Supreme Court Rejects Commandments Case

[ethics]

It's finally over! The three-year legal battle over ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and his Ten Commandments monument ended quietly Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Moore's final appeal.

Bah bye!!! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/scotus_ten_commandments)

I am sure this one will pop up somewhere, along with his cronies.

[Steve]

Don't they just leave the entire question open to the future, though? Like turning away that father that sued on behalf of his non-custodial daughter over saying the Pledge?

By refusing without comment to hear the case, they're just delaying the day when a decision needs to be made.

[ethics]

And I am sure, eventually, it will have to be.

[Steve]

I have to wonder if they're waiting for the "right" case?

Or are they trying to send a message that the federal appelate courts are doing OK?

[rhobite]

Moore is fighting against his dismissal, not the removal of the monument. I'm not sure if a SCOTUS ruling would create precedent about whether courts can display the ten commendments. Maybe. The court already rejected his appeal last year about the monument's removal.

I did get a kick out of Moore's complaint about the "liberal Supreme Court." He may want to check his history books, because by my count 7 of 9 justices were appointed by Republicans. However Moore may be disappointed, since even the conservative justices value the US Constitution over the Bible as the supreme law of the land. This is a victory for church/state separation. Turning down the case upholds Moore's dismissal, clearly a good move against someone who imposed his religion upon his courtroom.

[RRedline]

What's scary to me is that Moore could run for a spot in Congress, and his state would probably elect him. He would have far greater influence as a lawmaker than he ever had as a judge.

[ravital]

clearly a good move against someone who imposed his religion upon his courtroom.
I don't like to see the Ten Commandments in a courthouse either, they don't belong there.

But can anyone please tell me once and for all how exactly this judge "imposed his religion upon his courtroom?"

Did he send people to jail for adultery? For coveting their neighbor's wives or lawnmowers?

Did he sentence anyone to anything, even a $2.00 fine, for "saying the Lord's Name in vain?"

Did he criminalize working on the Sabbath? Did he make it a crime to worship idols? Observe other religions?

No philosophizing, please, I'm asking for concrete examples and cases in which this judge ruled, that demonstrate him "imposing his religion upon the courtroom."

This is exactly the kind of sophomoric hyperbole that generates idiotic court cases. We don't need more of that, thank you.

[rhobite]

The mere presence of the ten commandments is an imposition of his religion. I have no idea about his actual decisions, but anyone who believes the ten commendments are the "foundation of our legal system" does not belong in a robe. Moore was the one bringing idiotic court cases. He brought one after another, tying up the appellate system and demonstrating he had no clue about the meaning of the first amendment.

And I'll thank you not to accuse me of "sophomoric hyperbole" in the future. We can have a difference of opinion without resorting to rudeness.

[ravital]

I have no idea about his actual decisions,
Thank you. Q.E.D.

[Violet1966]

Keep it civil please folks. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation :)

[rhobite]

As I said, anyone who believes the ten commendments are the "foundation of our legal system" does not belong in a robe. Would you allow a judge to burn candles and display pentagrams, as long as all his rulings were fair? Would you call that imposing his religion on a courtroom? What if he led the courtroom in prayer, as Moore was known to do?

[ethics]

As I said, anyone who believes the ten commendments are the "foundation of our legal system" does not belong in a robe. Would you allow a judge to burn candles and display pentagrams, as long as all his rulings were fair? Would you call that imposing his religion on a courtroom? What if he led the courtroom in prayer, as Moore was known to do?


If his rulings were fair why would I have a problem? Joe likes to bring up the argument that there's no way that any press can NOT be unbiased. Well, the same goes for judges. There's no way they can be unbiased, the grade is how biased are they?

For the record, I support the removal of the slab of stone but I can't honestly answer Rav's question without being in the court room, seeing whether Moore's rulings were influenced by his religion.

[joseftu]

I think it was right to remove Moore from the bench--because he violated a court order. In other words, he showed public, blatant, intentional disrespect for the law.

I think it was right to remove the ten commandments monument from the courthouse--because the judicial system should not even have the appearance of favoring one religion over others (or any religion over no religion).

But I have no idea whether or not Moore was capable of making fair decisions, acting professionally and objectively. That's a completely separate question. I'm sure there are plenty of deeply religious judges who are also completely fair and objective in their professional role.

[Steve]

Would you allow a judge to burn candles and display pentagrams, as long as all his rulings were fair? Would you call that imposing his religion on a courtroom? What if he led the courtroom in prayer, as Moore was known to do?Hypotheticals are all well and good but get us nowhere, realistically speaking.

And yes, Moore should have known better than to lead his courtroom in prayer, but then again, he has the example of the Supreme Court to follow, so why should feel that particular practice was wrong?

You believe the de facto presence of a Ten Commandments monument is an imposition of religion, yet you cannot offer any real examples of how that may be.

Why should your belief in this matter override that of anyone else? You may reply that the Constitution prohibts the establishment of religion, which is true, but the question is how, exactly, does the mere presence of an object impose or establish a religion?

[joseftu]

Steve--I can't answer for rhobite.

But for myself I can say that while the presence of the object does not constitute (necessarily) an imposition of religion, it does provide a thoroughly inappropriate appearance of bias, and of favoritism, which shouldn't be permitted in a courthouse.

Judges wear black robes, partly out of tradition, and partly to promote respect, but partly to depersonalize them--to make them neutral, objective, presences. Courtrooms, similarly, must be a neutral, secular, unbiased space, in appearance as well as (as much as possible) in reality.

I don't think there should be political buttons on a judge's robe, or New York Yankees bumperstickers on the Bench--if he's deciding on a Met fan's case.

The presence of the monument has an obvious appearance of promoting one religion--or promoting religion. That's not quite the same as imposing or establishing religion, but it's a step too far along that road.

[Steve]

Well, you know I agree that it should have been removed and Moore definitely went over the edge, but I suppose where we disagree is "step too far along that road". While I understand your viewpoint, I simply don't see any problems, so I have to disagree.

Perhaps it's because I'm very tolerant; I wouldn't care if it was a Star of David, a Bhudda, or any number of other objects (although I draw the line at sacrifices, incense, and music :))

I look at our society this way: we can either remove everything that is questionable and by so doing never develop the necessary skills to be able to interact as a functional society; or, we can choose to tolerate that which we find questionable, hoping that, in turn, others tolerate about us what they find questionable.

Note that I say "questionable", not illegal or criminal.

[joseftu]

Well, you know I agree that it should have been removed and Moore definitely went over the edge, but I suppose where we disagree is "step too far along that road". While I understand your viewpoint, I simply don't see any problems, so I have to disagree.
Well, now I'm confused! :)

If there's nothing wrong with it, why do you agree it should have been removed? Or do you?

I'm not trying to be argumentative--but I don't get it.

[Steve]

I believe it should have been removed because of its association with Moore. The man and the monument became inextricably linked. Toss the baby out with the bathwater, in a manner of speaking :)

[ravital]

Judges wear black robes, partly out of tradition, and partly to promote respect, but partly to depersonalize them--to make them neutral, objective, presences. And in your culture and mine, that choice of garment and color is conducive to the desired perception. In another culture, that may be the garment and color for a priest, a color appropriate for mourning, one appropriate for a wedding or the color worn by inmates of a mental institution - hey, anyone can hypothesize, right? So where do we draw the line in efforts to avoid prejudice and instill a perception of respect and neutrality that is appropriate for so many different cultures? At the decor in the lobby, or on the wall, or on the Judge's garments? When is it time for our culture?

What this all leads to, is a ban on any religious person from serving in any office whatsoever (echoes of Chuck Schumer's diatribe on "people with such deeply held beliefs" - only the wishy-washy need apply. No wonder Flipper Kerry is doing so well in the polls). Of course, no one would worry then about how constitutional that would be, but as long as only the religious are discriminated against, who cares...

P.S. Yes I agree the 10 Commandments don't belong in the lobby of a courthouse. Or pentagrams, or crescent (and heaven forbid that the cafeteria should serve croissants, that would be a religious symbol) or symbols of any other religion. In fact, if some faith out there happens to have door-handles for a religious symbol, remove all door-handles as well!

[Well, I just thought I'd indulge in far-fetched hypotheses and hyperboles of my own ]

[joseftu]

What this all leads to, is a ban on any religious person from serving in any office whatsoever (echoes of Chuck Schumer's diatribe on "people with such deeply held beliefs" - only the wishy-washy need apply. No wonder Flipper Kerry is doing so well in the polls). Of course, no one would worry then about how constitutional that would be, but as long as only the religious are discriminated against, who cares...
That's an awfully slippery slope, Rav.

Oh--I get it--that's another example of the hyperbole you're decrying! ;) Good point.

[RRedline]

Why should your belief in this matter override that of anyone else? You may reply that the Constitution prohibts the establishment of religion, which is true, but the question is how, exactly, does the mere presence of an object impose or establish a religion?If a religious endorsement wasn't his motivation, then why did he sneak it inside in the middle of the night, with the help of a church? Why did they (the church) videotape it, and then sell copies of the tapes? Why did he often quote scripture in his rulings?

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/alabama/aleditorial04.htm
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1656
http://www.shame.org/detail.html?126
http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=19048
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=11885

[Steve]

Three posts above yours, Rred ;)

[ShinyTop]

Could not find a reference but I remember that Judge Moore had been quoted that if an issue was in conflict between the Bible and the law he would rule in favor of the Bible.

[ethics]

Could not find a reference but I remember that Judge Moore had been quoted that if an issue was in conflict between the Bible and the law he would rule in favor of the Bible.

Then that's wrong and he should have been removed.

[ravital]

That's an awfully slippery slope, Rav.

Oh--I get it--that's another example of the hyperbole you're decrying! ;) Good point.
No, actually, I meant it.

Slippery slope? You bet. Tell Charles Schumer.

He said that little bit about "people with such deeply, deeply held beliefs" in reference to William Pryor, the very same practicing Chatholic AG, who a week later prosecuted the very same Judge Moore, for refusing to remove that monument. Thereby making mincemeat of Schumer's argument. The man proved that he could very well separate his religion from his job. But that's not good enough for some.

[ravital]

Could not find a reference but I remember that Judge Moore had been quoted that if an issue was in conflict between the Bible and the law he would rule in favor of the Bible. A ruling that no appelate court in America would have any trouble overturning quicker than a burger on a grill (please excuse the economy of words, I'm at work). And then watch Moore's career go straight to the toilet.

[ShinyTop]

No doubt, Rav. But I was responding to somebody saying the display did not mean how he would rule so I was pointing out that he was on record.

[joseftu]

So it would seem that both are dangers we have to guard against--

Officials who would inappropriately apply their religious beliefs in the practice of their official roles (Moore--putatively).

And

Officials who would inappropriately prevent those with deep personal religious beliefs from objectively performing their official roles (Schumer--putatively).

Neither possibility is hyperbole, both are real dangers, and neither should be rejected as impossible out-of-hand. We've got to be sure that neither happens, because both are injust, tragic, unconstitutional and unfair.

[ravital]

No doubt, Rav. But I was responding to somebody saying the display did not mean how he would rule so I was pointing out that he was on record.

Officials who would inappropriately apply their religious beliefs in the practice of their official roles (Moore--putatively).

Again, economizing for lack of time, responding to both Shiny and Joe,

Isn't it quite apparent from Moore's statement, that he would have allowed religion to influence his ruling, regardless of whether the display was there or not? That's how I read it at least. That's why he was dangerous. So I'm glad he's gone.

However, I asked for specific examples of actual rulings where he did that, and none were forthcoming. We can be happy about his removal, but the anti-religious mindset that exaggerates apostrophes to elephantine proportions, to the point of making such accusations without proof, can be, and I fear is actually going to be, much more destructive.


Officials who would inappropriately prevent those with deep personal religious beliefs from objectively performing their official roles (Schumer--putatively).
Sorry Joe, there's nothing putative about that, Pryor's nomination has already been defeated, and without even as much as the courtesy - let alone the constitutional requirement - of an up and down vote by the full senate. We may well be on that slope already.

[joseftu]

Sorry Joe, there's nothing putative about that, Pryor's nomination has already been defeated, and without even as much as the courtesy - let alone the constitutional requirement - of an up and down vote by the full senate. We may well be on that slope already.
Be that as it may (in regard to Shumer). Both slopes are real, and both slopes are really dangerous. The bottom of both slopes is completely abhorrent.

I think we agree about that.

[ShinyTop]

Public officials take oaths of office that typically require one to swear to uphold the laws and/or constitution of the government one is joining. How does one take such an oath and then violate it or say he will violate it? I have to shake my head and wonder at his supporters who do not question his integrity, either secularly or religiously. I guess one can violate any oath in the name of a religion, whose commandments include one against bearing false witness. Wow, imagine that.

[ethics]

Was your reply to me, Shiny?

[ShinyTop]

no sir, a general reply to the thread. I seldom go back to the top to post a reply to the thread. I watch in the mode where the posts are order by time.

Edited to add: why hell, it posted as a reply. So tell this poor ignorant southern boy where to hit to reply to the thread only. AFter all, I have no experience here.

[ravital]

Public officials take oaths of office that typically require one to swear to uphold the laws and/or constitution of the government one is joining. How does one take such an oath and then violate it or say he will violate it? Point well taken. If he said he would rule according to the Bible, he indicated his intention to violate the Constitution. I just find it strange that he got as far as he did in the Judicial system - presumably already having ruled according to the Bible and unconstitutionally, yet no one gets a whiff of it until a 10-ton display is put in the lobby. If that's the case, I would say far too many people are obsessed with the symbol, and not enough are concerned with the actual record of the man, who should probably have been removed much earlier, if indeed he had actually ruled as he indicated he would.

On the flip side of the same coin, the AG who ordered him to remove the monument, and prosecuted him when he refused, was himself treated quite shabbily, by senators who took the same or a similar oath. And we just know they never violate it, don't we?

[Steve]

However, I asked for specific examples of actual rulings where he did that, and none were forthcoming. I thought Rredline's post with the links did an adequate enough job of that.

[joseftu]

Point well taken. If he said he would rule according to the Bible, he indicated his intention to violate the Constitution. I just find it strange that he got as far as he did in the Judicial system - presumably already having ruled according to the Bible and unconstitutionally, yet no one gets a whiff of it until a 10-ton display is put in the lobby. If that's the case, I would say far too many people are obsessed with the symbol, and not enough are concerned with the actual record of the man, who should probably have been removed much earlier, if indeed he had actually ruled as he indicated he would.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that people did know that he was ruling in this way, and had plenty of whiffs--but they approved of it and liked it (at least the majority of them). It took the 10-ten monument to get the national attention.
We've heard that Moore is likely to be elected to Congress from this district.

[mers2]

I think it was right to remove Moore from the bench--because he violated a court order. In other words, he showed public, blatant, intentional disrespect for the law.
. For this reason and this reason alone Moore is unfit to be a judge. Regardless of his beliefs or feelings on the 10 commandments he had both a moral and legal obligation to follow an order of the court. If he can't do that he's not fit to be a judge.

[ravital]

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that people did know that he was ruling in this way, and had plenty of whiffs--but they approved of it and liked it (at least the majority of them).
If you are talking about actual rulings, I have yet to see evidence of this, even after reading the links provided by RRedline (which I'm going to address properly in a separate reply).



We've heard that Moore is likely to be elected to Congress from this district. America, what a country! Even a bigoted ex-judge can run for office! Imagine that.

Seriously, I don't like him one bit, and would be more likely to vote for Big Bird than for him if I lived in that state. Bottom line, why should that be a problem?

[joseftu]

If you are talking about actual rulings, I have yet to see evidence of this, even after reading the links provided by RRedline (which I'm going to address properly in a separate reply).No, I have no evidence either, other than his own statements (quoted by Shiny). I wasn't saying that I knew he had made such rulings, only that the people in his district (I presume) were aware of what his rulings were.

I know that he's a bad judge, but I know that only because he deliberately broke the law, publicly, without remorse, and tried even to avoid the consequences of that stance. To me, that's enough. But I don't think (and have never said) that his rulings were bad or biased, or that his religion automatically makes him a bad judge. Just his disrespect for the law he swore to uphold.

America, what a country! Even a bigoted ex-judge can run for office! Imagine that.

Seriously, I don't like him one bit, and would be more likely to vote for Big Bird than for him if I lived in that state. Bottom line, why should that be a problem?There's nothing at all wrong with that. No problem whatsoever. He's allowed to run, and people are allowed to vote for him (of course).

But I'm just as allowed to say that I think (just my opinion) it's unfortunate and disappointing that people would think that someone who is so lacking in principle (again--I'm talking about his disrespect for his oath, his professional responsibility, and his citizenship--not his religion) is worthy of their vote.

I wouldn't like to see him in Congress, or in any position of authority or legal power--because he's demonstrated repeatedly that he has no respect for the law, the courts, or the Constitution. But it's not really any of my business--I don't live in his district. I just get to express opinions in the forums!

[Stiofán]

I wouldn't like to see him in Congress, or in any position of authority or legal power--because he's demonstrated repeatedly that he has no respect for the law, the courts, or the Constitution.

Alas, that merely seems to make him at par with the rest in Congress.

[ravital]

I thought Rredline's post with the links did an adequate enough job of that.
I hadn't yet seen the links RRedline kindly provided (sorry for the delay, but I do have to get some work done between posts). Now I have, thank you RRedline:

The first four links deal with reactions to a ruling by the Alabama SC on a custody case, awarding custody of 3 children to a father accused of being abusive, rather than to the mother who is Lesbian and living in CA.

All four articles properly note, that Judge Moore went out of his way to write a separate concurring opinion denigrating homosexuality, and which seems to have no other purpose.

All four articles also note, that his bigotry had absolutely nothing to do with the ruling, which reversed a lower-court decision on presumably important technicalites.

I don't think I'll ever understand or agree that such technicalities supercede the well-being of children, to the point of placing them with a parent suspected - or even convicted - of abuse, regardless of how important the legal principles at stake are. Then again, I'm not a lawyer or a legal scholar. Clearly, there's a problem here, but the problem has zero to do with religion influencing court decisions, because assinine decisions of that sort and with similar consequences, are made by courts all over the country every day, even outside the presumably unwashed and backwards Bible Belt we all love to denigrate.

I believe we can all be happy that this man is no longer a Judge. That's a no-brainer.

I also think we all need to worry about anyone in a position of such authority, putting personal believes - religious, political, botanical, musical, what have you - ahead of the principles and procedures that they are expected to follow. Aren't there Ethics Review boards that Judges need to answer to? If not, or if Judge Moore was in a position exempt from such review, then we have some work to do, to say the least.

The fifth article reiterated the custody case, but offered more: Clear and blatant discrimination, on top of possibly inappropriate introduction of prayer in the courtroom.

Some argue that the Supreme Court of the U.S. begins its sessions with a prayer. That may or may not be appropriate for State Supreme Courts as well. But in a case where a Moslem defendant asked for permission to have a Moslem prayer, the Judged refused. That says volumes about his intentions, and that's more than enough for me to conclude that he doesn't belong in a robe.

Thanks again RRedline for the links, and Steve for pointing them out to me.

[ravital]

For this reason and this reason alone Moore is unfit to be a judge. Regardless of his beliefs or feelings on the 10 commandments he had both a moral and legal obligation to follow an order of the court. If he can't do that he's not fit to be a judge. Really? Just for refusing to obey a court order?

Gee... Would you say the same thing, of a hypothetical Judge, who might have refused to return a runaway slave named Dred Scott to his owner in Kentucky, as the SCOTUS ordered? Or do we only need to obey court orders that we agree with, or that happen to be fashionable this week?

Such a judge would have had streets and a national holiday named after him, at the very least.

[ravital]

But I'm just as allowed to say that I think (just my opinion) it's unfortunate and disappointing that people would think that someone who is so lacking in principle (again--I'm talking about his disrespect for his oath, his professional responsibility, and his citizenship--not his religion) is worthy of their vote.

For the record, that's my opinion as well. That's the awful part of one-man-one-vote, and I know you wouldn't have it any other way, until someone comes up with something better.

[ShinyTop]

Rav, speaking only for myself, HELL YES!!!

Why have laws if they are not enforced? Why have a judge who is chosen and swears to uphold the law who will vote opposite the law? If the law is bad take the proper steps to change the laws. Judges are not selected to change laws unless unconstitutional.


If judges are not to uphold the law then why have law.

[joseftu]

I think anyone who breaks the law, willfully and publicly--deserves to accept the consequences of that action. We need to obey court orders, whether we agree with them or not, <b>unless we're willing to accept the consequences</b>. Those consequences might be jail, or for a judge, they might be <b>being removed from the bench</b>.

So, yes, I would say the exact same thing about your hypothetical judge. In that case, I think history would have shown him to be a hero, a man of principle, more fit than those who made the court order which he disobeyed. I would hope that if I were that hypothetical judge, I would defy that court order myself. But that would matter not one little bit in the application of the penalty, the consequences.

I understand that Judge Moore sees himself as a hero--as someone who is engaged in civil disobedience for a cause which is above a law which he sees as wrong. He's certainly entitled to feel that way, just as I'm entitled to disagree. But neither of us are entitled to avoid the consequences of breaking the law.

I don't have a problem with people holding the demands of their conscience as being above the law. But I do feel that there are consequences of those decisions.

[ravital]

Rav, speaking only for myself, HELL YES!!!

Why have laws if they are not enforced? Why have a judge who is chosen and swears to uphold the law who will vote opposite the law? If the law is bad take the proper steps to change the laws. Judges are not selected to change laws unless unconstitutional. I do respect your opinion, Shiny, and I hope you understand that the direct logical conclusion is, that the entire foundation of this country is criminal, as it was created by an act of treason against the English Crown.

The beauty of the U.S. Constitution, the country that is governed by it, and the Supreme Court that interprets it, is precisely that they are all creations of flawed and fallible human beings, flesh and blood just like you and me. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, that at least half of all the steps towards the ongoing enlightenment of the entire human race, were and still are, mere violations of rules or laws at the outset.

[ShinyTop]

One of the chief aspects of our country versus 18th century England is that we have the means to change laws that need changing. We do it by electing law makers and then they vote the law.

And I am not speaking against all law breaking, I am speaking about a judge chosen and sworn to uphold the law. When you can no longer do that function you should resign.

[mers2]

Really? Just for refusing to obey a court order?

Gee... Would you say the same thing, of a hypothetical Judge, who might have refused to return a runaway slave named Dred Scott to his owner in Kentucky, as the SCOTUS ordered? Or do we only need to obey court orders that we agree with, or that happen to be fashionable this week?

Such a judge would have had streets and a national holiday named after him, at the very least. Civil disobedience requires the willingness to pay the price of that disobedience. In the case of your hypthetical judge, yes, he should be booted from the bench. As an officer of the court he is sworn to uphold the law. Until the law is changed, as an officer of the court his choices are to obey, step down from the bench or disobey and be removed from the bench. Change comes when people are willing to pay the price for that change.

Edited to add: We'd probably still have segregation if it weren't for those willing to risk jail and worse to bring about that change.

[ravital]

So, yes, I would say the exact same thing about your hypothetical judge. In that case, I think history would have shown him to be a hero, a man of principle, more fit than those who made the court order which he disobeyed. I would hope that if I were that hypothetical judge, I would defy that court order myself. But that would matter not one little bit in the application of the penalty, the consequences.
:clap:

Thank you, I mean it, you got my vote. From what looked like yet one more tiresome thread about Church vs. State, we have arrived at a conclusion of paramount importance, yet a somewhat ugly one: The difference is winning.

That hypothetical judge might have won, and without a doubt would have won in the judgement of History.

As I pointed out to Shiny, the creation of the United States was a pure act of treason; Except that we won.

So it's not only principle, it's also the power necessary to win and implement it.

Sometimes, that's the razor-thin difference between right and wrong.

[joseftu]

Yep. And sometimes the only thing that pushes across that razor edge is one man or woman who is willing to stand up and say "this is not right. I don't care what happens to me, but I won't go along with this."

I don't think of this as a very ugly conclusion, really. It's not just winning, but the ultimate hope and faith that what is good and true will always win. The power to win is not only a power of force of arms--but of conviction and conscience. I think it's more like "right makes might" or "good will triumph" or "the truth will out" or "not by might, and not by power, but by spirit." Sometimes the "winning" takes a long time. Sometimes not in our lifetimes. But if we can stand and be true and take the path that matters, ultimately we <b>will</b> win.

At the end, out of Pandora's box, comes hope. I believe (to be a liberal, you kind of have to!) that the general progress of human culture is positive. I think we make a better world, we heal this world, by our actions and interactions every day.

Roy Moore's vision of a better world is (undoubtedly) different from mine. But in the long run, I think his is going to end up being discredited and abandoned. He probably thinks the same about me. But time alone will tell. I can only act on my own conscience, my own beliefs, as can he.