Posted on 06/30/2015 9:44:29 AM PDT by GIdget2004
How does a stone monument of anything establish a religion or create a law?
The last laugh belongs to the God they hold in derision. (Psalm 2) Unfortunately I live and raise my children in this land that has been blessed like no other, by the providentially blessings of the very God that the court seems intent on stirring up His wrath. We once were a house built on the rock, but we have chosen to change foundations and are now a house built on the sand - great will be our fall when the storms arise. (Matt 7:26-27)
The courts are leading the revolution; they now assume the philosophy of dialectic materialism. May God have mercy on His children and strengthen us for the day of battle and the coming persecution. Our faith well be tested, but we know that testing reveals the genuine faith that is more precious than gold (1 Peter 1:7).
I suppose if the wording were to be changed in the state constitution then the Satanic monument would be allowed on government property, on some crap notion of historic privilege.
No. We've lost America. We're witnessing history. America has long been the sole source of protection for persecuted causes around the world. These fools have no idea what's in store. No idea.
I imagine it will be like those filthy baby boomers who were protesting our involvement in Vietnam. Then they got their wish and we pulled out.
When Joan Baez and the rest of her ilk saw what the communists were doing throughout SE Asia, now that the Americans were gone, they wanted us to return to help those poor people.
How are they going to feel when they are the ones who need to be rescued? There won't be anybody left to rescue them.
Like I said, we're witnessing history.
How on Earth did they prove that a “benefit” to a religion resulted from the presence of the monument?
It was given to the Jews first, passed down to us through the Jewish carpenter who gave his earthly life that all who accept his sacrifice might be saved. The Star of David is appropriate.
In Exodus 34: 10-26 there appear to be an entirely different set of commandments. The version in Deuteronomy differs in some of the verbage from the version in Exodus 20. And Catholics follow a version different from Protestants and Jews. The version on the monument is the Protestant version.
That Book of Matthew passage is so on the money....
I thought things could be unconstitutional only if the constitution says nothing at all about them.
“There won’t be anybody left to rescue them.”
There will be many of us left to rescue them, but WE WON’T BOTHER to lift a single finger....except to flip them off or to squeeze the trigger.
The Ten Commandments monument will be replaced by carvings of phalli surrounding a giant statue of Baal. The courts will declare it a valid expression of some minority so it will never be taken down. Everyone passing by it will be forced to kneel to it. Diversity will enforced for the good of the people!
Its a living, breathing monument. Well the words at least are alive.
"For wherever tyranny is established immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent. It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. For they cannot live in a country where virtue and knowledge prevail. The religion and public liberty of a people are intimately connected; their interests are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; therefore they rise and fall together. For this reason, it is always observable, that those who are combined to destroy the people's liberties, practice every art to poison their morals. How greatly then does it concern us, at all events, to put a stop to the progress of tyranny." -- Samuel Adams "It is high Time for the people of this country to declare, whether they will be freemen or slaves? It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns us more that anything in this life. The Salvation of our souls is interested in this event."
”… prompting complaints that it violated the U.S. Constitution's provisions against government establishment of religion, as well as local laws."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The above statement completely overlooks the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers as the Founders had intended for those powers to be understood where 1st Amendment-protected religious expression is concerned.
More specifically, regardless what FDR’s activist justices wanted everybody to believe about “atheist” Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation,” the real Thomas Jefferson had clarified the following about our 1st Amendment-protected freedoms. The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment in part to clarify that the states had reserved government power to address religious issues uniquely to themselves, regardless that had made the 1st Amendment to prohibit such powers entirely to Congress.
“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed [emphasis added]; …” — Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798 .
Note that 10th Amendment-protected power to address religious issues gives the states the power to do things like put Ten Commandment monuments on state property.
So what happened to 10th Amendment-protected state power to address religious issues? The bottom line is that FDR’s justices wrongly ignored that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment clarifies that the states have to respect only the personal privileges and immunities which the states amended the Constitution to expressly protect, FDR’s activist justices wrongly arguing that the 14th Amendment also applies the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of specific powers of Congress to the states.
But also consider that if the 14th Amendment’s language that the states obligated themselves to respect constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities wasn’t clear enough for FDR’s thug justices, they also ignored that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had officially clarified in the congressional record that the 14th Amendment took away no state rights.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
“No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
So the reasonably clear language in the 14th Amendment’s Section 1 about privileges and immunities, along with Bingham’s official clarification that 14A did not take away state’s rights, means that the states still have the 10th Amendment-protected power to address religious issues that Jefferson had indicated that they have, such power now reasonably limited by honest interpretations of the 14A, as opposed to the way that anti-religious expression activist justices have officially interpreted it.
But with all due respect to state justices, it remains that since the Constitution is no longer being taught as the Founding States had intended for it to be understood, — if it ever was, — low-information citizens and their states are unable to defend their 1st Amendment protected right of religious expression from activist state justices. And I’m inclined to regard inexcusably widespread ignorance of things like the 14th Amendment as worse than the misguided, institutionally-indoctrinated “thinking" of low-information state justices.
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.