
want anyone to feel discriminated against. Cut the crap, lady. It̢۪s
about money. Libya̢۪s wallet is open and you want your fair share.
I̢۪d respect your argument more if it wasn̢۪t sugar coated.
Don̢۪t get me wrong, I am sorry for the victims̢۪ families of the UTA
bombing. My heart bleeds for them. I cannot even begin to imagine what
it would be like to have talked to my spouse before he got on the
plane, to talk about the normal goings on in our lives, and then to
hear on the news that the plane no longer existed, that it was wiped
from human existence because someone had blown it out of the air.
It̢۪s honestly mind-boggling. It̢۪s one of those situations I don̢۪t
think you can truly understand what it̢۪s like until you experience
it. The head whirls with the possibilities and I̢۪m sure anything
I̢۪m thinking of is completely off the mark and nowhere near the
amount of grief these poor people suffered through. That said, however,
whatever happened to self-awareness and taking responsibility for
one̢۪s actions? Should the Libyans be responsible well after the ink
dried on the agreement with the UTA families because they hired lawyers
with no vision? Should they be responsible that the French lawyers
settled too quickly? Is this simply a case of sour grapes wrought
overlarge? I don̢۪t know, and quite frankly the instinct is there to
say, “Go for it. Bleed the Libyans dry.” But would that solve
anything? Is the ten million dollars each Lockerbie family is to
receive going to bring some sense of satisfaction that they made the
Libyans pay for their actions? I don̢۪t think so. Money is a poor
compensation for the loss of a loved one, and anyone who̢۪s ever sued
to make someone pay
could tell you that. You still are going to wake up alone in the
morning. What it boils down to is the UTA families saw the amount of
money the Lockerbie families were getting and said “hey, no fair!”
It̢۪s a confusing situation, to say the least, because who in their
right mind would deny these people extra money when Libya is clearly
buying its way out of troubling sanctions? But, I have to ask, whatever
happened to binding legal agreements? If the agreement the UTA families
signed is remotely close to anything I̢۪ve ever seen, they agreed to
drop their claims “without prejudice,” which means that they
weren̢۪t going to come back and ask for more. They signed away their
rights to ask for more when they put pen and ink to that agreement. I
don̢۪t think the Libyans should be let off the hook here, either, but
let̢۪s be realistic. It̢۪s blackmail, pure and simple, and what̢۪s
to say they won̢۪t come back and ask for more ten years down the road,
the next time Libya does something that warrants attention? It sickens
me that it̢۪s Libya, of all the freaking nations on the planet, that
I̢۪m defending on this matter, but it could just as easily be the
United States, or the UK or, God forbid, the French. They̢۪ve no idea
the can of worms they̢۪re opening by insisting on more money.
--After all that angst up there, you deserve this. Chuckle for the day.
Creativity abounds in campaign financing. I told you the recall was
going to be damn fun, and sure enough, I was right.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1690 words, total size 11 kb.