Support the Religious Liberties Restoration Act introduced by Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado

American Family Association ^ | Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman

[webber]

Support the Religious Liberties Restoration Act introduced by Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado

---

Ask your senators to co-sponsor S. 1558.

---

Dear Friend,

Finally, a U.S. Senator has given Americans a method to restore our religious liberties. He has introduced a bill, S. 1558, The "Religious Liberties Restoration Act", which does exactly that.

S. 1558 is not a constitutional amendment, but a legislative statute which would remove from federal court review the displaying of the Ten Commandments, the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. Click here to urge your two senators to co-sponsor this bill!

Using this approach, a constitutional amendment would not be needed. Sen. Allard's bill would become law by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and the signature of the President. No liberal federal judge would have any authority to rule on this law!

Although this approach, under Section III, Article 2, of the Constitution is not widely reported in the media nor understood by the general public, it was used 11 times during the last Congress!

Here's what this bill would do:

Eliminate situations such as that facing Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Allow Americans the freedom to display the National Motto, say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and display the Ten Commandments wherever the local community decides - even on government property!

End conflicting enforcement of U.S. law. For example, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public building to be constitutional, while another federal judge in Alabama ruled such a display unconstitutional.

ACTIONS WE URGE YOU TO TAKE:

E-mail your two U.S. Senators and urge them to co-sponsor S. 1558. Click here to do that right now!

Forward this message to at least one other friend who is concerned about this issue.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman
American Family Association

---

[concerned about politics]

Wow. What timing......The religious right isn't doing too bad here. The polls must really be on our side if democrats are finally bowing down before the Great I Am (politically, anyway)

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove volunteered Thursday to join neighboring Alabama in the fight over the Ten Commandments monument by offering to display it in his state's capitol building for a week starting September 7.

The 2.6-ton granite edifice was moved from the rotunda of the Alabama state judicial building to a back room out of public view Wednesday on order of a federal court that ruled it violated the U.S. Constitution's restriction on government establishment of religion.

Musgrove, a Democrat, urged other governors to allow similar displays in their states "to show support for our common Judeo-Christian heritage."

"Like many Americans, I have watched as Alabama's struggle to display our Christian heritage has unfolded," Musgrove said in a statement.

"I had hoped and prayed that the courts would stand up for our rights, and I am disappointed. It is my sincere hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will override the federal court's decision."

Cnn something

[Dimensio]

Allow Americans the freedom to display the National Motto, say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and display the Ten Commandments wherever the local community decides - even on government property!

This is already legal as per the First Amendment. We don't need another one for this.

(if anyone is going to dispute this, be prepared to cite the exact words from a specific court case that prohibits it)

[concerned about politics]

This is already legal as per the First Amendment. We don't need another one for this.

The liberal dictators on the bench have rewriten the Constitution so badly, we need a bill to clean up the propaganda mess once and for all.
The future anti-Christ dictator isn't welcome here. No marks will be forced onto the foreheads of a free people.

[Dimensio]

The liberal dictators on the bench have rewriten the Constitution so badly, we need a bill to clean up the propaganda mess once and for all.

They've not succeeded in winning any victories to prevent individuals from uttering religious sentements on government property. I say again, this is unnecessary and it makes the supporters look like they're aiming for more than what they claim.

[Reagan Man]

Kudo's to my Senator.

[Russell Scott]

Wow, a Democrat standing up for God. Now that is shocking, but great, news!

[Holden Magroin]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended only to keep the federal government from establishing an official religion - period. Liberal activist judges, however, have blatantly ignored the plain language of the Constitution in order to harass Christians. Conservatives need to quit pretending like these judges have made some innocent mistake and get real about what these anti-Christian bigots are up to.

There is no need for new legislation or constitutional amendments. Rather, we need to impeach federal judges who think they're above the law.

[Russell Scott]

The future anti-Christ dictator isn't welcome here. No marks will be forced onto the foreheads of a free people.

There is a lot of truth in your statement. Many people think the "mark of the beast" is inevitable in America. It is not! Bravo for your insight.

[Alex Murphy]

Bump for later

[webber]

"(if anyone is going to dispute this, be prepared to cite the exact words from a specific court case that prohibits it)"

It just "shows to go ya" what people will write when they dont read ALL an article.

This is being proposed, so that, in the future, the court will NOT be able to do what they just did in Alabama. Just because the Constitution doesn't say that this is illegal, it will not stop "Activist judges" from usurping the Constitution because it is, to them, a "living, breathing" Document, changing at the whim of any and all activist judges. THIS BILL WILL STOP THESE ACTIVIST JUDGES from doing this because it will be SO specific, there will be no way to misconstrue what it says. By the by, did you bother to click on the link that gives the wording of that bill? I didn't think so.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[AnalogReigns]

It's too narrowly drawn, only protecting the 10 Commandments, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and "in God we trust" on the money.

It does nothing to prevent courts from mandating the abolition of: chaplains in congress (or even in the military for that matter), religious holiday displays on pubilc property (creche scenes, menorahs, etc.), fair rentals of schools on Sundays to churches (very common these days), tax exempt status of churches, observance of religous holidays, or other common-sense, reasonable public accomodations.

Any one of those issues has its ACLU (and federal judge) proponents--and are of far more significance than if "in God we trust" is or is not on our federal reserve notes.

I'd support it if it had the more important religious accomodation issues attached, and had broad language at the end, so as not to partially exclude something in the future.

Still, maybe limiting the courts' jurisdiction in anything would be a good move....no matter how symbolic.

[AnalogReigns]

"he subject matter of subsections (a), (b), and (c) are excepted from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court."

From the statute. Sounds like anyone could (and would have to) appeal directly to the Supreme Court to challenge this. In other words, if we had a liberal group of just 5 Supremes, they could choose to render this law mute.

Why is it worded this way...so as to still allow the USSC to review it?

[Celtman]

Many people think the "mark of the beast" is inevitable in America.

      It's inevitable all over the world.  The only unknown is when.

[f.Christian]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972219/posts?q=1&&page=101

To: lugsoul

Jusge Moore is standing up for the rights of all. Religious freedom is for all.
Free speech is for all. The first amendment is for all. The ACLU is trying to
restrict our freedoms to only what they approve (atheism).



129 posted on 08/28/2003 3:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND...
ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)

[reasonseeker]

“Like many Americans, I have watched as Alabama's struggle to display our Christian heritage has unfolded”

“The future anti-Christ dictator isn't welcome here”

“Liberal activist judges, however, have blatantly ignored the plain language of the Constitution in order to harass Christians.”

It's statements like these that reveal the lie that supporters of putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse are not trying to use government to promote a particular establishment of religion.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The law is NOT bound by the court,the court is bound by the law and it is time for the court to be bound!A law can be passed because this is the duty of congress,they DO NOT first have to pass judicial muster.

[Nephi]

This an okay first step, but I like Alan Keyes solution better. Keyes solution

Specifically:

"The text of the Constitution easily allows us to see and understand the federal judiciary's abuse of power and its usurpation of the right of the people in religious matters. It also provides a remedy for this abuse. The Congress must pass legislation that, in order to assure proper respect for the first clause of the First Amendment, excepts from the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts those matters which, by the conjoint effect of the First and 10th Amendments, the Constitution reserves to the states respectively and to the people. (This language avoids a semantic difficulty, since congressional legislation that explicitly mentioned matters pertaining to an establishment of religion would serve the intention but violate the terms of the first clause of the First Amendment.)" A concern that I have with Allard's law.

[Onelifetogive]

Many people think the "mark of the beast" is inevitable in America. It is not! Bravo for your insight.

Americans make up ~6% of the world population. While we think the Bible was written for and about ONLY us...it wasn't. Many things can happen in many parts of the world and fulfill Bible prophecy while not affecting us (if we are faithful to God...)

[Onelifetogive]

reasonseeker???It's statements like these that reveal the lie that supporters of putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse are not trying to use government to promote a particular establishment of religion.

reasonseeker??? Keep seeking......

[Diamond]

It's statements like these that reveal the lie that supporters of putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse are not trying to use government to promote a particular establishment of religion.

And which particular denomination of Christianity do you think is being established by the Federal government in this case?

Cordially,

[talleyman]

Thanks - I did so, and added a line about impeaching the judges.

[reasonseeker]

I don't believe any particular denomination of Christianity is being established by the Federal Government or anyone else. However, Christianity itself is a particular religious establishment, which the Constitution bans Congress from enacting any laws about -- the Constitution doesn't ban the establishment of a particular denomination of Christianity, it bans "an establishment of RELIGION." Jews can claim the Ten Commandments as an expression of their religion just as much as Christians can, so for Christians to claim that the controversy over the Ten Commandments is directed specifically against Christians, as the quotes I pointed out do, is a bit self-serving and less than candid.

[Dimensio]

Would you support Moore if he had put up a monumnet detailing a set of Islamic laws from the Koran? Do you think that a lot of his supporters would also support an Islamic monument?

[f.Christian]

To: quidnunc; Lug Nut

Yes, the courts have been trying for years to overturn the fact that our Founders were mainly of the Christian Faith and referred to the Judeo-Christian God. That is no secret and that is what all the fuss is about. We either have religious freedom as intended by the founders or we do not. The atheists are trying to get the courts to say we do not. And, apparently, a whole lot of people on FR are right in there agreeing with them.

Well, the purpose of FR is to fight against this unconstitutional tyranny and that's what we intend to do. Judge Moore is on the point in this particular battle and I believe he is right on target. If he goes down, I pray the people of Alabama elect another just like him to carry on the fight.



And to Lugnut, if the people of Alabama elect a Hindu judge and that judge puts up the Hindu equivalent of the Commandments, then I'd fight for his right to keep it up vs the Federal Court's unconstitutional efforts to tear it down. Again, the final arbiter in this matter will be the people of Alabama backed by the people of the United States.


171 posted on 08/28/2003 4:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972219/posts?q=1&&page=151

[f.Christian]

In the market place of competing ideas ... the govt will support the losers --- liberals - connivers - controllers !


Main Entry: caveat emp·tor
Pronunciation: -'em(p)-t&r, -"tor
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, let the buyer beware
Date: 1523
: a principle in commerce: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk


Main Entry: con·nive
Pronunciation: k&-'nIv
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·nived; con·niv·ing
Etymology: French or Latin; French conniver, from Latin conivEre, connivEre to close the eyes, connive, from com- + -nivEre (akin to nictare to wink); akin to Old English & Old High German hnIgan to bow
Date: 1601
1 : to pretend ignorance of or fail to take action against something one ought to oppose
2 a : to be indulgent or in secret sympathy : WINK b : to cooperate secretly or have a secret understanding
3 : CONSPIRE, INTRIGUE
- con·niv·er noun

[Dimensio]

You didn't answer my question. You just posted something that another person wrote.

Do you have any lucid thoughts of your own, or are you only capable of thinking in completely uncontrolled and incoherent word salad? I have ADHD and my thoughts aren't so chaotic.

[votelife]

"It is my sincere hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will override the federal court's decision."

How much does this Democrat fear losing that he'd say this?

[Diamond]

I don't believe any particular denomination of Christianity is being established by the Federal Government or anyone else. However, Christianity itself is a particular religious establishment, which the Constitution bans Congress from enacting any laws about -- the Constitution doesn't ban the establishment of a particular denomination of Christianity, it bans "an establishment of RELIGION."

I suspeced that that that might be your view when I asked the question. But listen to one of the foremost legal scholars of the 19th century had to say about it, which has already been alluded to on this thread:

"Joseph Storey, Commentaries on the Constitution, no. 1874 (1833): "Probably at the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation if not universal indignation." [emphasis mine]

Or;

John Marshall

"The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified [empahsis mine] It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it."  John Marshall, in a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, JSAC, p. 139. Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.

My point here is simply that your definition and use of the word "religion" is completely different than the Founders'. Their intent can properly be inferred from their usage, as opposed to the modern useage.

We would not even have the Contitution that we have were it not for Christianity.

Cordially,

[LeprechaunAngst]

"S. 1558 is not a constitutional amendment, but a legislative statute which would remove from federal court review the displaying of the Ten Commandments, the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. Click here to urge your two senators to co-sponsor this bill!

Using this approach, a constitutional amendment would not be needed. Sen. Allard's bill would become law by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and the signature of the President. No liberal federal judge would have any authority to rule on this law!"

I'm no attorney but I'm pretty certain you can't bypass the courts this easily.

[f.Christian]

There's no law to stop people from making fools of themselves ...

I support their right ---

don't necessarily support them (( would try to discourage them )) !

Did you ever study the Amish ...

I wouldn't know to join or liberate them ---

sometimes we are smart to just leave well or bad enough alone ---

don' t interfere (( controll )) !

Rececently I saw a bumper sticker that stopped me in my tracks ...

" take my advice --- I don't even use it " !

Did you read the thread about al franken ... control freak --- LOSER !

[general_re]

I'm no attorney but I'm pretty certain you can't bypass the courts this easily.

You can't. There will be a lot of noise on this issue, but in six months, everyone will have forgotten all about it after they figure that out...

[qam1]

We would not even have the Contitution that we have were it not for Christianity.

Really, Can you please show me where in the bible there is anything resembling our republic/democracy form of government, With our Liberties? All I see is blood thristy kings, tyrants and butchers.

[f.Christian]

Galatians...chapter 5

13] For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
[14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
[16] This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
[17] For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
[18] But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
[25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
[26] Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gal.6

[1] Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
[2] Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

[Theodore R.]

This is good, but what would happen if the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional, as it could well do by a 6-3 or 5-4 margin? The timid lawmakers would cut and run again.

[qam1]

OK, It mentions the word liberty but not in the context of our our government and our inalienable rights,

Actually this line shows the opposite

[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

Variance either means difference from the norm or dissension both of which are American priciples.

And Seditions!!!!!

se•di•tion \si-"di-shen\ n : the causing of discontent, insurrection, or resistance against a government (c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved

So according to this passage, Any left winger who speaks ill of or protest against George Bush or any Right Winger who spoke ill of or protested against the Clintons when he was President or any other person who ever spoke against any member or part the Government, In other words EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN who ever lived according to this passage is going to hell.

So according to the Bible not only is our form of government and rights of Americans not Christian but is actually Sinfull.

[f.Christian]

Did you ever hear of the reformation ... Martin Luther ?

[Nephi]

Your sophomoric hypothetical fails to recognize that Judge Moore wouldn't have put up symbols of Islam because Islam has nothing to do with American history. Although, Islam can trace its roots back to Moses and the 10 commandments.

Additionally, the people of Alabama overwhelmingly support Judge Moore. It is doubtful he would enjoy a fraction of that support if he had erected a monument to the Koran.

[WillRain]

A failed Democrat in a southern conservitive state which has two GOP Senators and hasn't went Dem in the presidential race but once (Carter) in the last 35 years and who faces a strong GOP candidate who is likely to clean his clock in a few months?

Not so shocking - but certainly welcome.

The concept of moving them from state to state is sheer genius no matter who proposed it.

[rdb3]

Many people think the "mark of the beast" is inevitable in America. It is not!

It's inevitable worldwide. If not, then the Word is lying to us.

[f.Christian]

Indian Prayer

O Great Spirit ...

Whose voice I hear in the wind and ...

whose breath gives life to all the world ---

Hear Me !

I come to you as one of your many children .

I am small and weak ... I need your strength and wisdom.

Let me walk in beauty and make my eyes ever behold the red and purple sunset .

Make my hands respect the things you have made and my ears sharp to hear your voice .

Make me wise so that I may know the things you have taught my children .

Let me learn the lessons you have hidden in every leaf and rock .

I seek strength not to be greater than my brothers but to be able to fight my greatest enemy --- myself * .

Make me ever ready to come to you with clean hands ... so that when life fades ---

as the fading sunset ... my spirit may come to you without shame .

Chief Dan George

... * ... famous words of Martin Luther too --- " pope self " !

[WillRain]

Quote:
It's too narrowly drawn, only protecting the 10 Commandments, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and "in God we trust" on the money. It does nothing to prevent courts from mandating the abolition of: chaplains in congress (or even in the military for that matter), religious holiday displays on pubilc property (creche scenes, menorahs, etc.), fair rentals of schools on Sundays to churches (very common these days), tax exempt status of churches, observance of religous holidays, or other common-sense, reasonable public accomodations. Any one of those issues has its ACLU (and federal judge) proponents--and are of far more significance than if "in God we trust" is or is not on our federal reserve notes. I'd support it if it had the more important religious accomodation issues attached, and had broad language at the end, so as not to partially exclude something in the future.
Completely Agree.

[Dimensio]

Ah, so it's okay for a judge to erect a monument to a religion, but only if it's one of which is "approved".

Sounds to me likt this isn't about religious liberty at all, but rather pushing Christianity.

[ConservativeMan55]

Bump for later reading!

[qam1]

Sounds to me likt this isn't about religious liberty at all, but rather pushing Christianity.

Sound to me what the this really is, IS the

Religious Liberties (But only if you rigorously follow one of our predetermined acceptable Christian Religions) Restoration act.

[Liberty Wins]

The overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of displaying the Ten Commandments, retaining our national motto and leaving the Pledge of Allegiance as is. Yet we are plagued with activist judges who want to impose their own beliefs and values on our culture by finding meanings in the Constitution that clearly aren't there. The only way to rein in these rogue judges is to let Congress deal with them.

[donmeaker]

So let me get this right. A criminal (or his attorney) could walk into court and begin posting copies of the ten commandments, the pledge, (written by the socialist, Francis Bellamy) and the Motto. He could do that, with ruffles and flourishes for as long as he wanted, and the judge in the case would have no ability to stop him?

sounds like a plan.

[donmeaker]

I figure that the Revelation of John was apocalyptic literature, written for the people at the time, not a work of prophesy that would really only be valid for people in a land far away and a time that was distant. If it was a prophecy for end times, then those who took comfort with it during the persecution by the romans, by the barbarians, by the spanish inquisition, by the reformation, by the Germans, by the vietnamese, all were wrong. If it refers to someone else in a distant future time, then it does not refer to present time, or to me.

I believe that it does apply to me, that I will be tried in my own life, as my father is tried in his, and his grandfather was tried in his. The exhortation in RofJ is equally valid to all of us.

That makes me an a-millenialist. So be it.

[donmeaker]

There have been many codes of law, many of which predated even the tradiional law of Moses. For example the code of Hammurabi is believed to predate that of Moses. The codes of Draco, of Solon, the 12 tablets of Roman law, and the law code of Justinian have at least as much claim to being the foundation of our system of law. The roman law even had titles, by which similar laws are grouped, for better access to the common man.