Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ZiprHead · 11-19-2002, 04:51 AM

This is a transcript of the debate on CNN's Crossfire program between Barry Lynn and Jay Seculow. Unbelievable how closed-minded and blind the righties are.

Quote:

BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about a two-week effort at a recount and litigation. It was the right thing to do. Congratulations to Governor-elect Bob Riley, Republican and now former Congressman. So that's the latest political news.

In other news, though, from Alabama today, a federal judge gave Alabama's chief justice 30 days to remove a controversial monument from the state's judicial building. The granite monument shows the Ten Commandments, but it isn't a return of the old pledge of allegiance controversy. This particular monument was personally put up in secret at night in the rotunda of Alabama's Supreme Court building by the Chief Justice Roy Moore himself.

Moore is a favorite of such prominent Republican right wing preachers as Reverend Jerry Falwell and Reverend Pat Robertson. He got himself elected chief justice by campaigning as the Ten Commandments judge. Today, a federal judge said that, while other public displays of the Ten Commandments are probably fine, Roy's rock, as they call it in Montgomery, has got to go.

In the CROSSFIRE tonight, the Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.

CARLSON: All right, Barry Lynn, I know you find it completely outrageous that someone would say do not kill in a courtroom in Alabama. But if you think that's outrageous, I have a story for you. I hope they can put this up on the screen.

Not only are the Ten Commandments in a courtroom in Alabama, this picture right here of Moses, with the actual tablet, do you know where that is from?

REV. BARRY LYNN, AMERICANS UNITED FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Yes, that's from the Supreme Court but, of course...

CARLSON: That is of the United States.

LYNN: The United States Supreme Court.

CARLSON: Why aren't you picking (ph) it?

LYNN: Well, could you read the third one there, please?

CARLSON: I don't have my contacts in.

LYNN: No, the big difference is of course, you couldn't read it if you had two pairs of contacts. And that's the difference. Judge Moore's monument is a monument to intolerance. It's the promotion of his own religious views, his own idea of what the Ten Commandments ought to say, his version of it. But it is nothing like that phrase which you can't even read. JAY SEKULOW, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Well, actually, the other phrase in the Supreme Court of the United States -- on the other side of the wall of the Supreme Court, there is another display of Moses holding the Ten Commandments in Hebrew. And that's...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: But Barry Lynn, I just want to know. I want to get the Lynn standard here. So it is OK to have the Ten commandments -- it is OK to have Moses of the old testament on the wall of this building in the Supreme Court, as long as you can't read the lettering, not that people read a lot of Hebrew or Arabic.

LYNN: NO. They don't read any of that. And, of course, it's nothing like that in the Supreme Court.

CARLSON: So what is your standard on...

LYNN: No, it also has Confucius, as a matter of fact, because that's a phrase of a series of pictures of famous law givers. It's nothing like the promotion of a right wing judge of his particular religious viewpoint. Not just in the terms of the monument that's right in the center -- it's the centerpiece of the judicial building -- but now increasingly in his opinions as well.

He seems to think that scripture scriptural interpretation, not constitutional interpretation, is what his job is as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. And, of course, that's not true, not in America.

BEGALA: Jay, this is simply a political stunt, right? He went around the country, the state, and said, I'm the Ten Commandments judge, vote for me. And so then he was kind of stuck with this political stunt.

SEKULOW: You know, Paul, I think what would be great is the Democratic Party -- you're the great consultant -- you should have them run in 2004. They tried the judges this time and it didn't work because Bush's judges people wanted. Run against the Ten Commandment in 2004. He believes the Ten Commandments are...

BEGALA: My question is -- yes, it's an effective political stunt, but it's a political stunt, isn't it, Jay?

SEKULOW: No, I don't think -- not for him it is not, because he believes, as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States has said, that the Ten Commandments serve as the basis for western law. And he believes because it serves as a basis of western law, like the Declaration of Independence, like the Bill of Rights...

BEGALA: He doesn't have that out there, though.

SEKULOW: Actually, there are quotes -- and you didn't see the whole Ten Commandments display. There are quotes from the Preamble of the Constitution and others surrounding that monument and part of the granite.

LYNN: Only the religious parts of it. In other words, he's taken some other documents, he put them down on the side of the monument because he said no word of man should be as close to the top as the words of god. So this is all a religious promotion.

So I must say, let me disagree with you a little bit, Paul, because I do think this is a man who sincerely believes what he believes. The problem is he can't distinguish his personal beliefs from his role as a judge. And I think he should step down from the bench.

SEKULOW: Isn't it tragic that we say now -- because Barry's position is also you take a Ten Commandment monument that's been on display for 50 or 60 years, put up by the Paternal Order of Eagles in Elkhart, Indiana, that was actually part of the promotion for the movie about the Ten Commandments. He said -- Barry said that that Ten Commandments display should go too.

And right next to that display are freedom shrines for the civil rights protesters in the 1950s, shrines for the veterans of both world wars. All of those are displayed. But you said that should go, too. You think it should all go.

LYNN: I think that what we shouldn't have is governmental promotion of one favorite religion over others.

SEKULOW: Is the Supreme Court display of the Ten Commandments OK?

LYNN: What that freeze we showed...

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: Because no one even knows what they are.

BEGALA: It is different.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Barry, you throw this around. Government is promoting one religion over other religions. You say that a lot. I'd like you to define your terms. What in the world are you talking about? What religion are you talking about, Judaism, Christianity?

LYNN: This is -- no, this is Judge Roy Moore's fundamentalist Christianity. During the trial, he was asked and he's also written on this topic, does he consider Islam or Buddhism to be religions? He says, no, they're not. They're not even religions.

CARLSON: Judge Moore's opinions aren't relevant to the question I asked. The question has to do purely with, should it be legal to put the Ten Commandments in a courtroom or in other public places? And my question to you is, what religion are those espousing? Because, of course, lots of religions claim those as holy text.

LYNN: No, but not according to him.

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: This one does too.

LYNN: No, that is not true.

CARLSON: Well it is true.

LYNN: And according to him, this is his version. It is the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments that he has placed here on this monument. There is nothing that you can ever read -- I must give him credit. He is extraordinarily honest. He says this is to promote belief in Jesus Christ and the Christian faith, of which there is nothing different...

SEKULOW: Well, there's nothing in the Ten Commandments -- hold it. The Ten Commandments doesn't -- what does it say about Jesus Christ? Nothing.

(CROSSTALK)

LYNN: Nothing, but that's what he says about it.

SEKULOW: When (UNINTELLIGIBLE) god to Moses, I don't think that a national religion or a state establishment of Judaism is the religion for the state of Alabama. And that's their argument. That you established a state religion. So Judaism is the state religion of Alabama? I don't buy it.

LYNN: Listen. Jay, why is it that you think that Moses has been sitting around for 2,000 years waiting for a judge in Alabama to say, I approve of your work? That's ludicrous. The Ten Commandments have been doing rather well without the benefit of politicians or Alabama judges from the right wing extreme.

SEKULOW: I think it's got a lot more to do with fundamental understanding of law. Why did the Supreme Court of the United States decide to have the Ten Commandments displayed as well?

LYNN: Because it is a picture of various law givers, not promotion of one religion over another.

SEKULOW: OK. So if Judge Moore had a statement by Confucius on there and the Hammurabi Code, a section of that, you would have no problem then with the Ten Commandments as well?

LYNN: No, he didn't do that.

SEKULOW: But what if he did? If he did, would you allow that? Because we can add those. Would that be OK?

LYNN: No, because then it's the promotion of all religions over no religion.

(CROSSTALK) CARLSON: ... who is every bit as adamant and dogmatic really as any religious fundamentalist I've ever seen, made a statement about how abortion ought to be the law of the land. That's really a religious statement, isn't it? And yet that would be fine with you, wouldn't it?

LYNN: No, but you don't even have the right comparison. If the comparison was somebody said there is no god, I want to put that up in my courtroom, I would be right here in the same place saying that's wrong, too. Judges are not supposed to take positions on religion.

SEKULOW: Yes, sir?

BEGALA: I want to ask a question. What about the fundraising aspect of this? Apparently there is a conservative Christian group called Coral Religious Ministries (ph), which, according to the "Washington Post," videotaped Chief Justice Moore schlepping this monstrous boulder up there and...

SEKULOW: I suspect he had...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: I should hope he did. It's a 5,300 -- maybe he's a big judge, I don't know the guy. But it is a big schlep. But he did it for the cameras and now this conservative ministry is selling this tape for $19.95 or 19 bucks. That's a fundraising stunt.

SEKULOW: I'm a lawyer, I'm not the fundraiser. But I'm going to tell you this.

BEGALA: Well the judge is a fundraiser, that's the problem.

SEKULOW: This judge is not -- this is not a new position. I mean Barry said it correct...

BEGALA: You don't have a problem with a chief justice raising money for...

SEKULOW: He's not raising money. He's not.

BEGALA: He appears in a video to raise money for a conservative Christian group. You don't have a problem with that?

SEKULOW: No. I think you can appear in a video, you can appear in a video on CNN. I don't think it makes any difference.

BEGALA: He didn't do it for CNN.

LYNN: Coral Ministry (ph) is, in fact, paying legal fees in this case. So this is the most grotesque conflict of interest and you say wait a minute...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Wait a second. Don't judges have to be careful who they raise money for?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well he was sued. He hired counsel. Someone paid his legal fees. That is perfectly ethical. I do it all the time. We do it all the time. I represent third parties. That's what you do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you don't raise it with a videotape that you allow your ministry to make. CNN was not invited to take pictures of that placement.

SEKULOW: Barry, you use videotape when you do fundraising.

LYNN: No I don't.

(CROSSTALK)

LYNN: I would never support...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: We are out of time. Thank you, both, Barry Lynn, Jay Sekulow, thank you both for joining us. Appreciate it.

SEKULOW: Thank you.

LYNN: Thank you.

Stephen Maturin · 11-19-2002, 06:01 AM

Thanks for the heads-up, Big Z. It's always entertaining to read the latest from Jay Sekulow, skid mark on the BVDs of law though he is.

Quote:

LYNN: And according to him, this is his version. It is the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments that he has placed here on this monument. There is nothing that you can ever read -- I must give him credit. He is extraordinarily honest. He says this is to promote belief in Jesus Christ and the Christian faith, of which there is nothing different...

SEKULOW: Well, there's nothing in the Ten Commandments -- hold it. The Ten Commandments doesn't -- what does it say about Jesus Christ? Nothing.

Atta boy, Jay! Turning a blind eye to MOUNTAINS of testimony establishing conclusively that Moore installed the monument to endorse Christianity certainly makes your argument easier to present, doesn't it?

I'd love to see a videotape of this program. The look on Sekulow's face when Begala brought up the financial connections between Chief Justice Moore and Coral Ridge Ministries. That hits a little too close to home for ol' Jay.

Quote:

LYNN: Listen. Jay, why is it that you think that Moses has been sitting around for 2,000 years waiting for a judge in Alabama to say, I approve of your work? That's ludicrous. The Ten Commandments have been doing rather well without the benefit of politicians or Alabama judges from the right wing extreme.

Full point for Barry Lynn. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, a religion that needs government support can't be very good.

Jamie_L · 11-19-2002, 06:24 AM

Quote:

CARLSON: But Barry Lynn, I just want to know. I want to get the Lynn standard here.

Okay, so here we're not going to defend the monument. We're going to attack the cosistency of the person questioning the monument. I believe that's referred to as an ad hominem falacy.

Quote:

CARLSON: Judge Moore's opinions aren't relevant to the question I asked. The question has to do purely with, should it be legal to put the Ten Commandments in a courtroom or in other public places? And my question to you is, what religion are those espousing? Because, of course, lots of religions claim those as holy text.

Then we'll argue that the monument is okay because it promotes lots of religions, not just one.

Right. All good arguements.

Jamie

Voltaire Is My Hero · 11-19-2002, 07:12 AM

What part of SEPARATION of church from state do some people not understand?

"Fanaticism has done much more harm to the world than impiety. What do impious people [unbelievers] claim? To free themselves of a yoke, while fanatics want to extend their chains all over the earth." -- Deleyre

--Cindy

P.S.: I am owner and moderator of the following Yahoo! group:

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ageofvoltaire" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ageofvoltaire</a> [Click on this link to view the homepage of my mailing list]

Subscribe: ageofvoltaire-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
[Internet -- non-Yahoo! -- e-mail addresses can subscribe directly here].

Philosoft · 11-19-2002, 07:58 AM

I'm still waiting for someone to make the argument that the Decalogue is the basis for western law, rather than just asserting it as if it were common knowledge.

Splat · 11-19-2002, 10:54 AM

I'm still waiting for somebody to point out that whoring your religion in the service of the US Government must violate the "name in vain" commandment. I especially like the nice touch of placing His name on every piece of filthy lucre in the empire.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 11-19-2002, 11:49 AM

As much as I like the separation of church and state, I think Barry did an awful job. Granted, he was arguing against fallacious reasoning, but it would have been easy enough.
when confronted with the idea that the commandments were judaism and not christianity, and that they didn't promote Jesus, he should have mentioned that the establishment clause doesn't allow the promotion of one religion, some religions, or all religions. It doesn't matter if it's Judaism, Christianity, or both. I thought Lynn did a pretty poor job.
He let Sekulow run the debate in a way that was pretty unsatisfactory.

-B

Jamie_L · 11-19-2002, 12:15 PM

Bumble Bee:

Yeah, I agree. And actually, I thought he should have had the guts to say: "You know, Moses really shouldn't be in the Supreme Court building, but it's not as clear-cut a violation as the Alabama monument because..."

Jamie

Grumpy · 11-19-2002, 01:18 PM

Tucker Carlson isn't the only one thinking about the sculpture of Moses on the SCOTUS building. I've been pondering it, too: even if it's allowed under the First Amendment, is it allowed under the "Graven Images" commandment?

sock-chester · 11-19-2002, 01:41 PM

Jay Sekulow is such a tool, he should not even be recognized as a legitimate authority on anything.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-19-2002, 07:12 AM	#4
Voltaire Is My Hero Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USA Posts: 33	What part of SEPARATION of church from state do some people not understand? "Fanaticism has done much more harm to the world than impiety. What do impious people [unbelievers] claim? To free themselves of a yoke, while fanatics want to extend their chains all over the earth." -- Deleyre --Cindy P.S.: I am owner and moderator of the following Yahoo! group: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ageofvoltaire" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ageofvoltaire</a> [Click on this link to view the homepage of my mailing list] Subscribe: ageofvoltaire-subscribe@yahoogroups.com [Internet -- non-Yahoo! -- e-mail addresses can subscribe directly here].

11-19-2002, 07:58 AM	#5
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I'm still waiting for someone to make the argument that the Decalogue is the basis for western law, rather than just asserting it as if it were common knowledge.

11-19-2002, 10:54 AM	#6
Splat Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hell, PA Posts: 599	I'm still waiting for somebody to point out that whoring your religion in the service of the US Government must violate the "name in vain" commandment. I especially like the nice touch of placing His name on every piece of filthy lucre in the empire.

11-19-2002, 11:49 AM	#7
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	As much as I like the separation of church and state, I think Barry did an awful job. Granted, he was arguing against fallacious reasoning, but it would have been easy enough. when confronted with the idea that the commandments were judaism and not christianity, and that they didn't promote Jesus, he should have mentioned that the establishment clause doesn't allow the promotion of one religion, some religions, or all religions. It doesn't matter if it's Judaism, Christianity, or both. I thought Lynn did a pretty poor job. He let Sekulow run the debate in a way that was pretty unsatisfactory. -B

11-19-2002, 12:15 PM	#8
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Bumble Bee: Yeah, I agree. And actually, I thought he should have had the guts to say: "You know, Moses really shouldn't be in the Supreme Court building, but it's not as clear-cut a violation as the Alabama monument because..." Jamie

11-19-2002, 01:18 PM	#9
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Tucker Carlson isn't the only one thinking about the sculpture of Moses on the SCOTUS building. I've been pondering it, too: even if it's allowed under the First Amendment, is it allowed under the "Graven Images" commandment?

11-19-2002, 01:41 PM	#10
sock-chester Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cereal Factory Posts: 7	Jay Sekulow is such a tool, he should not even be recognized as a legitimate authority on anything.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.