CPAC 2004: ALAN KEYES' SPEECH

FLOYD BROWN, INTRODUCTION: Well, when you look at the landscape, the political landscape in America, every once in a while, men of principle come along--and this morning's speaker is one of those men of principle.

In the mold of Ronald Reagan, and other key conservatives that have been consistent and upheld to their principles, our speaker is probably one of the most powerful advocates for the life of the unborn, he's one of the most powerful advocates for true conservative principles. You see him on television, you hear him on the radio, he now is currently writing a book, and he has a wonderful website--he's got Declaration.com, I believe [Declaration.net], and then RenewAmerica.us.

He is a genuine conservative. He's worked in the movement, he worked in the Reagan administration in the State Department, he has been an ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, he's worked in the movement, having been president of Citizens Against Government Waste, and a founder of the National Taxpayers' Action Day. He's been a two-time candidate to U.S. Senate, he's been a candidate for the presidency.

But I think the reason we here at CPAC have an extraordinary opportunity today is because he is a man of conviction, he is a man of principle, and when you listen to him, you are hearing pure, unadulterated truth. Let me introduce Ambassador Alan Keyes.

I do have to wonder, as a lot of people do from time to time, what that means--but I know for certain that I am a Christian, I know for certain that I am an American, and I like to think that I am a conservative.

It's the latter that I'd like to talk to you about today, because I think we're having to be more and more careful, and if we don't start being more careful soon, then we shall have to find a new way to describe people like myself.

I look over the events of the past year or so, and I've got to tell you: I think that there are signs on the horizon that if folks who call themselves conservatives don't wake up and speak up and act up soon, the title "conservative" will mean nothing in our politics!

There was a time when you said "conservative," and you knew what you meant. You said "conservative," and you understood that that would be somebody who understood the real meaning of self-government, and who stood against the consolidation of power in the hands of an all-powerful government.

There was a time when you said those words, and you understood that you were speaking of someone who respected the ability of people to care for themselves and demanded that a tax structure exist that would respect their right to earn and use the money that they labored so hard for.

There was a time, especially, when you knew for sure that you were speaking of somebody who understood the relationship between self-government and self-discipline, and who knew that we could not survive as a free people if we did not have strong hearts, strong families, and a strong commitment to do the will of God.

But I think these days we're allowing ourselves to see that label drift into the hands of folks who have no understanding, no concern about what it really ought to mean.

He dared to describe [Sen. John] Edwards and [Sen. Joseph] Lieberman with the term "conservative."

Well, I understand that reaction, but come along. I look over the past year, and what do I see? I see the spectacle of groups and organizations, of individuals who have posed for the longest time as the articulators and champions of the conservative philosophy, and they dared to stand before the American people and tell us that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a conservative!

So, if you think O'Reilly made a mistake, he was exampled in that mistake by folks who should have known better.

How long do you think that this movement's going to survive as a viable cause, when we pretend to know what we believe, but are willing to sacrifice and betray on the alter of political expediency those who have dedicated heart and life throughout their careers to a consistent championing of the conservative cause?

I listened to the sick arguments that were made by individuals of all varieties, some of whom have built their very careers on their supposed commitment to conservatism--and there we saw it in California. What was that race? It was a situation that I think was, in some ways, handed to the conservative movement by the providence of God, almost as if He said, "OK, here's your chance. Let's see who you really are." See?

I have heard the arguments. A matter of fact, I, sadly, have been the victim of those arguments from time to time. You know, "Well, we gotta win, and so-and-so can't win, and therefore it's the lesser of evils. We gotta vote for the lesser of evils"--forgetting, as we often want to do, that the lesser of evils is evil still; that, at the end of the day, you keep voting for the lesser of evils, and you will find yourself lost in evil with no way to get back!

But was that the case in California? A failed liberal governor going down in flames. An effort that had been put together over the opposition of many of the so-called liberals and moderates who bear the "Republican" label, to recall him on account of his failures to the people of California--and when that effort succeeded on the strength of popular revulsion against his liberalism, a situation was created where, first, they thought they were going to destroy it by putting lots of candidates in the race, but then somebody must have realized that that meant that the race was going to go to the person who got the strongest plurality.

Now, I know that there are some people who may forget it from time to time, but it is still the case in many situations in America, including California, that when you control all other factors, and you get into a situation like that, the people who are most committed to those things that they believe are most likely to constitute that winning plurality, that's the time when, regardless of labels, when, regardless of phony arguments, you see your chance to pursue a path of principle, and you look around for somebody who, in their career and in their abilities, will articulate those principles in a way that will rally the choir to sing from the same page on election day.

I found it interesting that we moved through that race, and Tom McClintock was doing his job, and just as he got to the point where he was breathing down the neck--Schwarzenegger stalled, he was moving up--it was at that point that certain people started to twist arms and pound the table and tell the lies, to make sure that the conservative heart would not rally 'round the conservative candidate!

Now, I'm having to tell you: if conservatism can't find itself in that situation, then, my friends, you've got to start fearing that it never shall.

If so-called conservative groups are willing to stand behind those who openly and gleefully spit upon the positions that must lie at the heart and soul of the conservative cause, then conservatism means nothing, and it will go nowhere, and we'll have to start again with a new label that better reflects the heart of our beliefs.

But I'm not ready to give up on it. I think we ought to fight for it--and the first way we fight for it is we're going to have to start challenging people, whether it's O'Reilly or any others, we're going to have to start challenging them openly and without any shame when they start to apply the conservative label to those who betray, in their policies and their statements, those things that correspond in truth to the conservative cause!

And yes, I'm a Republican, too. But I'll tell you one thing: just as I will not sacrifice my faith to a partisan label, nor shall I sacrifice my political creed to the arguments that are subservient to the single-minded pursuit of partisan political power.

It is time we understood that for the sake of this nation, for the sake of its freedom, for the sake of its self-government, for the sake of its moral heart and families, we must stand first as conservatives before the people of America, and demand from every party in this nation that they commit themselves in fact to those things that will serve constitutional government and real liberty!

Now, I know that there are folks who are going to come before you, and they're going to tell you, "Well, my friend, forget all that, because we gotta win, and you gotta rally behind this and that. You gotta choke down your beliefs, put aside your principles. Just get in there, hold your nose, pull the lever, don't worry about what you think."

You know, there was a time in American when politicians understood that when you get into a situation where this policy and that policy and the other policy have offended those who, though their support, put you were you are, you understood they don't put side their beliefs, you put aside your abhorrent policies before you ask again for their support!

But no. We are allowing ourselves to be talked to and talked about as if we are the pawns of partisanship, when we ought to be the soldiers of principle.

Decide who you are! Decide what you will stand for--because, if you'll stand for all of this, then in the end this nation will fall.

Now, I don't want to pretend that this year was without, though, its encouragements--but they were encouragements in a way, this one I think of, that encouraged me as Calvary encourages me, when one sees the perfect sacrifice of goodness on the altar of truth.

For, just as Tom McClintock was abandoned by so-called conservatives, though he stood foursquare where we claim conservatives ought to stand, so there was one man in this country who refused to abandon his true conservative and constitutional principles, though in terms of career and power and standing it cost him everything he had--and that man was Judge Roy Moore of Alabama.

Now, there was one for you. In the so-called trial, after which his treacherous colleagues removed him from the chief justiceship, Bill Pryor--and I won't go into that. Will you go into that? I'd like to go into that, but I'll just mention it. I want you to see this role, see? Because when Christ was brought before the Sanhedrin, there was somebody there to question Him and ask Him the questions through which they hoped that somehow they would justify their destruction of His life. And I don't know what his name was in Hebrew or in Aramaic, but I think in English it was Bill Pryor.

Yes. Anyway, in that trial, there was Bill Pryor, asking Judge Moore the question. What was the key question of that trial? All of [unitelligible] don't understand. Do you know what the key question was?

The key question was, "Mr. Chief Justice, if you are allowed to continue in office, will you insist in that office upon your right to acknowledge God?" and the Chief Justice responded, "Yes, I will."

And then they asked him again, Bill Pryor asked him asked him again, "As Chief Justice--I just want to be clear--if you are continued in this office, will you insist upon your right to acknowledge God?" and the second time, he said, "Yes, I will."

And he asked him again a third time, "Will you insist upon your right to acknowledge God?" and he said, "Yes, I will."

And in that moment, he did what even Peter could not find it in himself to do! Three times he was asked to betray his faith and God, and three times he refused--though it cost him all he had.

Do you know when I will believe that the conservative movement in this country has once again found the courage and the heart and the integrity to stand forward, as Ronald Reagan did, and pull it back from the precipice of its loss of liberty and destruction? I'll believe it when every one of you, when everyone who dares to wear the conservative label will stand as Judge Roy Moore did and risk losing everything before they will betray the principles of their faith and their conservative creed!

And I know there are so-called "conservatives" out there who want to confuse us all with the notion that "oh, no, no, Alan, you're wrong; Judge Roy Moore was breaking the law. Judge Roy Moore can't be supported. We're conservative, we respect the law."

I do respect the law. I respect it deeply. That's why, when I see a judge like Myron Thompson, telling a state official that he must do what the Constitution of the United States makes clear he as an official has the perfect right to do, when I see that judge basing his judgment on a simple and clear and pure fabrication that has nothing to do with the Constitution or the law, then I say to you that we have done, if we've called that the rule of law, what all the founders and all the statesmen in our history understood we should never do: we have substituted the arbitrary rule of men for the rule of law!

There is a difference! There is a difference between constitutional government and judicial dictatorship, and I think it's time we remembered that our Constitution was not put together in order to establish the sovereignty of the judges, it was framed in order to guarantee the sovereignty of the people.

And with respect to the judiciary, they were very careful. There was a reason why that phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," was the first phrase in the Bill of Rights--and I hope that we'll some day come to understand what it really means. It means what it says. What it says is, there can be no federal law that deals with the subject of religious establishment. What it means, therefore, is that if you're sitting on the federal bench, you've got no lawful basis for addressing or interfering with this issue.

But no, no. [Some say,] "Alan, it's in the Constitution!" Well, as I recall, it's that very phrase they use in the Constitution to usurp their authority. So, frankly, the separation of church and state and this mythology they talk about--scour the document, you'll find it nowhere in there. What you will find is a clear statement in the First Amendment that this power is withheld from the federal government, and a clear statement in the Tenth Amendment that "all those powers not given to the federal government, or prohibited in the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people."

Judge Roy Moore did what the people of Alabama elected him to do, and what, under our Constitution, he had the perfect right to do!

When shall we stop calling ourselves conservatives, and start acting like people who understand what it means?

When? Well, we'll do it on the day when Tom McClintock and people like him stand up and find all of those who wear the label rallying 'round the cause! We'll understand it when we find folks standing next to Judge Roy Moore, standing next to those who are willing to look the tyranny in the face, to look the destruction of our Constitution in the face, and do what previous generations of patriots were willing to do: say no to that which destroys the foundations of our liberty.

We have come to that time, my friends, that crisis in which nothing can any longer be taken for granted. The moral basis of our society is being assaulted and destroyed, and the chief instrument of that destruction is the abusive power of the courts. We must break that power, or they will destroy our way of life.

This is all of the message that I wanted to leave with you today--see, because I think there are times when words are not sufficient. The only thing that's sufficient is the deed. Tom McClintock was the deed. Roy Moore was the deed.

Do you want to know and think about, in the course of your gathering here, the real meaning of conservatism? Then know and think about the meaning of their struggle, of their example, of their cause, of their lives, and decide who you shall be.

And if you shall be like them, if you shall stand alone with principle as your only companion, if you shall stand alone with faith as your only foundation, if you are willing to stand alone with only your commitment to America and its principles and its heart as your consolation, then you shall be conservatives again--and in that integrity, you shall be the hope of America.

http://www.onlinearchive.org/article.php? sid=589

Bush's compassionate conservatism reminds me of the communist phrase,"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." His December 13, 2003, Saturday, signing of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (part of Patriot II ) which drastically expands FBI powers to secretly snoop into the business and financial transactions of American citizens, without a court order and his support of the Assault Weapons Ban, are two of the many incremental and necessary steps toward a police state. His signature on The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is most revealing when compared to The Virginia Declaration of Rights, parts of which Jefferson used for the Declaration of Independence,"That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments." [27] The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 greatly pleased Ted Kennedy, the National Educational Association, and anyone else who is enthused with the anti-Christian, anti-American, globalist, tree hugging, rock kissing propaganda shoved down the throats of unsuspecting children; not to mention the promotion of sexual anarchy by the sodomites and their advocates, or the monkey-to-man evolution, contrary to Jefferson's"endowed by their CREATOR." The Medicare prescription drug bill will enslave more to government than the white and black slave masters did on their plantations. The illegal alien amnesty plan promotes blatant disregard for the law and promotes the goals of the transnationalists who seek to further dilute the remnant notions of limited government and self-government, by designating immigrant groups as oppressed victims who are entitled to all the benefits of a welfare state, without the requirement to assimilate their benefactors tenets of responsible citizenship.

The difference between Mr.Bush and his Democratic opponent is not a difference in kind, but one of degree. Mr.Bush looks to the right for support, speaks to the center and governs increasingly to the left. Democrats have been saying for years, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party; the Democrats left me," as they found their way into the Big Tent of the GOP, which sacrifices principal after principal to remain in power. If Democrats can tread water long enough to keep from drowning in the river of denial and grab a life line from the Big Tent; can't those who have voted Republican just to defeat a democrat, grab hold of an Independent before being swept down the river of no return.

All who have been abandoned by the GOP must find an Independent Party. Michael Anthony Peroutka [28]is seeking the Presidential nomination of the Constitution Party. His themes are "God-Family-Republic," and, unlike Mr. Bush, he wants to restore our original representative Constitutional republic. The American Patriot Party and the America First Party have similar objectives, but were started after the last Presidential election and may not have a Presidential candidate ready for November.

Mr.Bush and his RNC tacitly apporove of the Naziesque federal judicary inducement of the American abortion holocaust; equating the unconsitiutional opinion of seven modern day Herods with "settled law." The RNC is too busy spending like drunken sailors[29] to force the federal judiciary into compliance with the U.S. Constitution, by using the tools of impeachment, jurisdiction restriction, and appointment.[30 ] Jefferson indicts your inexcusable feebleness: "It will be said, that [a federal] court may encroach on the jurisdiction of the State courts. It may. But there will be a power, to wit, Congress, to watch and restrain them."[31] Most democrats are socialist/communist/globalists. When you have to vote for those who tacitly approve of a Nazi judicary just to defeat the party of Stalin - what in the name of a Jeffersonian Right-to-Life Republic have you accomplished?

A GOP Presidency and Congress provide no incentive for either of those two branches to check/balance the other, as they inflate their Big Tent to accomodate the humps and rumps of every strange camel whose nose has been sniffing the entitlements from under the flaps since Bush 41. Wouldn't a GOP Congress check a Democrat President, or would they send him checks to sign on the taxpayers account; thereby proving to the most deluded of Republican cheerleaders @ FreeRepublic.com - home to the enablers of profligate addicts pillaging at the public trough - that the only hope of achieving their stated goals is to embrace a Party which champions those objectives as a priority instead of a campaign platitude to be discarded after the election. If your vote for an Independent President results in Mr. Bush's defeat this November, you will have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

The National Election Study conducts national surveys of the American electorate in presidential and midterm election years and carries out research and development work through pilot studies in odd-numbered years. Their 7-point scale Party Identification Table[32] reveals the level of dissatisfaction with the two major parties.

From 1952-2002, only 30%, on average, expressed strong sentiment toward the RNC & DNC combined. 36.5% expressed weak sentiment toward the RNC & DNC combined. 31.5 % expressed an Independent identification and the apolitical averaged 2%.

From 1992-2002, Independent Party identification exceeded Democrat Party identification by 1.5%, and DNC identification exceeded RNC identification by 8%. The RNC is presently in control of the Presidency and Congress, with only 27% weak to strong identification since 1992.

It is time to declare INDEPENDENCE [33] from the RNC/DNC socialist, transnational progressive complex. According to Jefferson, "It is the steady abuse of power in other governments which renders that of opposition always the popular party." [34]

Only God and Mr. Bush knows his commitment to Biblical principal. "Our Saviour... has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them.".[35] As long as Mr. Bush refuses to lift a finger, or raise his voice against the unconstitutional abortion holocaust [36] allowed by the federal judiciary; his commitment to family and to humanity itself is nonexistent. "The source most often cited by the founding fathers was the Bible, which accounted for 34% of all citations. Deuteronomy was the most frequently cited book of the Bible."[37] "Jesus often quoted from Deuteronomy. In fact, it is almost invariably from this book that He quotes."[38] Deuteronomy 5:17 "You must not murder."[39] As for Country, Mr. Bush stated on a Fox News interview by Brit Hume aired 22 Sept 03, "Yes. You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media."[40] Mr. Bush should read "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News", by Bernard Goldberg and leave a copy in the White House, so that no other President gets left behind.

[27] The Virginia Declaration of Rights

http://www.jmu.edu/madison/virginia.htm

[28]http://www.peroutka2004.com/about.html

[29]Drunken GOP Sailors

Even Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress didn't spend like this.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004579

[30] The U.S. Constitution v. rebellious federal judges and cowardly republicans

http://www.sierratimes.com/04/01/16/samadams.htm

[31] Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:133. op.cit. #6

[32] http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_1.htm

[33] New Conservative Magazine Declares Independence From GOP

Conservative Battleline Online To Speak For Limited Government Conservatives Against Big Government Right

Donald Devine, a vice chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation, announced the publication of a new online conservative journal of opinion to be called ConservativeBattleline, located at conservativebattleline.com.

Current features include: the Republican Party as the new welfare state party, the limits of the Bush plans for democracy in Iraq, the culture wars, the GOP sell out on Medicare and critiques of National Review, The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal, among others.

http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/031210.asp

Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders,by Tom A. Coburn , John Hart (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785262202/qid%3D1072976496/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dsr%5F2%5F1/002-4896322-2362461

[34] Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1818. FE 10:106. op.cit. #6

[35] Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55. op.cit. #6

[36] National American (Abortion) Holocaust Memorial

http://cpforlife.org/id51.htm

He who destroys his own children…who wrecks the handiwork of G-D…brings hunger, plague, and the sword upon the world." —Zohar, Shemos (Exodus)

"Abortion is murder, plain and simple." —Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, Da Ma Shetoshiv

http://www.jewsformorality.org/israel_abortion.htm

[37] No knowledgeable Christian would dispute the importance of the Book of Deuteronomy. Certainly we should take note of the fact that this book is cited more than 50 times in the New Testament. Counting allusions to Deuteronomy, the instances of New Testament use would increase to nearly 200 times. Deuteronomy was our Lord's favorite Old Testament book. Henrietta Mears has written: Jesus often quoted from Deuteronomy. In fact, it is almost invariably from this book that He quotes.

http://www.bible.org/docs/ot/topics/deffin...creation-13.htm

[38] Two professors, Donald S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman, reviewed an estimated 15,000 items, closely analyzing 2,200 books, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and monographs with explicitly political content printed between 1760 and 1805. They reduced this number to 916 items, encompassing about one-third of all public political writings longer than 2,000 words.

For these items, Lutz and Hyneman identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source most often cited by the founding fathers was the Bible, which accounted for 34% of all citations. Deuteronomy was the most frequently cited book of the Bible.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094...5440757-5428006 (page 78)

[39] NET BIBLE

22tn Traditionally "kill." The verb here (jxr) is generic for homicide but in the OT both killing in war and capital punishment were permitted and even commanded (Deut 13:5, 9; 20:13, 16-17), so the technical meaning here is "murder."

http://www.bible.org/netbible/deu5.htm

As of January 5, 2004, twenty-eight (28) states have enacted laws which recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes covered by state laws. Fifteen (15) of these states provide this protection throughout the period of in utero development, while the other 13 provide protection during certain specified stages of development. These laws are sometimes referred to as "fetal homicide" laws.

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (S. 1019) would recognize as a legal victim an unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime against the baby's mother. A substitute amendment to be offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein would increase penalties for federal crimes against pregnant women - but would recognize only one victim, the mother, and without recognizing any loss of human life if the mother survives the assault. Sharon Rocha, mother of Laci Peterson and grandmother of Conner Peterson, has called such a single-victim proposal "a step away from justice, not toward it." But what does the general public say? If a criminal assaults a woman who carries an unborn child, does that crime have two victims, or only one? Here are three recent national polls on that issue.

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/UnbornPolls110703.html

[40] The full text of President Bush's exclusive interview with Fox News' Brit Hume aired Monday night, September 22, 2003

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98006,00.html

Media's Liberal Voice Comes Across Louder Than Rush Limbaugh

And this symphony has long been considered to be liberal -- that is, first of all, largely populated by liberals and, second, often presenting the news from a liberal point of view. Has this been true? Is this still true? As to the first, there is no question that journalists as a group are much more liberal than conservative and much more so than the general public. The independent media analyst S. Robert Lichter looked at 10 major surveys on the political beliefs and voting patterns of mainstream print and broadcast journalists from 1962 to 1996. As Lichter writes, "the pattern of results is compelling.'' The percentage of journalists who were classified as "liberals'' were, survey to survey: 57, 53, 59, 42, 54, 50, 32, 55, 22 and 61. The percentage classified as "conservative,'' survey by survey: 28, 17, 18, 19, 17, 21, 12, 17, 5 and 9. Voting patterns and findings on specific issues (for instance, regarding abortion, gun control or taxes) have consistently mirrored these general attitudes. Surveys since have shown no overall change in this dynamic. A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as "Democrat or liberal" or "lean to Democrat or liberal," vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican. A 2001 survey of 301 "media professionals" by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as "liberal," 59 percent as "moderate," and only 6 percent as "conservative." http://www.sltrib.com/2002/Dec/12122002/commenta/10340.asp

SUMMARY: Chief Justice Roy Moore's Case Defending The Display Of ...

The U. S. Constitution's guarantee against an "Establishment of Religion" is not violated by the placement in the Alabama State Judicial Building's rotunda of a 2 ½ ton monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments and a variety of other quotes. To the contrary, interpretations of the Constitution by a U. S. District Court in Alabama and a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals do violate the Constitution. The monument was designed and commissioned by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in recognition of the moral foundation of the law.

This suit should never have gone to court. The plaintiffs complained that they found the monument "offensive," that it made them feel like an "outsider," that Moore was "using religion to further his political career," that Moore was guilty of a "shameless political use of religion," etc. None of these highly personal, subjective feelings qualifies as a "case or controversy"--the only type of action that Article III of the Constitution allows federal courts to hear.
There is no "law" involved in this case. A "law," by definition, commands, prohibits, or permits a specific action. Chief Justice Moore's installation of the monument does not command, prohibit, or permit any action by any party.
There is no unconstitutional "establishment of a religion" involved in the monument's creation and placement.
1. The Ten Commandments as displayed in the Judicial Building are memorialized as a fundamental source of American and English law and Western civilization. A "law" and its "source" are not the same thing. The Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of our law are supported by a variety of large, influential religious groups--evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, orthodox Jews, and Mormons (for example). If the Ten Commandments per se constitute a "religion," which of these "religions" is "established"?
2. Interrelationships between law and non-legal values, reflected in the Ten Commandments, are inevitable. "Without religion, there can be no morality: and without morality there can be no law" (top-ranking British judge Alfred Lord Denning, 1977). Reflecting this truth, the U. S. Supreme Court has correctly ruled that "This is a Christian nation" (1892, 1931).
3. A "pluralism" of fundamental religious and legal values can extend only so far. Both federal courts ruling against Chief Justice Moore argue for religious "pluralism"--asserting a "history of religious diversity" in America (the Court of Appeals) and branding any effort by law to recognize a single definition of "religion" as "unwise, and even dangerous" and as "tending towards a 'theocracy'" (the District Court). But the courts call for the impossible. "Values are necessary for the functioning of any society, and if they are not consciously adopted and publicly acknowledged, they will be smuggled in surreptitiously and often unconsciously. Values are always in real or potential conflict. And the state inevitably favors some values over others" (American historian James Hitchcock, 1981). Thus, American law can be based on the Ten Commandments or on a non-theistic value foundation. There is no alternative. And if public acknowledgement of the former constitutes "establishment of religion," so does the latter.
4. All of the Ten Commandments have a secular significance to the law. Even the first four Commandments, most directly involving Deity, reveal that there are a Higher Authority and Higher Law to which human law must be submissive--the only sure safeguard against tyranny by human government.
There is an unconstitutional establishment of religion created by the two federal court decisions.
1. The District Court's assertion that the state "draws its powersfrom the people, and not God" is a religious position (an anti-theistic one). This assertion throws the power of the court behind a religious view in violation of the Establishment Clause.
2. Both federal courts base their conclusions on the mythical "wall of separation" doctrine. This concept is not in the Constitution's text, is not supported by American history and tradition, and calls for the impossible (see #3b. and #3c. above). Because the mythical "separation" doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in 1947--156 years after the Establishment Clause was written, and therefore has no fixed content--federal courts have had to constantly re-define and create "tests" of "establishment." The most notably is the Lemon three-pronged test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971). Since 1971, various Supreme Court Justices have exposed the true nature of this myth and the "tests" it has spawned, describing them as "all but useless," "mercurial in application," "unhistorical," "non-textual," and productive of a body of Establishment Clause law that is plagued with "insoluble paradoxes" and "unprincipled, conflicting litigation." Despite these fatal flaws in the "separation" myth and Lemon test, both federal courts utilize them as the basic standards for finding against the Chief Justice and the monument.

In a 1798 letter to American military officers, President John Adams declared that "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other." Chief Justice Roy Moore's installation of the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building recognizes this truth. Chief Justice Moore does not violate the U. S. Constitution. The two federal courts who have ruled against him do.

He was 'respecting an establishment' of the Judeo-christian religion, [the ten commandments], favoring them over the principles of other religions..

That is not how the 1st Amendment reads. Reading skills are important in the understanding of the written works of men. Ignoring context and punctuation can mean the difference between understanding and folly. Here is the entire Amendment with the 'establishment clause' in bold.

Amendment I
Congress 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.

You see, the 'establishment clause' begins with the word 'Congress' and ends at the comma after 'religion.' That is because it is a complete thought which could stand as a sentence on its own. It does not and was not intended to have meaning when severed into one or two word excerpts as that would render it totally meaningless having infinite possible interpretations. If that were the case we could take 'Congress shall make' all by itself and justify the notion that whatever is to be made is to be made by Congress whether that was law or hatchets or computer software.

The English language has a definite structure, particularly in the written form, that makes it possible to convey definite meanings. Albeit only to those who have taken the care to learn the rules governing its structure.

Now then, the 'establishment clause' is not the only intention expressed concerning religion so it is followed with a second thought, the 'free exercise' clause, and ends with a semi-colon. Following that, in similar form, are the other four clauses which comprise the other two types of activity addressed by the 1st Amendment, communication and cooperation by the people, which concern (respect) freedom of expression. That gives us three areas of activity, comprised of two clauses each, that the 1st Amendment protects for the people from the intrusion of the government. Religion, communication and cooperation. This trilogy of activities was put together in one Amendment because of the vital interconnection they share with each other in maintaining, defining and defending the liberty and freedom of the individual (and thereby all men).

So what we have in the first clause is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, " not 'respecting an establishment' as a stand alone phrase. 'Respecting' is not about 'reverance to' which is one synonym for it but rather 'consideration of' and 'establishment' is not supposed to be taken in the same vein as one thinks of a local pub, ie "let's go down to the local establishment and put back a couple of pints", which is the connotation you're trying to give the word. 'An establishment' means both 'to create' and 'is created.' One need only read the clause through, first with the idea that government has in mind creating a religion (to create) and then with the thought that government has in mind regulating an existing religion (is created) and it is easy to see that 'an establishment of religion' can be read as clear and meaningful in both contexts. And so it was meant to be.

But the second half of the clause is just that; half of a clause which is half of a thought. The whole clause is very specific as to the action prohibited to the government, which after all is what all eight of the first eight Amendments are about, prohibiting particular actions of government. It says "Congress shall make no law ..." and then it spells out equally clearly what Congress shall not make laws about. Those respecting religion, communication and cooperation in the specific manner proscribed.

Judge Roy Moore is not Congress. Judge Moore made no law. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals violated the 'free expression' clause and the 'free speech' clause of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Case closed.

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.