Posted on 08/19/2003 3:01:13 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
Alan Keyes is calling on everyone within driving distance to rally in Alabama with him-- a candlelight vigil tomorrow at 7:00 PM. Keyes is fired up about this. Mike Savage is fired up about this. Hannity asked Ambassadore Keyes if Judge Roy Moore might land in jail. Keyes replied, "Only if I go to jail with him!"
Judge Roy Moore will be on Hannity tomorrow night. Whoever can't go [I can't go-- wish I could], please pray for these patriots.
I appreciate your posting some of the opinion, as I had not seen it. It does seem like the federal judge has a bit of a personal interest in Judge Moore's beliefs, I must agree.
Again, as I said, I see both sides in this issue. We have had a similar series of court cases up here in Indiana, although not with as large a profile as that in Alabama.
First, let me thank you for your attendance here today. We appreciate you coming, and some of you have come from great distances. I thank Mr. Parker, my legal advisor in the Administrative Office of Courts, for that introduction.
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution of the State of Alabama as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, as administrative head of the judicial system of this state, by the authority vested in me by Section 41-10-275 as Chief Justice, as the authorized judicial representative of the Unified Judicial System, and finally by the authority vested in the Chief Justice as the authorized representative under the lease of this building in which you stand, I'm pleased to present this monument depicting the moral foundation of our law and hereby authorize it to be placed in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.
It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. By placement of this monument in the rotunda housing the Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, the Alabama State Law Library, and the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts, this monument will serve to remind the appellate courts and judges of the circuit and district courts of this state, the members of the bar who appear before them, as well as the people who visit the Alabama Judicial Building, of the truth stated in the preamble of the Alabama Constitution, that in order to establish justice, we must invoke "the favor and guidance of Almighty God."
"The institutions of our society are founded on the 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 individual possesses rights conferred by the Creator which government must respect. The Declaration of Independence stated the now familiar theme, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights is enshrined these principles."
Some of you might think the words that I just spoke are my words, carefully structured to fit my own ends; or perhaps a quote from a past long ago, but certainly not true or relevant to our law today. On the contrary, those words are not my words, they're not an ancient quote relevant to law. They're the words of Justice William O. Douglas in 1961 in the case of McGowan v. Maryland.
But today, a mere forty years later, many judges and other government officials across our land deny that there's a higher law. They forbid teaching your children that they're created in the image of Almighty God, and that while they purport all the while that it is government and not God who gave us our rights. Not only have they turned away from those absolute standards which form the basis of our morality and the moral foundation of our law, but they have divorced the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from these principles. As they have sown the wind, so we have reaped the whirlwind, in our homes, in our schools and in our workplaces.
When I ran for the office of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I made a pledge to restore the moral foundation of law. It is axiomatic that to restore morality, we must first recognize the source of that morality. From our earliest history in 1776, when we were first pleased to be called the Untied States of America, our forefathers recognized the sovereignty of God.
As late as 1954, the United States Congress placed in our Pledge of Allegiance the word "under God," and said the inclusion of God in our pledge, therefore, would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our government upon the moral directions of the Creator. Judges, legislators, and executive officers around our country have, since our nation's birth, consistently pledged under oath, "so help me God," to uphold the Constitution.
Immediately after my election in November of 2000, I contacted Mr. Richard Hahnemann, an accomplished sculptor, to assist me in the construction and design of this monument. Based upon my specifications, he worked, together with myself and my legal assistant and attorney, Mr. Stephen Melchior, for the past eight months to complete this project.
I would like to point out that no tax funds are used in the construction or installation, which was accomplished last evening so as not to conflict with this workplace. I would like to recognize Clark Memorial of Birmingham, Mr. Pierre Tourney, Sr., Mr. Pierre Tourney, Jr., for their help in the construction, design and installation, as well as the transportation of this monument to this building.
And what an appropriate date this is. For it was on August 1st of 1776, exactly 225 years ago today, that Samuel Adams, the father of the American Revolution, stood before a rather large crowd at the Philadelphia State House. And on its steps, he delivered a speech prior to the formal signing of the Declaration of Independence on August 2nd of 1776. He began by stating, "We have explored the temple of royalty and found that the idol that we have bowed down to has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone."
Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded and for those simple truths which our forefathers found to be self-evident; but once again, we find that those cries have fallen upon eyes that have seen not, ears that hear not our prayers, and hearts much like that nether millstone.
Samuel Adams concluded his remarks by saying, "We have this day restored the Sovereign, to whom alone all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which he bestowed upon them. From the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come." And may this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land.
This monument, ladies and gentlemen, tells a story. If you look to the front, you'll see on the inset, "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." It was on those laws, the will of the Maker, upon which the Declaration of Independence was premised and upon which the Constitution was predicated.
James Madison, for example, the chief architect of the Constitution, said we were entitled to have a constitution because of the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.
They knew the law. The law was clearly written by Sir William Blackstone, which was the law of this country for many, many decades. He said, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligations to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries and at all times, and no humans laws are of any validity if contrary to this." This law of nature and the law of revelation pin all human laws on these two foundations.
On each side of this monument, you'll see quotes from various presidents. For example, George Washington, on the back, said, "Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in our courts of justice."
The first Chief Justice, John Jay, also with President Washington, said, "If testimony of witnesses, if the oaths ever cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most precious rights will become insecure."
On the right side as you face it, you'll see the Constitution and the Preamble of Alabama, which says that we must invoke the favor and guidance of Almighty God; but you'll also sing -- see that National Anthem. Oh, you won't see the first stanza, "Oh, say can you see" -- you know it very well -- "by the dawn's early light." You'll see the verse we neglect today: "Thus be it ever when freemen shall stand between their loved home and the war's desolation, blest with vict'ry and peace. May the heaven rescued land praise the power that has made and preserved this nation. And conquer we must when our cause it is just. And this be our motto - in god is our trust. And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave."
Indeed, in 1956, the United states Congress, by act of Congress, by law today, made "In God We Trust" our national anthem - our national motto. "So help me God," by which we pledge to uphold the constitution, has been around since 1789, when the Judiciary Act established that as the basis of our oath.
You'll see quotes from that famous third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. He said, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God, that they're not to be violated but with his wrath?" Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His justice cannot sleep forever.
Surrounding this monument, you see every ounce of support for the acknowledgment of the sovereignty of that God and those absolute standards upon which our laws are based. Oh, this isn't surrounding the plaque with history, historical documents. All history supports the acknowledgment of God. You'll find no documents surrounding the Ten Commandments because they stand alone as an acknowledgment of that God that's contained in our pledge, contained in our motto, and contained in our oath.
I thank you very much for your attendance today. And I'll allow any questions to be answered by my public information officer and my attorney. Thank you.
The problem is that he does it with a clumsy and overbearing manner that I find that I can't support. His comments on CNBC repeatedly cited his refusal to follow the orders of the higher court as "upholding the Constitution." But I can see how his actions aren't Constitutional, and so it's all the more ridiculous in my eyes.
I hear cries of "well, there are 10 commandment slabs on the Supreme Court building in DC!" OK fine. Those aren't bothering anyone. Well they weren't until somebody brought it up. Now the ACLU or some other dabbling agency or individual will try to have them taken down as well. A secular argument for keeping them up would mean something to me. A cry of "This is a Christian Nation!" doesn't stand up for me. I'm not a Christian, and I don't think I have to accept someone trying to represent my government as exclusively Christian. That excludes me. I don't want to be excluded from public service, any more than Atty. Gen. Bill Pryor does. (By the way, I support Pryor's nomination to the 11th court of appeals, and I've already asked my liberal senator to step aside and allow him to be nominated.)
I'm sympathetic to the Christian whose beliefs are held up as a reason for excluding him from public service and so forth, but when people call for millions of Americans to go and defend this buffoon and his fundamentalist courtroom drama (defend how?), I find that I prefer the status quo.
I think it is because the action is saying, in effect, "the Ten Commandments are antithetical to the law."
I think they're being removed because of the spirit in which they were installed, how they appear, and just exactly how they are inscribed. The monument could have been a success for everyone involved if Moore hadn't been so exclusive about it.
Now there's the Christian spirit! By the way, what's a worse political environment, pre-reformation Christian Europe or Cuban communism?
That's a mangled interpretation. The direct (abbreviated) quote: this monument will serve to remind the appellate courts and judges [...] of the truth stated in the preamble of the Alabama Constitution, that in order to establish justice, we must invoke "the favor and guidance of Almighty God."
You do not want to see the prejudice because the prejudice is slanted your way.
It is incumbent upon you to show evidence that those who invoke Judeo-Christianity moral foundations pre-judge. Why would it be slanted "my way"? Are you concluding that were I to stand before Judge Moore, my apparent, uh, non-Muslim-ness, would help me get the decision my way? Not at all proven.
By the way, in removing the monument, no one's rights under the First Amendment, not even Judge Moore's, are violated...unless you equate the existence of that monument as being central to your ability of worshipping God. Do you?
Not everything is about First Amendment rights. Here is another direct quote from Moore's dedication speech ... by the authority vested in the Chief Justice as the authorized representative under the lease of this building in which you stand, I'm pleased to present this monument depicting the moral foundation of our law and hereby authorize it to be placed in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.
He did it as authorized representative, not as a private citizen. The question is under what law is the order made to remove it? If your answer is "establishment clause" please back it up.
No it's not, it is however incumbent upon Moore to honor his sworn duty to uphold the rule of impartiality expected of magistrates, and to openly show a lack of respect for the beliefs of at least a portion of the people of Alabama who may turn to him for impartial Judgement.
"Pleased to present"?
If he were truly "pleased to present", why did he feel it necessary to carry out the entire process in secrecy?
You are being led by the nose by a politician who has figured out that he canb turn you into automatons by the simple mention of God.
Thank you so much for posting this.
Moore is the government, as such, he has no inalienable rights.
Well, in his status as a human being he does, but in his capacity as the supreme magistrate of the State of Alabama he has certain POWERS.
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The question is, then, what specified, delineated Constitutional authority does the Federal Government have to meddle in such affairs of the State of Alabama?
...do you think that the citizens of Alabama have no venue and no recourse in this matter?
Anyone can file a lawsuit in Federal court, including any citizens of the State of Alabama. No one has been denied that recourse in this case. But in order for a suit to be successful, the federal court should have a basis for jurisdiction and there should be a valid legal claim upon which relief can be granted. IMO that neither requirement was ever logically met.
Even if you can answer the question as to what authority there is for your proposition that the Constitution requires the states to prohibit "lack of respect for the beliefs of at least a portion of the people of Alabama" I am curious to know why you think that forced REMOVAL of a historical monument shows impartiality, but erection of the same by a state official does not. Are you making the assertion that ONLY absence of historical monuments honoring God shows impartiality, and that the presence of the same does not? If so, what evidence do you have that the Founders ever thought such a thing at the time the Constitution was adopted?
Cordially,
No it's not-Luis Gonzalez
This goes back to your post # 206 And here's the Chief Magistrate of Alabama openlty stating that he's NOT impartial.-Luis Gonzalez
You have never backed up this claim.
You are being led by the nose by a politician who has figured out that he canb turn you into automatons by the simple mention of God.
I am influenced by many thinkers. I happened to catch Sean Hannity on the radio yesterday reading from a fantastic speech of Ronald Reagan's specifically dealing with the First Amendment. (Reagan advanced the culture war more than he is given credit for.) For example, he diplomatically described the First Amendment crusaders to separate church and state as "believing" they were protecting us. I know that to be true from debates with friends. In fact, they are moving us away from solid foundations.
It appears that Judge Moores display fails the Lemon test.
Yes, this sums up how I feel about his actions, and his defense of his actions on TV.
[His manner] should have no bearing on the facts of the case.
No, it's his political manner that's bothering me. He's making a religious freedom defense where I think one should be made on a secular basis. I need to be convinced of a secular reason to support his time consuming and divisive actions. Because it is so totally Judeo-Christian, I don't believe he'd ever succeed. So his refusal to remove the icon is not practical, it's not defensible in my view, and it's not contributing to anyone's real freedoms. It might actually be the opposite.
One pro-Moore poster brought up Islamic respect for the 10 commandments as proof that they are multicultural, but this only makes it more clear why Americans are best served by agnostic legal procedures. I have no interest in bringing Islamic sensibilities into the court room, and based on the evils of Sharia law, I'm sure most Christians would agree. Yet to some muslims, a Christian justification wouldn't give them a sense of justice. Justice in a democratic republic has to come from the law itself. I think that is the power of the Enlightenment. Laws stand on their own without religious justifications in a democracy!
We can ask how Moore's illegal behavior contributes to civic discourse? I can't anything useful in what he's doing, yet he insists on TV that proving that America a Christian nation is a part of his public, Consitututional duty. I can't agree, and so I'm unable to find any value in the time and energy he's sapping out of our legal system.
Thompson goes to great lengths to delve into Judge Moores faith and his motivations. From this, one can possibly infer that Judge Moore has been found guilty of thought crime.
I'm reacting to this on my own interpretation of Moore's comments on TV, not the legal decision that is ejecting the sculpture, and not Moore's justifications in his appeals. He said that he needs to do this to uphold the Constitution. I can't agree with that statement, and I find it so impractical that I no longer care why or how he tried to argue for keeping the memorial in the building. He's trying to usurp my Constitution to mean something other than what it should mean, and he wants to use this case as a way to solidify a national consensus to that effect. No way can I support that.
I do not find any reason for your fear that you will not be eligible for public service as a result of your status as a non-Christian.
Issuses of constitutionality are lofty and abstract. I find that his assertions that this is a Christian nation to be so forceful and so arbitrary, that if supported by any Supreme court or circuit court ruling, could well imply that one needed to be Christian in order to serve in government. That's just my reaction to his comments on TV, but until proven otherwise, I am happy to see him lose this case.
Second, it is not in the interest of you or anyone else in this country to live in fear of the ACLU and too keep our heads down in fear that we will be sued. To be sure, that is the position of many, including schools, churches and municipalities. But it should not be the attitude of free men.
Here is where we diverge most widely. You extrapolate from all of this drama and say that your freedoms are being threatened by our legal system's openness to societal change due to suits and filings and so forth. I suppose this is the proverbial "activist court." I don't like an activist court, or at least not a lot of what we've seen, either. But social justice has a lot to do with averages. How does the average case treat the plantif and the accused? How do randomly selected rulings measure up to the spirit of our Constitution? Our legal system is protecting many people today from many injustices, while today it limits the iconography that a Christian judge can bring into his professional practice, many other days it spares people from having Moore's own rulings from being justified in purely Christian terms. Justice is arbitrary. Justice is frustrating to many. But until you change the Constitution or elect different people who appoint judges who rule in different ways, I believe these rulings are acceptable, and talk of revolting against them incurs no sympathy from me.
Your reference to Judge Moore as a buffoon is unworthy of the rest of your comments. For the same reason I will not refer to you as an anti-Christian bigot. I hope that your slip does not reveal a hidden antipathy to people of faith.
His interview on CNBC definitely gave me the impression that he was a buffoon, and that he was grandstanding on this issue to gain attention and sympathy for a position that is untennable under current American laws. That is why I can't support him, not because of his personal beliefs. I feel he wants to force them on his constituents based completely on what he said on TV in his interview on CNBC. I don't know for certain, but I'm convinced that this is the same reason why he is facing legal rejection today.
Most every infraction in the Code of Hamurabi can get one put to death.
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.