[Kerberos]

Ping

[Cindy]

"ARE THEY FOR US OR AGAINST US?" (Updated Daily - Click Here.)

[StonyBurk]

The Liars of Americans United may lead silly women astray
but the foundation for our Law and our Republican system of
government is the Bible/ Christianity.And as demonstrated in the first history of the United States --and as James
Wilson taught ;"Human Law must rest its' authority,ultimately ,upon the authority of that Law which is divine."There is ample evidence to suggest Roy Moores'
suppporters are right. Oh and the transcripts of the little
Inquisition of Roy Moore clearly prove Bill Pryor wanted it
clear it was about "acknowledgment of God"

[Ophiucus]

Ah yes, another attempt at secular revisionism. I came across a couple interesting tidbits this weekend.

"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.

[Sockdologer]

Ker, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my posts rather
than pinging me to new "articles."

If you can defend your position, by all means, do.
But simply posting up a lot of material doesn't prove your
point.

If you're here to discuss and debate, I'll be happy to engage you - but if all you want is attention - join a cheerleading squad.

[Ahban]

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.

I am in favor of “religious neutrality”. True religious neutrality means there is no coercion by the state- in either direction. Officials should not be coerced to acknowledge God, nor should they face coercion to silence His acknowledgement. That is balanced; that is fair; that is what takes government out of the church police business. Right now the Supreme Court of the United States is in the Church Police business- and we want them out of it.

We don’t want a false faith imposed on the people from above. Nor do we want it stifled from above. We simply want justice. We want the Constitution of the United States to be respected rather than twisted – twisted beyond all recognition.

Some people think this is about a piece of rock now in a closet of an Alabama court house. They are also mistaken. That is just a symbol. It is the philosophy behind the removal of that symbol that should concern every citizen. The judges in this nation have told us that, “the state cannot acknowledge God”. THAT is the issue.

There are two radical and opposite concepts of faith and government, each of which will destroy a country, and then there is the middle ground. Our ideas, which have preserved and nurtured this nation, are that middle ground.

The first extreme is that only one belief system is true, so government demands its officials (and sometimes citizens) practice that and nothing else. This radical idea is held by the Taliban. This idea blatantly destroys liberty, and it is the enemy of Christianity. There is no such thing as imposed Christianity. So that’s one extreme.

The other extreme is that government officials are prevented by the state from acknowledging God all. It is based on radical secularism- one God is just as good as another, that is to say, they are all equally irrelevant. Such thinking cannot acknowledge that Mother Teresa’s Catholicism is better and truer than Satanism. Besides being radical and extreme, this philosophy has one more drawback – its just plain stupid. Worse than that, this idea also destroys liberty, not openly, like the Taliban, but subtly. By denying all Gods, it ultimately makes the state out to be god.

Those are the two radical ideas, but there is a third concept of faith and government, one that has been shown to preserve liberty. Its one that allows us to use our common sense and say it’s OK to admit that Mother Teresa’s God is better than Marilyn Manson’s. It’s the position of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson in the main, George Washington, and me right here. Here is the middle ground: Though the state should have no official religion, State officials can acknowledge God - but cannot impose His reverence on any citizen.

This is really not that difficult. There is a difference between a public official acknowledging God and a public official imposing God’s worship on others. That is the middle ground of liberty, and on that ground we stand. By the grace of God, we shall not be moved.

Amazing isn’t it, how some people try to say we are the extremists? Actually we are balanced on the middle ground between religious and secular extremism.

Let me make it plain for them. We have religious extremism, secular extremism, and balance. Religious extremism = government using force to demand its officials and people acknowledge a god. Secular extremism = government using force to prevent its officials and people are from acknowledging God. Balance = officials are allowed to acknowledge God, but no one has to.

Which of those ideas is not extreme? Hint; it’s the one that gets the government out of using force to either establish or prevent religious exercise. We are not the extremists. We are in the middle and the Taliban represents one group of extremists, and unfortunately our Federal courts are at the other extreme. What kind of muddled thinking could possibly conclude that we are the extremists here? We are the ones out to STOP the extremists, on both sides.

It’s really this simple, which of these three words should be in the middle, Demand, Prevent, or Allow? Even a child can see that to allow something to occur is maximizing freedom, and that to demand that something occur is one extreme and to prevent something from occurring is the other extreme. Christians are in the middle, secular and religious extremists oppose us and the middle ground of Liberty. The Taliban wants to demand, the courts want to prevent, and the Christians want to allow.

[Ophiucus]

Got another one for you. Federal District Judge Myron Thompson in ruling against More also stated that his ruling did not invalidate ALL decalogues and included the Supreme Court sculptures AS decalogues, meaning that the tablets are the Ten Commandments and not the Bill of Rights.

[TigersEye]

This article is unreasoned, unsupported garbage.

Let's go back to your last thread. You have yet to acknowledge, with reason and honesty, the challenges given you there.

[garybob]

Ping

[Byron_the_Aussie]

Hey Kerby,

you don't have the guts to answer my posts, but you can ping me to one of your articles? What a cheek. PS here's Washington's view on your 'separation of church and state' guff:

[Protagoras]

Common sense opinion on a flash point issue.

[hosepipe]

[ We all got a glimpse of what a Religious Right-dominated America would look like in Montgomery recently. Our challenge is to make sure it never comes to pass. ]

Since the religious right is about only the thing on the right these days... and since the entire republican party is mostly left of center.... I'll have go with 'em... not haveing a relgious bone in my body... anything left of center has treason at its heart.. being a radical as I am... a radical change from the status quo. is the only solution to what ails "us".