Posted on 11/23/2003 3:33:43 PM PST by Kerberos
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" Thomas Jefferson
He was also visionary when he wrote: "The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape as they please." The Constitution was not to be a malleable object to suffer the changing whims of populism.
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We haved staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the ten commandments." James Madison
Ben Franklin called for each session of the Constitutional Convention to be begun by prayer so that God could them through such momentous events. He also requested that each assembly of Congress be started the same.
The point - a state religion was to be avoided but guidance from religion was necessary for good government, as well as recognition of our Judeo-Christian roots in our government and laws.
Now, was Judge Moore wrong in his refusal to remove the statue. Yes. He was duty bound to follow the writ of the higher court, even if it was wrong.
Was placing the statuary of the Ten Commandments in the courtroom wrong? Not at all. Many court buildings from the beginning of our history have had similar statues. Some now even include Jewish and Muslim religious art works. U.S. law does stem from the Ten Commandments to Roman law to English Law to Colonial Law. The Ten Commandments in a court building is an example of the history of law.
Side note: Somehow people like yourself protest the Ten Commandments but not the Koran or Torah.
The revisionism of the Supreme Court sculpture is an intriguing attack that has cropped up from the Left recently. They had been described that:
"The sculpture over the east portico of the building is entitled: JUSTICE THE GUARDIAN OF LIBERTY. Moses is the central figure holding the two tablets of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, one in either hand, stark reminder of the origin and basis of our legal system."(Millard, The Rewriting of America's History)
But while the artists usually agree that the figure is Moses, suddenly the two tablets with the I through X numbering has been changed from the tablets that Moses carried to a 'representation of the Bill of Rights.'
Of course, the 1975 official U.S. Supreme Court Handbook, prepared under the direction of Mark Cannon, Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice, states: “Directly above the Bench are two central figures, depicting Majesty of the Law and Power of Government. Between them is a tableau of the Ten Commandments…” and “To the right of visitors is a procession of historical lawgivers of the pre-Christian era:…” and “To the left are historical lawgivers of the Christian era…” (evidence for Millard's position).
However, this description was removed in 1988 in response to p.c. pressure, giving Lefties an excuse to say look, the Curator does even include the Ten Commandments. It was there - but was censored by a secularist Left. In 1999, the censorship was covered with the brand new magic inclusion that they represented the Bill of Rights.
Inside the chamber is another sculpture that:
"depicts "The Power of Government" and "The Majesty of the Law." Between these two allegorical figures, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS stand out in a position of prominence. The seated figure representing "The Power of Government" has his elbow squarely resting upon God's Ten Commandments, showing from whence our power is derived."(Millard)
Again, the tablets have been magically transformed into the Bill of Rights. Years ago when I was there, the guide said they were the Commandments...go figure. The description was excised and then covered up at the same time as the previous example.
But wait - it gets better: The two tablets with just the Roman numerals is a common Christian religious architecute and art symbol. The Library of Congress has pictures of identical tablets with Roman numerals in many historic churches.
From the Oscar S. Stauss Memorial, Washington, D.C. (by Adolph Weinman - sound familar?)
Weinman's own meaning is: "The grouping represents Justice, portraying Religious Freedom. A reclining, draped damsel leans upon a tablet containing the Ten Commandments in Roman numerals. Her hands are clasped in prayer."
The inscription reads:
"Our Liberty of Worship Is not a Concession Nor a Privilege But an Inherent Right"
The tablet looks exactly the same as at the Supreme Court!
Similar examples can be found in the architecture of the Library of Congress and the National Archives - All described as the Ten Commandments. Besides, there is a second scuplture inside the Supreme Court building that is nothing but Moses and the Ten Commandments.
Uh oh...his posted article or my response?
I'm guessing the article but I just wanted to make sure. :-)
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We haved staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the ten commandments." James MadisonMadison never said that. It was apparently invented for an inspirational calendar in the late 1950s and attributed to Madison. David Barton picked it up and spread it all over the place as part of his "America's Godly Heritage" presentation. Madison scholars found it to be completely inconsistent with his other writings and asked for a source.
As a result, Barton had to admit that several of the quotations that he had used could not be confirmed.
-Eric
Some people think this is about cramming religion down other people’s throats. They are wrong, for a government that prevents acknowledgment of God is just as coercive as one that demands His acknowledgment. What is best, and what history shows the founders wanted, is a government neither prevents nor demands, but does allow, its officials to acknowledge God Almighty.Ours does. It protects the right of all officials to free religious expression on a personal level. Justices and Presidents may attend religious services, and many do. They may even preach their faith at them.
What they may not do is endorse or support specific religious viewpoints in their official status. That is not "free expression", but Establishment.
-Eric
Similar examples can be found in the architecture of the Library of Congress and the National Archives - All described as the Ten Commandments. Besides, there is a second scuplture inside the Supreme Court building that is nothing but Moses and the Ten Commandments.There's also one of Mohammed.
-Eric
Let's go back to your last thread. You have yet to acknowledge, with reason and honesty, the challenges given you there.
"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson
(wasn't he the 'deist' who didn't believe in the metaphysical aspects of Jesus life? Thought so.)
"Resistance to tyranny is resistance to tyranny." TigersEye
Judge Moore lost his job because he wouldn't say what he was told to say; or not say as the case may be. Judge Moore was neither accused nor convicted of violating any law prior to the hearing that removed him from his seat as Chief Justice. How could he have? Congress has, rightly, made no law prohibiting the acknowledgment of God by any citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court itself opens every session with an acknowledgment of God.
I read over the link you provided - interesting. Problem is, nothing was mentioned about it being "invented." It did say it was unconfirmed in a primary source but in character of Madison. I noticed that the 'unconfirmed' quote from Sam Adams had been updated to 'confirmed' so maybe in time, this quote can be found or disproven.
Originally, I saw the quote in a secondary source, lost it, then saw it again in an O'Reilly column attributing it to a letter between Madison and Jefferson. Maybe we should ask O'Reilly which one.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it make any distinction between public and private, personal and official respecting freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
Article. VI.The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
What they may not do is endorse or support specific religious viewpoints in their official status. That is not "free expression", but Establishment.
How is it establishment? Endorsment or support of an existing viewpoint hasn't created the view so it isn't establishing it. It doesn't make a law requiring reverence or adherence to a viewpoint so it isn't coercive and therefore establishes no government authority respecting the viewpoint. It doesn't effect the source of the viewpoint so it is neutral respecting a previous or private establishment of religion.
Endorsement and/or support without the means to coerce either acceptance or rejection of a religious view is nothing more than expression. The only means government has to rightly coerce anyone in anything is by the law and there are no laws requiring acceptance or rejection of any religious view. Only Congress can make laws and Congress is expressly prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of religion.
To prohibit acknowledgment of God in any forum is to make law respecting an establishment of religion. As far as Judge Moore goes he set no precedent on behalf of government in terms of acknowledging God as a higher authority than government. The Declaration of Independence itself does that.
The Declaration of IndependenceWe 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...
There it is in black and white: the source of our Rights is our Creator. Define Him/her/it as you will they don't come from men or government. Now here are some of the Rights that it refers to:
Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where is there any possible inference of the meaning of the word 'establishment' in the simple acknowledgment of God by prayer, picture display or by display of a monument? 'Express' and 'establish' are not synonyms and mean very different things unless the meaning of 'is' isn't is anymore.
It was apparently invented for an inspirational calendar in the late 1950s and attributed to Madison
This is untrue. Barton when challenged by critic Barry Hankins was able to show that the quote not only was older than himself but had been in "circulation for generations" and was attributable to an older, non-modern historical text.
As a result, Barton had to admit that several of the quotations that he had used could not be confirmed.
Not true. Barton wrote a second book, as he put it "to raise the bar" and use legal "best evidence." Best evidence goes to primary sources. His previous work with over 750 footnotes had been based on historical texts of the late 1700's through the late 1800's. The second book, 1400 footnotes, used only primary sources and only 14 of the previous quotes, used in much earlier historical works, could not be confirmed in a primary source.
This all happened before the 'Madison scholars' criticized the Madison quote.
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.