Judge Roy Moore and the Myth of the Separation Clause

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.

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.)

Is it always OK for legislators to make laws that violate natural law?

Since I think natural law is a figment of your imagination, absolutely. What I do favor, is folks agitating in the public square, for what they in good conscience, think is right. That is what I favor, and in general, without interference from the robes. Have I made that clear yet?

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.

So you admit it: the minority is demanding approval from the majority for something the majority finds immoral. If the minority can't persuade the majority to concede on its "backward" and "prejudiced" positions, then it is hoped that the sovereign authority of the courts or the legislatures can be used to enforce this new set of values on the majority.

Don't you see the threat to the consensus of the governed in this strategy?

Yes, the decision had broad reach, in fact far broader than you describe. If fact, the breadth of the decision was cosmic - literally. But I simply responded to what you posted.

Since I think natural law is a figment of your imagination, absolutely.

I'm citing the relevance of natural reproduction to a debate concerning the revolutionary redefinition of marriage. This is not just my imagination. Nature does it every day, all around us. You're having this argument with me because a pair of people mated and procreated. It's highly relevant to this issue.

Was your conflation of the two [legislature and judiciary], accidental, or deliberate?

I'm asking you if either one have the automatic right to override natural law in favor of any arbitrary notion of "the commons?" I don't think they do.

I guess democracy is just not your bag, if it violates your notions of natural law. You seem to be an ideal SCOTUS judge, in this day and age. I suggest you send your resume to Biden.

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. :)

Hey, I'll debate you any time, any place on any topic. (except social secuirty, it bores me to death. :-})

BTW, google "previous question motion" and 1789 if you're interested in the history of the filibuster.

I doubt you are but what the hey.

I think you are confusing natural biology with natural law. And natural biology gets ever more problematical.

I think you've already indicated that natural law is an abstraction that is irrelevant to this discussion. It's just a dodge to suggest that the laws of biology don't have any relevance to the Enlightenment's discussion of natural law, or even the Roman.

And yes, I'm aware of the threat laboratory reproduction poses to my position. It's no accident that religious leaders are warning us that our efforts to redefine the human race are going to bring nothing but sorrow and suffering.

Natural Law is not the "Supreme Law of the Land".

The Constitution of the United States and the statutes passed by Congress are. That's the simple fact of the matter.

But don't take umbrage, there are several SCOTUS justices who don't know that either.

I think you are confusing natural biology with natural law.

I think you're right. Those who want to completely separate the Laws of Nature from the Laws of Nature's God had better be prepared to confront the occurrence of homosexuality in nature.

One more time. I favor laws about marriage that don't have as their raison d'etre, as a matter of limitation, procreation. Marriage is a legal status, and is what we choose to define it as. If you think invoking natural law and biology, advances your case, fine. It has zero relevance to me, zero. But if you think it is persuasive with others, go for it.

I guess democracy is just not your bag, if it violates your notions of natural law.

I might have missed it, but did you explain how we Californians should democratically express our desires that legislatures and judges not redefine marriage for us?

I have said repeatedly that when the majority of citizens agrees that marriage means something other than it has in tradition, that I will stand aside. Meanwhile, judges and selected legislatures across this land which claim to have the authority to do otherwise are just violating the will of the majority of Americans, as far as I'm concerned.

Initiatives are law. Legislatures cannot ignore the law. Well they can't, unless if it relates to ignoring the balanced budget law in California. We are not making much progess here risk. It is probably my fault.

I'm making a very narrow argument that marriage was intended to support families, and families come from ordinary mating. My main concern is the legal redefinition of the English word marriage. It seems America's judges and some legislatures too weak to point out that only males and females procreate, and that marriage is basically government involvement in procreation.

I don't think Torie's idea of "democracy" has much to do with the "will of the people."

Rousseau claimed that representative governments are based on the "general will," which could somehow be different from the conscious will of the people themselves. "The general will is always right and tends to the public advantage," he wrote. "But it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally correct...the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived." - LINK

Torie has already pointed out the weakness in your argument. Marriage is not only about procreation, and need not even have anything to do with it. I get frustrated when liberals say that marriage is about love and what business is it of the government if two people love each other. Marriage is not just about love.

I don't agree with what you said about natural law earlier. Locke and Samuel Adams who quoted him extensively point out that the rights of man are superior to governments, and government's entire authority to govern is encased in the requirement that every law, every ruling, and every enforcement be conducted within the limits of those rights. They point out that those rights emerge from the Creator, or from Natural law. In other words, if the Constitution began to violate the rights of man, it would become a worthless piece of paper.

And yes, Rousseau's ideas abandon the critical notion that laws must respect the rights of man. Man cannot redefine those rights. The right which I claim is not to have my approval forced out of me with a rubber stamp in a courthouse. I will not grant that approval. If the majority of my fellow Americans also reject that approval, the government has exceeded its authority, and therefore it has lost it.

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.