Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s defiance of a federal court order on gay marriage is just the latest in a long line of bitter states’ rights fights on issues from school integration to the Confederate battle flag – and the latest potentially embarrassing political sideshow for the 2016 field of GOP presidential hopefuls.
In the end, some veteran Republican strategists suggest, Moore’s order barring county probate judges from issuing gay marriage licenses may serve mainly to harden the entrenched positions of supporters and opponents of a legal issue on which public opinion has been shifting with lightning speed, and which the Supreme Court seems likely to resolve by this summer.
Moore’s decision, however, increases the chances that Republican presidential candidates will be forced to discuss the issue — in the racially freighted framework of states’ rights, no less — before extremely conservative voters in the heat of a primary campaign.
If I were a GOP candidate, I would not want to discuss Judge Roy Moore under any circumstances. He is political gasoline.
What a shame. Hasn’t Alabama learned that you cannot defy Federal Court orders? That just won’t work. Doesn’t Moore remember George Wallace? That little showdown didn’t have a happy ending for those in defiance either.
In the end, some court houses issued marriage licenses and others did not. This is not over. Do you suppose the National Guard will be federalized and will escort couples in to get married?
States Rights issues have reared their ugly heads again in Dixie.
Isn’t this the guy with the Protestant version of the 10 commandments engraved in stone and installed in the courthouse in the dead of night? Lots of defiance on the constitutional requirement to not establish a government religion.
In a word, Yes.
It appears that Judge Moore is washed in the blood of the lamb (big time). His belief system includes that his God condemns gay marriage and that his community is likewise condemned if it approves of gay marriage. He needs to understand that two folks are going to do what two folks are going to do whether they are married or not.
It seems he believes that his bible condemns homosexual acts. I think where he is wrong on biblical grounds is his bible is silent on whether those gay folks can have the legal protections that legal civil marriage affords.
I wonder what is position is on eating shellfish?
What do shellfish have to do with this?
Shellfish are biblically forbidden also. (I think that is what BS meant.)
Shellfish are not forbidden to Christians. What’s his point?
Christ doesn’t address being gay either.
Any reference to same sex issues come from the OT.
Wolve, I took the point to be that Judge Moore has a history of promoting Old Testament religious doctrines. in addition to fulfilling his duties as a state Judge. There are a lot of prohibitions in the Hebrew Bible, so BSinVA must have been wondering where Judge Moore’s penchant for such things will take him.
I don’t think BSin VA was confining his views to Christians or focussing on them particularly.
Scout, I am sure that you know much more about Christianity than you let on in the response you have given. Critics of the faith often toss Mosaic Law into the faces of Christians while having virtually no understanding of Christian theology in relation to those ancient laws. The attempted sarcasm about shellfish in #3 is a good example of that lack of understanding.
BTW, I absolutely love smoked oysters and fried clams. And Judge Moore, being from Alabama (like a part of my own family), probably is big on oysters as well. Some of my Southern cousins used to eat them raw just to make us Yankees gag.
I didn’t realize that Yankees didn’t eat raw oysters. It makes me gag also.
Let me step in here and suggest that Judge Moore is cherry picking through the Bible.
I have a problem over your use of the word “Christians.” I get the distinct impression that you are using the term a little more exclusively than a general reference to people who believe that Christ is the son of God. Am I correct?
Yankees do eat raw oysters. One of my cousins was the only family kiddo who had the nerve to join in with the adults.
I only did it once and I was somewhat drunk. I was about 21. Never since then either. Totally gross experience.
Disagree. There are a number of negative references to it in the Pauline letters of the New Testament, where it is cited as something which true Christian Believers should avoid, along with adultery, fornication, and such. No need to go back to Leviticus in the OT to debate it. As always, the lesson for Christians is to disapprove of the act but not harm the one doing it.
Well…many Christians do harm. Their words harm.
Paul isn’t Christ. Paul doesn’t approve of much of anything. He isn’t one of my favs, for sure. But I am not going to debate biblical references. It’s not an area I have spent much time on. Its great for those who get pleasure or inspiration from doing so. I read but not studied with others. I am not a fundamentalist.
Here is where I would go with the shellfish and pork ban–I am totally impressed that someone back that far figured out that those things had the potential to make people sick. I would probably discuss it from an intellectual amazement point of view rather than from a faith point of view.
I don’t recall any of the NT references by Paul, but like I said, he had something snarky to say about almost everything.
I’m not sure what you mean by a difference in the use of the word “Christians.” My definition of a Christian is someone who has faith in Christ as the Son of God, in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ as God’s plan for salvation for mankind, and in receiving that salvation through the Grace of God, as well as someone who views the Holy Scriptures as a religious guide to living a Christian life. Isn’t that the general definition? The New Testament is the primary guide. The Old Testament is seen as a revelation of God’s saving plan for mankind — a sort of historical and spiritual look at the route by which we arrived at the Messiah. Anyway, that’s how I look at it. I’m not a theologian or a congregant. I am more of a pietist at this stage of my life.
But, going back to BSinVA and his shellfish, I guess he missed the Christian concept about Christ being the New Covenant between God and mortals. The Epistles and the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament are full of explanations on how this new covenant made faith and grace as the primary elements of Christianity. The prior primacy of the Mosaic laws was no longer in play, with the traditional exception of the Ten Commandments. In fact, St. Paul once sent a rather angry epistle to the Galatians chewing them out for listening to self-appointed preachers who were claiming that faith and grace PLUS the old Mosaic laws was the real deal. No, no, no, and no!
So, we can eat pork and shellfish and we don’t have to have the kids circumcised per the old laws…..well, you know what I mean. The New Testament is full of rules we should follow if we want to stay on the good side of the Man Upstairs. Ergo, citing the ancient laws of the Old Testament as a way to chide Christians on the “rules” really has no relevance to a Christian. And one doesn’t have to rely on Leviticus on the subject of homosexuality. Try the first chapter of Romans. Sarcastic remarks about shellfish and the like go nowhere in any debate with a Christian.
I take issue with terming the discussion “sarcastic.” How else do we discuss what many of us see as cherry picking?
Your definition of Christianity is much longer than mine. Additionally, I would say you use the “exclusive” definition and probably have a much smaller bunch of folks in your definition than I do in mine. Mine is pretty broad.
In all probability you probably don’t think I am one either. Not an accusation, just a statement of probably fact. We have very different definitions. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
But is it cherry picking for a Christian to use the New Testament as a source in debate?
I am curious as to which part of my definition — and I emphasize the “my” — you cannot accept. In my view , it is a very basic description which applies pretty well to virtually every Christian denomination. Being someone of an evangelical-fundamentalist Protestant background married for over 40 years to a practicing Roman Catholic, I travel on a pretty broad and not very exclusive road.
And how could I form a judgement of yourself? I don’t even know what your personal religious connections and theological beliefs are.
What a bunch of words springing from a simple, if a bit of a teasing comment from BSinVa. All that was there was that if Judge Moore keeps using his state job as a platform for pursuing his interest in Old Testament prohibitions, there are a lot more to keep him occupied for a long time to come, and some of them, if one compares the multitude found in the first five books, particularly, look very strange to modern Westerners, given that we are not an agricultural, herding society. BS said nothing about the New Covenant, and wasn’t really worried about not being able to eat shellfish, I don’t think.
What’s all this other stuff about Christians, Wolve?
My understanding after listening during regular attendance at Church is that there are two common views of OT dietary and lifestyle regulations: One is that it had a rational basis that made the Israelites pure. Eating pork or shellfish is bad for humans and God was giving Jews special knowledge that gave them an biological edge. I prefer the second explanation that these rules created a united culture that preserved their identity despite being diffused through Canaan with gentile neighbors. Conquering the land wasn’t accomplished via genocide so they needed ways to prevent assimilation into the neighbor’s culture.
The first Christian Church council decided that Christians did not need to be cultural Jews.
Sexual norms is partly cultural and partly theological, however, so we can’t analyze the morality of homosexuality completely by OT Jewish cultural norms.
The cultural objections to homosexuality is partly practical (throughout history procreation was a primary objective making heterosexual behavior better for clan survival) and partly religious: homosexual behavior was mostly associated with fertility rites that worshipped idols such as Baal and in Pauline times the emperor.
Some Christian churches will be comfortable blessing non traditional families. Others will not.
None of this has anything to do with whether government has a compelling state interest in recognizing secular gay marriage…which is the only thing Roy Moore needs to concern himself while he is wearing the Chief Judge robes.
To continue the shellfish jokes. I assumed that no one actually likes raw oysters and that is the reason for the folklore about them improving sexual prowess. I just assume the gullible were scammed into eating them and continue to eat them because they are too embarrassed to admit it or don’t realize the joke played on them. 🙂
Now that is funny, Ed. I once stupidly left a quart of raw oysters for a man I knew (when I was much younger) as a thank you for sending a job reference to a relative. He was furious at me and called me up and said so. I left them outside his door because he wasn’t home with a note attached. His friends all came by and made him the butt of that joke for weeks.
I didn’t even know about oysters then…and their sexual prowess myth.
I wonder what Judge Moore’s position is on playing basketball while wearing a beret and a rubber nose ?
Christians are allowed to play basketball while wearing berets and rubber noses, BS. Surely you should be aware of that.
Oh, come now, Scout. Stop playing the fool here. BSinVA was engaging in the same snide liberal hate game one sees all over the web: if a Christian objects to something on moral grounds, ask him or her if they also support some of the more startling Mosaic laws in the Old Testament. Then comes the cherry picking charge. “Shellfish” is just a “cutesy” part of that game.
Me, I like to parry the thrusts just for fun. It is interesting to see how little many liberals actually know about Christian origins. Yet they continue to play their little caustic games. I hope BSinVA improved his knowledge of religion. He even got an extra lecture from Ed. It should enable BSinVA to look more educated in future debates.
I am the one who suggested cherry-picking, not BS. But there it is….”A Christian objects on moral grounds.” That suggests that Judge Moore is a Christian and of course, I am not. Why is Mosaic law of less importance than other “teachings” or “mentionings” by Paul? I have never claimed to be a biblical scholar but clearly there has been some picking and choosing in Christianity. Let’s take a look at such topics as war, abortion, marriage, homosexuality, evolution, mosaic dietary law, the 600 or so laws in Judaism, or any of the topics out there that people attempt to justify with biblical citation. Is there an order? How about the 10- commandments. Is there an order there? How come we don’t call those the 10 non-convenants?
You assume liberals have no religion or no knowledge of religion. I wonder how you would do at one of Elena’s Sedar dinners? I still think it was a good question. Might as well attack BS since there is no real answer to his question.
Yes, Moon, you did bring up the cherry picking, just as I said happens when this game is played on the web. That was a generic description of how it is usually played.
Christianity was a new game in town. It selected its own rules as well as the early apostles could accomplish that. It rejected the old Mosaic laws because Christ was considered to be the new covenant between God and mankind. This enabled them, inter alia, to spread the new religious belief to the gentiles who would not be obliged to become culturally and theologically “Jewish.” St. Paul was the key individual who began that critical march into gentile country. Which is why his writings are so important in the New Testament.
As for those liberals, I posit that they either don’t bother to learn about the faith or they DO know about it and still lie in their nasty jabs at Christian Believers.
Elena’s Sedar dinners is your strawman and has nothing to do with this. I do not get on this blog and make nasty comments about Jews or their faith. In fact, I have been a defender of Jews and Israel right here. Now, excuse me, but I have to write another check to a Jewish organization so they can enable more impoverished Jews in Ukraine and in other threatening areas to make aliyah to Israel. Shalom.
Re: Elena’s Sedars
It has nothing to do with Jewishness. It could have been Easter dinner or Christmas dinner. I was thinking that you would probably determine her to be a liberal. Her Sedar dinner is actually part of the religious ceremony. My grandkids and I go each year and enjoy it thoroughly. We even have boils, locusts, and frogs for the kids. We go because it is a multicultural event for us, a learning experience for the kids, and yes, Elena is an excellent cook and I get to visit with her mom.
I think assuming that liberals have no use or knowledge of religion stereotyping and is just plain wrong.
You don’t criticize Jews but I think you probably get your digs in at cultural Christians and what I would call “liberal Christians.” Those would be Christians who do not interpret the bible literally. The people themselves might not be politically liberal.
Blogmeister, there goes that “probably” thing. Show me where those “digs” are.
I don’t have time for religious digs. Obama and his Democrat cast of characters are enough to keep me busy. Not to mention coming back at those bloggers who try to put down my own faith beliefs and the beliefs of others like myself. On top of that I am getting highly pissed at those who want to beat the hell out of Jews and Israel, literally as well as figuratively. My jousting card is already full.
I don’t know why Elena suddenly got into this. But, now that she is, I am reminded that she and I have a strong belief in land preservation as something in common. Since Elena has left the blog, what is the best PWC website to keep up-to-date on the fight against those power transmission lines?
She will come on and tell you. I have a strong belief in land prervation also. Mine tends to come out on national park issues. Elena does the hard part–understanding zoning laws and stuff like that.
We did not cover power lines on here because we didn’t want it mixed in with the other political issues, by the way.
Let’s talk about Jews and Israel. Do you think that people who oppose Netanyahu over policy reason are anti semetic?
I also am enraged over people who kill Muslims over parking issues. Talk about someone who should not have been allowed to own a gun.
Wolve, I dont think you realize you are making religious digs at people.
No, I do not see internal Israeli political opposition or MOST repeat MOST American political opposition to Netanyahu as anti-semitic. That makes little sense, although I can see how such opposition here, e.g., a recent disruption of the New York City Council by pro-Palestinian protestors, can make some people very angry, especially that Jewish councilman who lost half of his family in the Holocaust. (I won’t say the same about what is happening in Europe.) For me Netanyahu is simply my first choice in a situation where Israel has become even more dangerously surrounded by enemies determined to eradicate her. I don’t want to see an addition built someday onto the Holocaust Museum in Washington.
I take much offense at the accusation that I am making religious “digs” at people. As you know, there is a common contemporary adage in this country that the only people left whom you can safely insult are Christians. That used to be White Christians, but conservative Blacks are now finding that the insults can be color blind. Well, I have decided to rev up and hit back, whenever I see the opportunity, at anyone who trash talks my faith, the faith of almost my entire family on both sides, and the faith which literally brought my forefathers to this country in search of freedom. No free rides for the mockers anymore. Crap on my faith and get a volley in return. Let the fun begin.
Let me explain….you have been known to take a shot at non-believers or people you perceive as non believers. You don’t hunt them down, just a ding and a zing here and there.
Also, and I wince saying this, but very often there have been minor zings at people who are liberal Christian who aren’t fundamentalist..there is a tendency to assume they aren’t Christians. That can be very offensive.
Not all Christians are fundamentalist. Wolve, I guess you will get what you give.
I am not a big fan of Netanyaho. In fact, Elena and I have a nickname for him. I think he sometimes stirs up trouble where there is none.
big protocol violation accepting an invitation from Congress. It will not serve him well.
You got that all wrong, blogmeister. I take political shots on issues and politics. I don’t crap on anyone else’s religious beliefs. The crapping comes from the other side, very often mocking the whole idea of having a religious faith at all. Given that I am a Protestant surrounded daily by Catholics, a vociferous supporter of Israel and an enemy of anti-semitism, and have spent parts of my working life virtually embedded in Muslim cultures, I am an equal opportunity return volley man. A crapper gets the urge, especially on the subject of the existence of religious faith; and I’ll throw it back. En garde!!
I’ll mention it when I see it.
I expect a lot of people feel crapped on over their religion. Perhaps one’s religion should be private and then there would no way to take shots.
I too am a protestant. Let’s start with many people who are fundamentalist informing me that I am not Christian. That’s pretty much of a zinger to me. (I don’t think you have ever done that to me.) Now, if I were think skinned, I would be highly offended. I am not and seriously don’t really care what they think, but it does pretty much start the game on thing!!
Has anyone here ever questioned the “existence of religious faith”, Wolve? To do so would be silly beyond the silliest of any blog standards, and this site maintains a significantly higher level of discussion than most. What I do see is a wide variation in strains of religious faiths, and some degree of non-belief. What I have not seen (perhaps just not noticed – I don’t read everything) is a commenter telling you or someone else that you don’t believe what you profess to believe.
As for Israel, much criticism of Israel and its policies is comes from people inside and outside Israel who are deeply committed to its secure, continued existence. And, while I’m very sure that there continue to exist people who are out and out anti-semites, I generally don’t see them engaged in the policy debates about how Israel is best protected given its geography and history in a region that could not be more inhospitable for the planting of a non-Arab, non-Muslim, post WWII state.
Scout — Perhaps the “existence of God” would have been the better phrase. Have you never met Mr. Bentley? And then comes Mr. BSinVA with his “shellfish” smugness and then his “myth”. You can sit back in your cushy armchair, Scout. You are obviously a talker and not a fighter. I’ll take care of return volleys against the detractors of the Faith regardless of denomination. Whether you personally approve of that or not is immaterial to me.
Doggone. Looks like a mass beheading of Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya. The butchers claim to be loyal to the Syrian-Iraqi Islamic Caliphate. The poison is spreading.
More embarrassment for UC Davis, where the student government called for the university to divest itself of its investments in anything involving Israel. Now followed by swastikas at the Jewish AEP frat house and at the university’s Hillel Center. In this country it is sometimes hard to separate out the anti-Israel from the anti-Jew.
And I hear that, in Copenhagen, the young fellow killed outside that synagogue was a Jewish guy standing watch for a bar mitzvah going on inside. Europe is becoming a shooting gallery for our brothers of the Book.
Most of people killed by ISIS have been Muslim. However, they obviously don’t mind picking off Jews, Christians and Buddists either.
I don’t know anything about UC Davis divesting itself of Israeli investments. Why would they listen to the student government? Last I heard, students aren’t the ones paying the bills.
Is there a URL?
“I don’t read everything” Scout, maybe you should start before commenting. A brief description of my personal stance on the Israeli situation is contained in #29.
My “I don’t read everything” comment was in the context of your statement concerning commenters who question “the existence of faith.” I think that was clear from the structure of the comment. Even as qualified by your more recent comment, Wolve, I think Mr. Bentley’s views are his own and have been consistently described as his own. He’s an atheist, and perhaps even and anti-theist, but I suspect even he does not question that you and I are people of faith. Horses for courses, and all that.
I count myself among those who feel that Netanyahu is an Israeli pol whose net impact is to put Israel at higher risk by his pursuit of policies that play into the designs and voices of Israel’s more strident enemies. You feel otherwise. So be it.
I tend to agree with you, Scout, about Netanyahu. I think he listens to extremists and at times gets out a cannon to kill a fly.
My skepticism should not be seen as anti Semitism.
Yes, Scout, Mr. Bentley’s atheistic views are his own. So long as he and others like him express those differing views without adding crude insults aimed at my own faith or the faith of others, I have no problem in rendering honor to our national concept of free speech. Sans that respect, comes the return volley. About time that the playing field was evened. Notice I have not said word one here about the reported beliefs of that fellow who murdered the three young Muslims in Chapel Hill.
We will probably never know if those murders were religiously motivated or not. Another component is that Muslim dress also signifies “otherness” and it might have nothing to do with religion but cultural difference. Or maybe he just wanted a parking place that wasn’t available for whatever reason. Then there is the possibility that he was just freaking nuts. Whatever it was….he probably was not the best person to be a gun owner.
I have a new thread in my mind, slowly evolving, about political correctness, insulting others religion, and poking the bear with a stick. Stay tuned.
I suspect that nothing Netanyahu could say or do in the current state of play would mollify the foes of Israel short of ending the life of the Israeli state. Israel gave Gaza back to the Palestinians, and the return favor was Hamas and the rockets aimed at civilian targets. Muslims who have Sunni and Shia sacred places of pilgrimage all over the over Middle Eastern map, starting with Mecca and Medina, cannot even fathom giving to the Jews their only site of the Holy of Holies. All I hear is kill the Jews or drive them into the sea. Just a simple agreement to accept the presence of a Jewish state could have ended this thing long ago, before it got to be a new promise of holocaust for anyone, Jew, Christian, Muslim, what have you, not bowing to the death threats of radical Islam.
What if those Jews you speak of were living on your ancestoral lands? Could the beginning have been handled better by UK and USA? Absolutely. there IS a Palestinian side to all this. I say that while backing the idea that Israel very much has the right to exist.
When something is carved out in a sloppy way, There are bound to be lasting reprocussions. I have no answers. I just don’t see the question as totally one sided. Basically the Palestinians live as 2nd class citizens. Chicken/egg?????? Is there a fix? Apparently not. As Wolve pointed out…home rule in Gaza and what is the big thank you? rockets red glare.
Jewish cemetery in Alsace. 300 graves desecrated. Those bastards don’t even have respect for the dead.
Which bastards? I need to know who to hate. I think if I just hate in general, we run into difficulties that cannot be repaired.
@Moon-howler
The French are still investigating the case. No graffiti on the tombs, but those people, whoever they were, tore out and tossed around nearly 300 very heavy, 19th-century tombstones. One of the French officials stated that, given the amount of effort it took to accomplish the deed, they are thinking the motive was hate and not just vandalism. Just what the French administration needed after the kosher market attack in Paris, not to mention previous attacks on Jews elsewhere
I fear that the Jews in Europe may be getting a double whammy from ultra-radical Islamists and from the return of some native neo-Nazi creeps. In any case, some people are opining that the aura seems like a return to the late 1930’s.