Posted on 04/15/2005 4:56:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Chief Justice Roy Moore’s new book So Help Me God is a captivating and unflinching first-hand account of a man on the front lines of the battle between religious freedom and judicial tyranny. This Alabama Supreme Court Justice embodies the true definition of patriotism, inasmuch he has risked his career and reputation to stand by his oath of office and refuses to deny his allegiance to the Constitution and the laws of nature and nature’s God for the mere sake of catering to the frenetic, deep-seated anti-religious paranoia of the uber-secular left.
It was on June 9, 1993 that ACLU member Joel Sogol wrote to then-chief justice of Alabama Sonny Hornsby, threatening to sue anyone who continued the time-honored tradition of praying in court. After Roy Moore took office in 1994 and refused to bring a halt to the tradition, the ACLU stepped up their threats of suit over the prayer and, in addition, began hyperventilating over the Ten Commandments plaque Justice Moore had placed in his courtroom. At the beginning of the third month of Justice Moore’s first term of office on March 31, 1995, the ACLU filed suit in U.S. district court against him on the basis that he had illegally imposed his religious beliefs on others in the courtroom, denouncing the prayer as “a religious test.”
The ACLU apparently didn’t feel up to suing all 550 members of Congress and all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who have always begun their daily proceedings with prayers. It may even be a sobering revelation to them that our very first president noted in his inaugural address, “no people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.” Nevertheless, it is doubtful that such words would bear much significance to a pathetic, subversive gang of rogue lawyers who have nothing better to do with their time than to bully public officials out of acknowledging their creator and to throw childish temper tantrums over harmless little plaques.
In a priceless act of civil disobedience, Justice Moore erected a 2½-ton granite Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the State Judicial Building. Moore would later write in his book that “[t]he display of God’s law was not done to make any bold statement, to intimidate or offend anyone, or to push any particular religion. It was simply a reminder that this country was established on a particular God and His divine, revealed laws; it reflected the Christian faith of our founders.”
Flabbergasted, on Halloween 2001, the ACLU ganged up with Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center to file suit over the monument. Demonstrating what loving people liberals can be, in a letter to the legal director of Americans United, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center referred to Justice Moore as a “religious nut in partnership with a fanatical church.” (And showing how smart liberals can be, the letter was accidentally sent to Justice Moore’s attorney, Steve Melchior. Whoops!)
The case was set for trial on October 15, 2002. Less than a month after it ended, on November 18, 2002, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled against the Ten Commandments display, declaring it unconstitutional. In his ruling, Judge Myron stated: “[W]hile the Chief Justice is free to keep whatever religious beliefs he chooses, the state may not acknowledge the sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian God and attribute to that God our religious freedom.” Perhaps Judge Myron would be compelled to rethink his words if he actually bothered to read the Alabama State Constitution which Moore had sworn specifically to uphold, inasmuch as it reads in the preamble: “We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama” (emphasis added).
On March 2, 2005, the New York Times expressed its disapproval of similar displays in between the Capitol and the State Supreme Court in Texas, and in county courthouses in Kentucky, accusing the displays’ backers of not accepting the “separation of church and state” while explaining that “[t]he Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of a religion.” If nothing else, at least these circumstances have given liberals yet another excuse to evince their maniacal infatuation with the “separation of church and state,” a phrase which we are supposed to believe is somewhere in the Constitution.
If a liberal sneezed and you said “God bless you” he would begin spastically whining about the “separation of church and state.” To appreciate this situation from the perspective of the judicial supremacists, the ACLU lawyers and the New York Times editors, we will just have to pretend for a moment that a) the “separation of church and state” exists in the Constitution, b) Congress is somehow responsible for the placement of the Ten Commandments monuments, and c) the monuments in effect represent an establishment of a state religion.
There. Now it sort of makes sense.
To the contrary, however, the left’s beloved “separation of church and state” mantra originated not in the Constitution, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 (11 years after the First Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution) regarding their concerns that the Congregationalists may abuse their power to attain a favored position. Explicitly, Jefferson wrote: “[the] wall of separation between church and state…is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.”
The self-styled progressive elites have typically justified their anti-Christian bigotry by insinuating that religion must stay away from government, and any case in which it does not is an irrevocable step towards theocracy. Their interpretation of the language of the First Amendment demonstrates how little understanding they have of its actual implications.
By including the establishment clause in the Constitution, the framers were preventing the prospects of theocracy such as that which the Pilgrims purportedly fled from in England before settling on the North American shores. However, there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (emphasis added). What Jefferson was taking into account was the imperative necessity of our leaders and authorities to recognize their inferiority to the divine laws of the solar system and their subordinance to a Higher Power, so as not to confuse themselves with that Higher Power and in due course assume a despotic, tyrannical precedence.
The functionality of our democracy is contingent upon the Hobbesian doctrine that man is inherently corrupt and therefore in need of some degree of governmental supervision. The notion of human fallibility is quintessential of the Judeo-Christian doctrines with which our founders specifically harmonized their vision of a free republic. The acknowledgement of that fallible nature is what distinguishes our system from communism – a system which presupposes that man is basically good, and therefore capable of upholding and preserving a utopian, Edinic society. It distinguishes our system as well from that of monarchism and fascism, both of which presuppose that there is such a thing as Divine Right, or human infallibility; that it is possible for a human leader to take on a godlike authority over his people and govern them in a flawless manner. But because our system recognizes that there is no such thing as human infallibility, our branches of power are balanced, and our leaders are appointed through a democratic process by which the majority of citizens decide who gets to represent them, and for how long.
Secularist liberals tend to accuse Christians of seeing things too much in “black and white,” yet they themselves have adopted a black and white perspective by declining to consider the fact that not everything boils down to the two options of theocracy and secularism. A system of government that is religious in nature does not automatically take on the form of theocracy. It does not mean that its subjects must be coerced into submission to a certain designated religious faith. Whether or not we as individuals decide to subject ourselves to personal dependence on religion, we must recognize that our freedom to do so or not do so at our own will is dependent on our democratic system, and our democratic system is dependent on religion.
It is on account of this brand of narcissistic judicial hubris, this denial of subordinance to a Higher Law that an innocent woman was allowed to be inhumanly starved to death recently, that activist judges have been able to recklessly redefine the institution of marriage, and that an unremitting fetal holocaust has been sanctioned by the highest levels of government for 32 years and counting. The more we forget that we are “one nation under God,” the more we will become “one nation under the State.” If this becomes the case, then our rights will become conditional and susceptible to abuse, rather than God-given and immune to meddling. As many could argue, resting our rights solely on the state is like building a house on sand. (Note to liberals: Please pardon the biblical reference.)
Then it's not too late to come over to our side then, and help us form and explain positions that serve the views of the people as well as act as a bulwark against other kinds of tyranny that could encroach when people lose their faith in government and clamor for any possible solution...
A law that gives with one hand, takes away with the other. Explain to me why any kind of strict scrutiny is justified since Lawrence, considering there were no laws on the book discriminating against homosexuals, sans actions that may have resulted from their nature.
Then it's not too late to come over to our side then, and help us form and explain positions that serve the views of the people as well as act as a bulwark against other kinds of tyranny that could encroach when people lose their faith in government and clamor for any possible solution...
Thanks, I think I'll stay libertarian. The prospect that people might lose their faith in government isn't one I find especially worrisome. (Or likely.)
As for forming and explaining positions, I doubt that FR is the place for me to do that. This isn't my sort of conservatism.
You made a post endorsing the legalization of gay marriage as a policy matter?
Thanks for the reply.. I agree with alot of your positions.
Are you dense?
That's what I said. If you don't want the decision to come from a state court either, this is the first time you've suggested as much in this thread.
Never mind, you are dense.
Thank You Judge Roy Moore for standing up to the insane liberal goons.
Others of us are arguing from either a position of natural law, or one in which natural law takes precedence over the authority of our positivist sovereignty.
Samuel Adams referred to natural law as being the source of our rights in his famous Rights of the Colonists speech to the Boston town meeting in 1772. Our Declaration of Independence refers to the laws of nature and nature's God. I would suggest that it will be possible to make an excellent case for proving the intent of our founding fathers to establish natural law as our fundamental system for determining the "correctness" or "merit" of laws.
So long as America is free, and Americans recognize that our rights come from outside the state, from something on a higher plane than ours, something far more eternal than our corruptible opinions and preferences, then we will recognize that mankind is not free to establish sovereigns to determine the laws that rule us. We will not first look to human "progress" or today's "social conscience" fad for arbitration on law. Nature informs us that one man and one woman unite to conceive, bear, nurture, and educate children as a couple. No artificially construed "right" exists outside this simple, observable process. No earthly sovereign can undo that natural fact. Therefore, we are not obligated as citizens to support other arrangements. That this would violate their natural expectations of the system of marriage would be a violation of Locke's agreement of consensual government between citizens and their state.
OhioAttorney seems to have run away, if we are to believe it's homepage.
I was hoping to get some kind of answer to my post #622, but alas, it was not to be.
I do not think natural law, especially the strain reflected in the laws of the first 13 states, would allow or intend to include homosexuality as a 'natural' right. The population almost unanimously considered it an abomination, and very 'unnatural'.
But the question is, have we as a society "progressed" to see it differently since the founding? If we have, enacting into the law of the land would be appropriate. If we have not, is it the place of our government to push us in that direction? "Legal positivism" would argue that yes, that is what our government via our laws should do.
The law is what it is. It is sometimes counterproductive, unfair and immoral, or just plain dumb. It should be obeyed absent very compelling circumstances, with the law breakers prepared to take the consequences. The idea that one should be free to break the law if such laws violate "natural law," is dangerous. Natural law is in the eye of the beholder. Your positing of what is the natural law when it comes to marriage laws in a case in point. You call something natural law, that is really just your a priori assumption that marriage should be about procreation. My mileage differs. It is a term that seems to be used as an attempted trump card to stifle debate and exposure of a priori assumptions.
I am also not comfortable with messing with the federal judiciary, with terms limits and the like, and would oppose that. The system will balance out in time, as it is now, with the judicial appointment mechanism now so politicized. Scalia pointed that out again in a discussion with Breyer and O'Connor, as one of the great costs of judicial overreach. The latter two had nothing to say. They knew he was right. In time, that will act as a check on the judiciary. I think thus, that the food fights about judicial nominations are just what the doctor ordered. It enhances the attention to the issue in the public square.
It is up to the public square and the legislature to be the prime source of suffusing morality into the law, to make the laws just, but the public square has the right to enact unjust laws, and it should be rather rare to strike them down as unconstitutional, if they are not about process; ie, about making debate and the exercise of power in the public square fair. Thus I am a judicial activist on process, issues, such as one man, one vote, voting rights, potentially even redistricting if some useful standard could be fashioned (which I doubt), and the like.
So given all of the above, which I think is rather mainstream fare in the legal guild, what box do I fit in? I would suggest none of the above, which brings us full circle. The boxes are not helpful.
Since Ohio attorney is gone, California attorney will fill in. There was a law discriminating against homosexuals in practice, because homosexuals engage in sodomy. To separate one from the other, is disingenuous. I am not sure the fact that a law is unenforced in practice, is a reason not to vet its constitutionality. The decision, if not the reasoning, in Lawrence, was surely right, given that Roe is on the books. As long as Roe is on the books, it would be a legal absurdity not to have the result in Lawrence. Private sex acts are surely more private, than abortions effected in hospitals.
I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of Lawrence. It's on the books, so it it the law of the land.
In light of Lawrence, is it possible for anyone to argue in favor of homosexuals be given specially protected class status. If it can, what would be the basis?
I agree, but I support rules change in the Senate. The "polite" fillibuster should be tossed out on it's ear. Let the debate there begin!
I don't like protected classes, beyond race, which was what the 14th amendment was about. The equal protection clause beyond that really gives SCOTUS license to "pass" any laws it wants. Granted, sometimes they call it privacy, sometimes liberty, sometimes substantive due process, sometimes equal protection. They are just meaningless labels frankly, with the sartorial choice of which is trotted out for a given decision more a function of the aesthetic taste of the justices for what costume to clothe it in, than anything more substantive, all leading to the same thing - the judicial enactment of legislation, near impossible to repeal because it is garbed in the US Constitution. The least we can do is shut down the states from doing it; thus my tagline.
D'accord with that. Absolutely. It is THE issue, of the most importance now pending in the public square. Given the array of available costumes now available in the closet for the judiciary to wear, majority rule on who gets to choose is absolutely essential. We elect legislators by majority vote, and with the third branch of government now in the law making business, that standard must be applied to them.
I agree. I have no problem with a genuine filibuster -- even of judges. It's a way to call attention to a flawed bill or nominee. But if the filibuster takes place, I believe (1) all Senate activity must cease and (2) they actually have to debate continuously on the floor. With 40 Senators, this is not too onerous a burden. It really was never meant to kill legislation anyway. It's a delaying tactic primarily.
It most certainly was. Just ask Sheets. I think the rest of the segregationist senators are now dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.