Posted on 11/19/2002 8:36:24 AM PST by Dallas
You gotta love this guy....
"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil...This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this...
"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures...[and] are found upon comparison to be really part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.
"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land.
"If [the legislature] will positively enact a thing to be done, the judges are not at liberty to reject it, for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which should be subversive of all government."
"The preservation of Christianity as a national religion is abstracted from its own intrinsic truth, of the utmost consequence to the civil state, which a single instance will sufficiently demonstrate.
"The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the main attributes ofthe Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life (all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ), these are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him and the party attesting; all moral evidences, therefore, all confidence in human veracity, must be weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity.
"Wherefore, all affronts to Christianity, or endeavors to depreciate its efficacy, in those who have once professed it, are highly deserving of censure."
Perhaps the Greeks. Western culture didnt begin in 1 AD.
It certainly promotes the religion, whether or not its succesful at actually converting anybody. How would you feel were you to walk into a courtroom and see commentaries on Shar'ia law posted all over the walls? I don't know about you, but that would scare the s--t out of me.
Yes I know, why just last Sunday I was going down the street and there was a police blockade at the local church preventing anyone from entering.</sarcasm off>
Sorry hon, but when you have people being dragged out of their house in the middle of the night and being summarily executed for their religious beliefs, as they are in some countries, then you have an issue of religious persecution. The simple fact that not all people agree with you is not persecution.
But then again I guess both of the major political parties have a certain amount of people who must see themselves as victims of something or another.
"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."
--Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237
They follow a different set of Ten Commandments. By choosing the Protestant version over the Catholic version, you're promoting Protestantism over Catholicism.
See #351. I hope it's prompt enough for you.
Cordially,
That's not at all what Moore's claiming. Besides, were he interested in historical education, why does he so steadfastly refuse to accept any other historical statues? This isn't about history, this is about Judge Moore's religion, and his decision to use his public office as a platform from which to promote it.
I can't help but to laugh when I hear people misconstrue the meaning of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment only makes a reference to Congress, our federal government, in regard to establishment of a religion. The First Amendment makes absolutely no reference to what the sovereign states can or can't do in regard to religious displays or establishment of a religion.
Despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." But what does this mean for the principle of religious liberty?
The answer is: nothing. Our dating system is an historical artifact of Western culture, and has no legal significance or implications for the meaning of the Constitution or the First Amendment. The American Colonies were established by Europeans; we naturally inherited the European practice of dating years from the birth of Christ. Nothing follows from this except the trivial observation that, in establishing our independence, we decided not to completely overthrow our cultural heritage.
In fact, the European dating system is infused with pagan holdovers that, if taken seriously, lead to exactly the opposite conclusions reached by accommodationists. We have a seven day week, after the model of ancient Israel, but we inherited Pagan names for these days; does the Constitution then establish Sun worship when it excepts Sunday from the ten days Presidents have to veto a bill before it becomes law? Does it establish worship of the Moon when it says that Congress will begin it's sessions on the first Monday of December? Does the use of European names for months mean that the Constitution establishes worship of Julius Caesar (July) or Augustus Caesar (August)? The issue was a serious one for some Christians; Quakers, for example, adopted numerical references for days and months precisely to avoid objectionable Pagan names. The rejection of the Quaker system suggests that the founders read very little into their dating practices. To base an argument on those practices is to stand on extraordinarily shaky ground.
To be sure, the Constitution could have avoided the words "Year of our Lord" in the date (as it does elsewhere when it refers to specific years), but it's hard to imagine why. "The Year of our Lord" was the standard way of dating important documents in the 1700s; its use was ritualistic, not religious. It is doubtful that anyone, Christian, deist, or otherwise, would have given the words a second thought, or ascribed to them any legal significance. And if the intent of the Constitution was to signal a favored status for Christianity, it could have done so in a thousand less ambiguous ways than including the words "in the Year of our Lord." That some accommodationists appeal to these words is silent testimony to how little evidence there is for the idea that the Constitution embodies Christian morality or thought.
You bet. God bless Judge Moore.
Everybody? Somehow, I find that hard to believe. Remember that the Bill of Rights wasn't passed to support the rights of the Majority, but the rights of the Minority.
Therefore, our right to free expression of our religion is being infringed upon.
Don't be ridiculous. You can post the Ten Commandments anywhere except on government property.
I see little difference except that we have allowed people who do not believe in our God to enter our country and try to establish their religion by force (ex: Sept 9/11/2002)if necessary.
People who don't believe in your God have always been here.
That's equally true, of course. The only thing it does prove is that the Ten Commandments are not the only moral foundation for such laws.
The writings of the founders state plainly that the Ten Commandments were a significant inspiration for our laws. I rely on the evidence of their work and their own words for my assertion.
Well, I'm a bit like ERocc in that I have a hard time seeing a direct connection. There are too many Commandments that are simply ignored in our legal system, and other Commandments such as not stealing or killing that I think any civilized society must have. On the other hand, I do think that Christian principles influenced a great deal of what they wrote and believed more generally. Particularly in the Declaration of Independence.
For what its worth, I agree with the judge. He should fight it all the way up on appeal. It'd be fun watching the Supremes squirm with eradicating all religious artifacts or influences in public life. At the least, they'd have to do some redecorating....
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.