Posted on 06/30/2005 5:57:24 AM PDT by OESY
...We need to restore the original definitions of "law," "establishment," and "religion" in the First Amendment. A monument or display could never be a "law," the mere posting or installation of it is not an "establishment," and the recognition of God by the public display of the Ten Commandments is not "religion." After all, the original definition of the word "religion" -- the duties we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging those duties -- which was recognized by the Supreme Court years ago, acknowledged God and a higher law.
...[I]t should be clear that, as Justice Antonin Scalia opined in his McCreary County dissent, "[n]othing stands behind the Court's assertion that governmental affirmation of the society's belief in God is unconstitutional except the Court's own say-so . . . ."
In 1952, Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court, stated in Zorach v. Clauson, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." And in 1961 in McGowan v. Maryland, Justice Douglas observed that the "institutions of our society are founded on a belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the state, that there is a moral law which the state is powerless to alter, and that the state possesses rights conferred by the Creator which government must respect." However, this week in McCreary County and Van Orden, the High Court contradicts history, logic, and law in denying our inalienable right to acknowledge God.
Certainly our courts have become arbitrary in depriving Americans of life by legal abortion or starvation, by snatching property rights for private economic gain (as we saw last week in Kelo v. New London), and now this week by restricting our freedom to acknowledge God. Every state constitution acknowledges God and so does our national motto....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The text of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but was quoted in its entirety only one time in all the writings of the justices.
As Justice Thomas so appropriately noted, one may, and indeed must, question why the Court cautiously avoids the words of the First Amendment: "All told this Court's jurisprudence leaves courts, governments, and believers and nonbelievers alike confused -- an observation that is hardly new."
* * *
Mr. Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is the author of "So Help Me God" (Broadman & Holman, 2005).
What this country needs to GET RID OF are the anti-everything-America haters and communists that this country continues to tolerate.
Why should we pay, fight and die, for, and to protect, the force that is working hard to tear the American fabric apart???
Total insanity.
The Wall Street Journal online requires a paid subscription with something like a 2 week "free" trial.
I hope there's a way to excerpt the most significant parts of the article or to find it elsewhere so it can be posted.
I don't like registering on any of these places....there's no way that I'll pay for the privilege.
Didn't SCOTUS decide that atheism was a religion? Then IMHO, efforts to remove God from the public forum is "establishing the religion of atheism" which IS specifically prohibited in the original constituion.
Congress has made no such law, but the court has in effect made a law respecting the 'free exercise thereof'. Their flawed logic is astonishing.
Acknowledging "God" is not an establishment.
Enshrining the tenets in rock of one single religion while minimizing or eliminating others is.
Moore's not being honest. He doesn't actually believe that other religions have any legal protection that, but he seems to have learned that he can't actually say that any more.
Ping.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
I agree with the excerpt - and eccentric's comment. By forced removal of any symbol, words, prayer, monument etc that in any way reminds people of God, from public life is indeed establishing the state religion/philosophy of atheism. Forcing it down our throats.
The SCOTUS is, by judicial tyranny, forcing us all into the handbasket in a southerly direction.
Fortunately, they have not yet removed the right to assemble in houses of worship (although now that property rights mean squat, that may not be for long), we can assemble in our houses (as long as we don't violate zoning laws or covenants or bother the atheist neighbors) and most important of all - they can't rip God from the core of our hearts.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Note: Regarding a comment about Moore's supposedly saying other religions have no protection under the Constitution - let's ask him and see what he says. The whole idea that every single religion and it's tenets have to be placed side by side with the 10 Commandments or the 10 C's are establishing a religion is the type of argument called "clutching at straws". Put forward by people who just can't stand seeing the 10 C's in front of them.
This is not a religious neutral statement. In order for this to be carried into society, the people as a whole must acknowledge the exhistence of God. If there is no GOD, this statement is usless and void.
Can you prove that he actually believes this?
Yes, I can prove it.
"By leaving religion undefined, the Court has opened the door to the erroneous assumption that, under the Establishment Clause, religion could include Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and whatever might occupy in man's life a place parallel to that filled by God, or even Secular Humanism, which might be defined as man's belief in his own supremacy and sufficiency."
- Roy S. Moore, Religion in the Public Square, 29 Cumb. L. Rev. 347, 356-57 (1998/1999)
This is quoted in the District Court's opinion in Glassroth v. Moore
So here we are. Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism are not religions in Moore's opinion.
Quoting again from the above opinion:
At trial, the Chief Justice reiterated his belief that only Christianity meets the First Amendment definition of religion, and repeatedly called any other creed a "faith," rather than a religion.
So if they're not a "religion," and they're not covered by the First Amendment, they don't have the same legal protection. Shameful.
This is not a religious neutral statement.
Of course it's neutral, because "Creator" can mean many things to many people.
Can't we agree that your vision of the Creator is totally different than mine and that yet '..all Men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights..' ?
In order for this to be carried into society, the people as a whole must acknowledge the exhistence of God. If there is no GOD, this statement is usless and void.
The statement is just as useful & valid with or without including the word 'Creator'.
For the secularist's "establishment" argument to work, they have to believe that the mere presence of the Ten Commandments is so powerful it will instantly convert any viewer to Judaism or Christianity.
Can they demonstrate this? Do they think people are so gullible (or liberal) that this could happen? Are they afraid of losing votes because of it?
Free exercise does not equal a state religion. The framers of the Constitution said as much. The most ignorant person would conclude that from reading the First Amendment. Well, maybe the five supremes that voted for this are exceptionally ignorant. Or biased. What's the diff?
Free exercise stops when the state endorses one religion over another.
When you think about it, how does secularism differ from a religion?
Why can secularism or atheism permeate our culture, but a belief in God cannot?
Ah, but what constitutes "endorsement?"
Is the government endorsing Islam by distributing Korans to inmates? Do they distribute Bibles and Necronomicons to other inmates that wish them?
Is putting up the basis for most of our laws and endorsement of a particular religion?
The Bible is the basis of a number of different religions. Is any one being endorsed preferentially? Do the Constitution and other founding documents endorse religion by the mention of God in their texts? Will we have to do away with or edit them to suit the ACLU and other minorities?
Is anyone being forced to look at these references to God, or bow before them?
All necessary questions that must be considered in addition to my question of whether secularism is not in itself a form of religion (or a similarly worshipped antireligion).
The same thing that diferntiates an apple from an orange.
Remember this?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200210%5CNAT20021018b.html
Government, NY Times Join Forces to Evict Business Owners
By Jeff McKay
CNSNews.com Correspondent
October 18, 2002
(CNSNews.com) - A New York State government agency is forcing a group of business owners to leave their property by condemning it. That clears the way for a new skyscraper to go up - an office building that will house the New York Times.
Critics complain city taxpayers will foot part of the bill.
In a deal struck by the Empire State Development Corporation, a group of Midtown Manhattan buildings - just a block from Times Square - will be torn down. The land will then be leased to the New York Times, which plans to build a million-plus square foot office tower that will also include leased commercial space.
Some say the deal gives the land to the New York Times for "pennies on the dollar."
In a New York Times story dated October 25, 2001, the New York Times called the now-condemned block, "a shabby blend of sex shops, prostitution, loitering, and drug dealing." The report was entitled, "Blight to Some is Home to Others."
But others disagree. "In reality, the ESD (Empire State Development) is condemning an entire block of thriving small businesses along 8th Avenue between 40th and 41st Streets so that the Times can erect a new building," said Manhattan Libertarian Party spokesman Jim Lesczynski.
"This will be at the expense of property owners, tenants and taxpayers. This New York Times plan is simply a case of the government helping the politically powerful at the expense of the less fortunate," according to Lesczynski.
Property owners were informed by letter that their buildings would be condemned and that they would have to move. They were also notified that since the state was taking over the condemned property, those who currently leased space in the buildings would have to pay their rent to the state, leaving some building owners paying both a mortgage and rent.
A check on one of the buildings in question, a 16-story structure owned by Sidney Orbach and his family, shows that two of his 16 floors are currently leased by fashion designer Donna Karan and one of those floors is used as a gallery and showroom.
Orbach's building had a 100-percent occupancy rate before the state condemned the property. He claims that over the years, he's had to turn away companies and individuals who wanted leases in his building.
Property owners are also outraged that they had no say in what is happening to their businesses. They feel they are pawns, pitted against a government machine that plays favorites.
"I was never asked if I wanted to sell," said Orbach.
Orbach said a lot half the size of the one the New York Times wants - and located in the same area - recently sold for approximately $180 per square foot. The deal the newspaper struck is expected to cost it only $60 per square foot, well below market value for Midtown Manhattan and the Times Square district.
Current real estate market values of office and commercial space in the area range from $100 to $40 per square foot.
"The UDC is offering this deal to the Times at 10 to 15 cents on the dollar," said Orbach. "The deal has nothing to do with dilapidated buildings or urban renewal. This has everything to do with the government and the powerful New York Times."
"Corporate welfare and eminent domain abuses like that practiced by The New York Times threatens the rights and welfare of all New Yorkers," said Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Scott Jeffrey.
A spokesman for the New York Times declined to comment, citing the ongoing legal matter.
According to court records, the state and city signed a deal with the Times and Forest City Ratner Companies, which included a 99-year lease totaling $85.6 million-well below market value, according to experts. The deal also includes $26 million in tax cuts for the Times.
In addition, if a court sets the condemnation price higher than $85.6 million, the developers would have to come up with the extra money. However, the Times and Forest City will be able to deduct the extra cost, meaning taxpayers will cover all costs above $85.6 million.
Forest City Ratner Companies is headed by Bruce Ratner, a well-known fundraiser for both former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former President Bill Clinton.
It was Ratner who earlier this year spearheaded a campaign to produce a "politically correct" statue, replacing two of the three white firefighters captured in a world-famous photo of the flag raising at Ground Zero with a more diverse grouping. The move outraged both firefighters and the public and was later scrapped.
The Empire State Development describes itself as "dedicated to creating jobs and encouraging economic prosperity by strengthening and supporting New York State businesses." Charles Gargano, who was appointed to this post by Gov. George Pataki, heads this state office.
The tax breaks and anticipated subsidies to be granted to the New York Times are expected to cost taxpayers nearly $100 million.
In 1994, the city of New York gave the Times a $29 million tax break to build a new printing plant in Queens, rather than relocate to New Jersey.
The proposed plans for the New York Times skyscraper includes 52 floors and well over 1.3 million square feet of space, of which only 900,000 square feet will be used by the Times. The rest of the space - mostly the skyscraper's upper floors - will be leased.
This, in turn, will make the Times the landlord of over 400,000 square feet of prime real estate.
"It's so abusive -- the tactics they are using. They are pressuring tenants to move out," Orbach stated. "When I came to America, I could never believe that this could happen here. To me, this is very reminiscent of Nazi Germany."
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.