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.)
Try to remember that as you cheer on the ones that do it in the direction that you favor.
Do what I do when I do something like that. Pretend that everyone gets what you were trying to say, unless someone tells you otherwise. I think a good chunk of my posts would need a "sheesh" following them, but since we have no edit here, I'm left with either cowering in a little hole or ignore & push onward.
Actually the Senate banned filibustering until 1806.
"In case of a debate becoming tedious, four Senators may call for the question; or the same number may at any time move for the previous question, viz, "Shall the main question now be put?" "
They dropped the rule in 1806 because it was considered dilatory itself!
But isn't it equally dangerous to contrive "rights" in order to secure privileges and remuneration from the state? Where does it end? The implications of an unending progression of new "rights" being defined is a threat to individual sovereignty when the new rights become entitlements, and entitlements confer moral or financial capital. When these entitlements incur unapproved blessing and financial support from the majority of citizens, you have a kind of breakdown in confidence in the legal system.
Basically you're using a positivist argument: the minority who believes they have a right to secure marriage from the state, if they are able to persuade the sovereign (the judiciary) that their cause has arbitrary merit, they may impose their views on the majority who disagree. How is this fair to the majority?
I think when we're asked by secular humanists, ever desiring to enhance the human race, ever explaining how things can get "better and better" as we cast aside this or that old-fashioned attitude, it's very instructive to point out that there is absolutely no evolutionary value in supporting same-sex couples in their bid to start family units. In other words, I'm willing to take a positivist approach most days, so long as the "sovereign of the social contract" upholds individual rights as defined by Locke and our Declaration of Independence, as well as our bill of rights. However, when the march of new rights begins to violate the consent of the governed, I am very comfortable falling back on the laws of nature directly.
Is this dangerous to talk about higher authorities, above the branches of government? Yes, but it is also dangerous to conduct government business as a "sovereign" when the people clearly disagree. Government officials who violated the consent of the governed in our nation's founding history found themselves tarred and feathered. You bet it's dangerous to talk up natural laws, but when they are so clearly and unmitigatedly violated, one can make a clear case that the positivist legal sovereignty violating it has lost its authority.
I at least am unwilling to stay silent and simply watch the judiciary run roughshod over the will of the people -- especially when natural law supports my case so clearly. Families are from men and women, not from the law benches of our country.
I think the same-sexers should be very concerned about where they are pushing our legal system. A day may come when the majority of Americans loses faith in the judiciary because it is incapable of representing their natural view of the world. And for what? A tax refund? A piece of paper? Is it really worth it?
I have read differently. But at this point of course, the matter is highly moot.
I don't think you read my post very closely. I think legislatures should make laws, not the judiciary.
Seems you've missed much of the fun in this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384703/posts?page=409#409
If the public square thought it was a mere piece of paper, the passions evoked on this issue seem very odd indeed. It is more than a piece of paper, much more. It is about recognition in the public square that vows of intimacy among consenting two adults should be given repect even if of the same sex.
Your writing is excellent, mine is passable. A shame the Counselor from Ohio quit. He was sharp, off course a bit, but sharp.
But of course he then went on to claim that the reason the rule was changed in 1806 was to allow unlimited debate!
Hopefully it is moot.
The court overturned all sodomy laws, not only those aimed at homosexuals. You may say that it is disingenuous to claim that sodomy laws forbidding sodomy in all cases were not aimed at homosexuals, but is it really hard to believe that the same Texans who disapprove of homosexual acts also disapprove of other deviant heterosexual acts?
Private sex acts are surely more private, than abortions effected in hospitals.
Same for incest?
What else is so private that we should not be allowed to restrict it?
Drug abuse? Prostitution? Cannibalism?
He seemed to depart when I posted to him. I blame myself. :)
Just send a note to Justice Kennedy and ask him. I can't help you.
Phew, glad it was you!
When something this basic to the laws of nature becomes just another debate for the our legislatures and our law benches, there can only be more trouble on the horizon. And again, for what? A rubber stamp?
Actually the Texas law did apply only to homosexuals. LOL. I could say more, but why beat the drum until it has no sound.
Won't you explain to us what other atrocities have been justified by the Roe V. Wade death sentence on millions of innocents?
I find it increasingly passing odd, that no matter what I post, no matter how out of step with the prevailing sentiments in this neighborhood, few choose to debate me anymore. Maybe I am on bozo filter. :)
Joe, I don't think you are very familiar with my views. That is the most charitable explanation.
SCOTUS threw out ALL sodomy laws, not just those which only applied to "men." Equal protection was not even considered as an argument.
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.