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.)
Source?
The context sort of changes a potload (that's a technical term) of judicial holdings. That is, it renders them WRONG. In error.
Shuffling off to find independent corroboration ...
You're forgetting that he was a member of government, and not a private citizen protected from government. The separation of church and state is not intended to protect the government, it's intended to protect people from individual abuses of power. He was seen to have abused power by citizens who successfully carried their case against him through the courts. Because he made false claims about the nature of our laws, I agree that he should have been censured.
What "separation of church and state" are you referring to? Where did you learn of this notion? It must be fairly new as I've not ever heard of it.
Read the link I posed to Alabama's constitution. Interpret it in plain English. Alabama excludes the preference for or support for a particular religion in any way by law.
Bump!
Jefferson also almost certainly did not, as some Christian-nation mythologists like David Barton have claimed, give a speech or write a letter asserting that the wall was intended to be only a one-way wall protecting churches from government but not vice versa. The alleged Jeffersonian words were "That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government." That purported wording is repeated by many Christian-nation mythmakers, but no evidence at all can be found for it, and it is wildly inconsistent with extensive writings known with certainty to be Jefferson's.Oops. Looks like the "one-directional wall" phrase is not Jefferson's. Not to worry though.http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/shb/buckner_18_1.html
Among more scholarly critics, Robert L. Cord, in his book, Separation of Church and State, calls the view of Justice Black--that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state" and that it "must be kept high and impregnable"--mere "lines of fiction." Moreover, a figure no less than the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, William A. Rehnquist, holds similar views. For Rehnquist, Black's use of Jefferson's metaphor is a serious distortion of the true purpose of the Founding Fathers. The "wall" is, says Rehnquist, a "faulty" premise upon which Everson and a host of succeeding cases have been wrongly decided. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree, a 1985 case which disallowed a moment of silence for "prayer or meditation" in Alabama's public schools, Rehnquist expressed his regret that the Establishment Clause had been "expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years." Rehnquist argued for a purpose in the religion clauses "far different" from the highly simplified "wall of separation between church and state." The purpose of the Establishment Clause, he argued, was more limited than what the Supreme Court had traditionally held:That second link is a well written article. I'm no student of history, and won'tvouch for its accuracy, but I did enjoy reading it.It forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. . . . The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion nor did it prohibit the federal government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.
Rehnquist then concluded: "The `wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
AFAIK, Moore was not accused of any improper application of state or federal law to a case in his courtroom.
preference for or support for a particular religion in any way by law.
Now show me where Roy Moore ever attempted, let alone wished, to pass a law making the Ten Commandments paramount to any other religious dogma.
No, but citizens did argue successfully that they did not feel that he could uphold the law impartially.
Not necessary. He's already been impeached, unanimously I might add, by his own state's judicial ethics commission.
There is no need to argue feelings. A person can assert they have certain feelings, and it --is-- so. But no case of Moore's was challenged (let alone beat) as being improperly decided due to his personal adherance to Judeo-Christian principles. In court, he applied the laws of the state and the laws of the country. It's all there in black and white.
Roy Moore will be the next Alabama Governor if he wants the job!!!
The Constitution forbids the government from interfering with religion. It does not restrict the religious from influencing government. Jefferson opposed such "religious tests" in politics.
The "one-directional" part of the quote is not authentic. And based on the articles cited, I think it also doesn't represent Jefferson's sentiments. He didn't want the government involved in running a church, and he didn't want an organized church running the government.
The Constitution forbids the government from interfering with religion. It does not restrict the religious from influencing government.
I'm sure he would agree with both of those. Many 1st amendment decsions, with a genesis at Everson, are based on a gross misconstruction.
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.