Day Before 10 Commandments D-Day: Ambassadore Keyes on Hannity

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.

Laws stand on their own without religious justifications in a democracy!

Bless your heart, risk, but you argument completely collapses as this point.

I can prove my assertion:

1. Whom did the Founders regard as Sovereign? Before you answer with your own opinion, please elucidate the historical facts about Whom the Founders regarded as Sovereign.

2. Every law has as it's root the enforcement by force of some moral precept. The question though is, what is that moral basis? My point here is there is no logical, justifiable moral basis for any law that is contrary to God's law. If you want to make a case for such a law, go ahead and try. I can and will provide provide an adequate respone. I predict that you will be unable to provide a consistent moral basis for anything other.

3. Your statement above leaves no room for inalienable rights, a principle firmly established in our organic documents.

4. Your statement above is on it's face contradictory to written statements of the Founders.

Cordially,

I’m sure that your emotions will not allow you to see the logic of the case.

I don't think so. I have strong convictions that religion doesn't belong in government. The conflict over the monument, and Moore's defense of its place in his courthouse has convinced me that he is sermonizing instead of conducting justice. Nothing I've read or heard so far has changed my mind about that.

Your suggestion that you are seriously concerned that if the monument in is left in place it will overthrow both constitutions, I can only attribute to paranoia – but more like disingenuousness on your part.

No, not at all. I think the religious right in this country fails to understand the strength and rationality of separation advocates. There are atheists and Christians, many fundamentalists, who hold these ideals. It comes from a deeply held belief that the individual has the ultimate responsibility to interpret religious laws and convictions. Bringing the state in on any level offers the opportunity for abuse and tyranny. These types of tyrannies are what drove the original Pilgrims to Holland and then to America. Before that, they triggered the Gunpowder Plot against the British monarchy. America has religious dissent and self- determination at its very core, and we're on two sides of the same coin when we debate this issue.

When you say that "paranoia" is one of the only motivations for my mistrust, you're dismissing hundreds of years of revolt against statist religion, the history of which I knew well before I had even left gradeschool. This history has convinced me that I have no means of determining a religious leader's credibility or sincerity, much less my own agreement with his convinctions. A politician or a civil servant must be able to legislate or adjucate based on rational discourse, not metaphysics. I will vote according to that belief. That's my choice.

If you are a conservative Christian, you need not apply.

I think this is a travesty, and I agree with you that it's hurting the moral fabric of our society when we turn down upright and intellectually honest civil servants for elevated positions because we fear their religious beliefs. But in the case of Moore, and what I heard on CNBC yesterday, he has lost my confidence. Pryor still has it, and is earning even more of my respect as he sets his own beliefs aside to challenge Moore.

Unfortunately, the topic of religion brings out the worst in some people; most especially those who would not be uncomfortable if all Christians were dead.

This is not the case with me at all. Most of my family is Christian, and in fact, my convictions about the separation of church and state have come from my parents' own religious instruction and reasoning. I think my own support for people like Pryor and Ashcroft goes against some of the sensibilities of my parents, who are even more mistrustful of "Christian" politicians than I am. For example, there are a wide variety of Christian sects and denominations, and they differ widely on what is biblical truth and what isn't. The rapture is one highly contentious doctrine, and from Catholics to Baptists to the Amish, you'll have vastly different convictions. This is why America is the land of conscience. We are all free to obey our consciences, and so our laws are strictly based on rational arguments, not metaphysics.

You might be interested in why I support Ashcroft, who is widely criticized and reviled by humanists as a vector of religious oppression in government. Why? Because he restrains his personal convictions (which are upright and honest) and executes his office faithfully to the law. Moreover, he is a strong supporter of the second amendment. So I believe that Ashcroft is confident in his patriotism, and is not ever going to be the tyrant that professing secularists who would ban guns truly could be themselves. If he were, he would be terrified of a nation of armed men.

Whom did the Founders regard as Sovereign?

The rule of law. "We are a nation of laws, not men." Men will say they believe anything to get their way. But it's in reasoning with others that they create just laws.

Every law has as it's root the enforcement by force of some moral precept.

Yes, but I can argue that each law should be able to be proved rationally, as well. I doubt there is a single core law that you would defend with your sacred honor that you couldn't also explain with humanist reasoning. If you couldn't, then I would be able to for you.

Your statement above leaves no room for inalienable rights

Not so. There is nothing about Christianity in our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution, and certainly none where these documents talk about inalienable rights. Moreover, the discussion about the Creator and God in these texts can be seen metaphorically by the agnostic or atheist as having been derived from our intrinsic self-determination. We are self-aware, and we can think. Therefore, we are not creatures to be forced to do or not to do things that go against our consciences, whatever might be the origin of them. But on the subject of the core laws that all of us instinctively know and understand (such as the injunction against murder and stealing), then if someone's conscience tells him to violate my rights, the state can intervene. To you, God is behind these precepts. To me, it is my rational existence and the knowledge that others are equal before the law that justifies the rules. We both follow them to the same effect: we cooperate, and we honor each other's lives and property.

Your statement above is on it's face contradictory to written statements of the Founders.

This is a hotly debated topic, and of course you are going to keep thinking so. But I would say that our Founders were among the most advanced students of the Enlightenment ever in the history of mankind. If they were here to debate these issues with us today, they might have something else to say altogether. I suspect they would offer a third way, which is to encourage moral convictions in government but to always be ready to give a rational explanation for them.

The founding of American government was one of the most rational acts mankind has ever committed, if we disregard slavery and sufferage for women. And yes, there are both moral and rational arguments against slavery and the disenfranchisement of women.

Don't you see the common traits in the decision to FORCE the removal of the monument? The forced recognition of atheism? You are opposing your own viewpoint.

No, you're still missing my point. The monument is not on private property. What is done with that particular part of Alabama is wholly up to the laws of our land, which based on the judges who have been appointed by leaders whom Alabamans and Americans have elected, state that the monument must go. There is nothing arbitrary about that force. It is constitutional, and it is even supported by AG Pryor.

Castro's atheism, Charlemagne's Christianity, or Rome's Caesar worship is mandated under threat of execution.

And if we disregard the revolutionary strides made in American society away from religious oppression going back to the arrival of the Pilgrims and the abolishment of the Church of England's control over this country, then we slide back toward state religious oppression one frustrating disagreement at a time. You may be vexed by the disposition of a certain slab of rock today, and tomorrow I may be irritated by a greedy televangelist, but both of us must live under the laws of the land. The first amendment is a rational law, justified by its purpose and utility to all citizens. It dictates that government avoid sectarian justification for its actions and eschew the invisible and irrational arguments of relgious passion in its considerations. It also upholds the telvangelist's right to espouse any beliefs he wants in public.

In a democracy, people will disagree about many things, even the reasoning and motivations for a given law. But these frustrations are normal in a democratic republic. They're normal in a land where not everyone believes the same creed or metaphysics. We may disagree, but we are both Americans and we both are bound to obey the laws unless they are unjust. (But we must be prepared to pay the consequences if we do choose to disobey an unjust law, and we must absolutely avoid harming others in the process of disregarding them.)

There are issues with freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience in our secularization of society, no doubt about it. But for people like me who find no comfort in the Christianizing of our government, I will continue to support the status quo. There are other ways to solve the problems sought to be resolved by "bringing back Christ into our government."

"If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England. To account for this we should remember, that the doctrine of toleration was not then known, or had not prevailed in the world. Persecution was therefore not so much the fault of the sect as of the times. It was not in those days deemed wrong in itself. The general opinion was only, that those who are in error ought not to persecute the truth: But the possessors of truth were in the right to persecute error, in order to destroy it. Thus every sect believing itself possessed of all truth, and that every tenet differing from theirs was error, conceived that when the power was in their hands, persecution was a duty required of them by that God whom they supposed to be offended with heresy. By degrees more moderate and more modest sentiments have taken place in the Christian world; and among Protestants particularly all disclaim persecution, none vindicate it, and few practise it. We should then cease to reproach each other with what was done by our ancestors, but judge of the present character of sects or churches by their present conduct only." -- Benjamin Franklin, Letter to the London Packet, 3 June 1772

The direction that we have taken in the last 60 years is to remove all references to religion in public places, short of the use of a generic 'GOD' on our currency, and non-sectarian and ecumenical statements about this 'GOD' in ceremonies and such. In short, there is no underlying concept of the God that the writers of the Declaration referenced four times, and many more times with more specific description in the Federalist Papers.

And if we disregard the revolutionary strides made in American society away from religious oppression going back to the arrival of the Pilgrims and the abolishment of the Church of England's control over this country, then we slide back toward state religious oppression one frustrating disagreement at a time. The first 150 years of America was a time of religious oppression? I don't think so. Religious oppression is happening right now in communist and muslim countries, it has never happened in America by the government, but the it's starting to show up in cases like Alabama, with atheists the oppressors.

The first amendment is a rational law, justified by its purpose and utility to all citizens. It dictates that government avoid sectarian justification for its actions and eschew the invisible and irrational arguments of relgious passion in its considerations. What you call sectarian justification is simply a recognition of the source of all just law, the revealed God of the Bible Himself. It's not done by Moore, the founding fathers or me to try to make my position in society superior over another's, but to refer a standard that doesn't change. A secular agreement about what is just, can morph over time to fit the circumstances and whims of a society that wishes to justify anything it wants for any reason it wants. This case is an attempt to stop the slide toward arbitrary and meaningless law.

I think your argument springs from a mistrust that a judge can invoke a Judeo-Christian belief in justice and still be just without prejudice against non-christians. This is the same litmus test the Judiciary committee is using against SC and federal appointmented judges, with the intent to cleanse the federal bench of all traces of religious influence. I submit to you that a christian is more inclined to judge fairly than an atheist. Thus my comment to LG about Cuba. Atheism is the religion of communism, and I am not so stupid that I don't notice the slow encroachment of the last 60 years. We have had enough, and this will go no farther.

One last thing- the result of removing all references to God in public life accomplishes exactly what the First Amendment was ratified to prevent: A homogenous expression of faith dictated by the government, in this case atheism.

I hate to be redundant, but for the sake of your courteous reply, I’ll go over the issues again.

The issue is that there is a granite monument in the Alabama courthouse that refers to the Decalogue on its top and quotes several founders around it’s middle, all of these quotations refer in some way to God. Not the Protestant God or the Catholic God but God.

These references bother certain groups and people. These groups and people sued to have them removed.

Much has been made about Judge Moore and his Christianity. There is no claim by the plaintiffs, or by anyone else that I have heard, that Judge Moore’s faith unfairly affects his courtroom judgment. The Opinion by Judge Thompson goes to great lengths in exploring Moore’s faith. From this, as well as from your own comments, is that while the plaintiffs have a problem with the monument, Thompson and you have a problem with Moore’s faith.

Since this is supposed to be a constitutional argument, the monument is ordered removed based on the establishment clause of the first amendment. I find this absurd since I do not find that this monument “establishes” any church, either in Alabama or even in the courthouse.

We then move on to your contention that the world is filled with examples of religious abuse. My response is, yes, but that is the human condition, not the fault of religion. If you have a short memory, I will refer you to the fact that the greatest mass murders, foulest human rights abuses and most despicable acts of depravity were committed within the memory of living man by the lovely rationalists of the USSR and China. States - I will add - that were officially atheist and appealed to rationality and reason. You, on the other hand have to back several centuries to point to the Pilgrims, a sect that suffered not nearly the abuse that were visited on those who lived in peoples paradises.

You see, unless you believe in God – the Judeo-Christian God - you can justify anything, including killing 6 million Jews, as working for the greater good. Having the depredations of the rational humanists somewhat more current that the history books, I have much less fear from men of Moore’s persuasion that I have of the atheists of the ACLU, or even of you, who in a moment of blinding rationality, find a moral imperative that people like me should not be left alone.

Thank you for sharing that most of your family is Christian. So is Teddy Kennedy – or so he says, it’s just that his version of Christianity allows him to do just about anything to anybody. When I hear this, I am brought back to the statement you once heard: “some of my best friends are ….” You fill in the blank. It isn’t said much any more because now it’s the punch line for a joke.

For the moment, the people with guns are under orders to remove the monument. I have a suggestion for it’s replacement. There is absolutely no reference to God.

A tasteful sign:

The Ten Commandments

The Basis for the American Common Law

Were removed

As a result of a lawsuit

by the

ACLU

The

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

And

THE FOLLOWING PLAINTIFFS:

STEPHEN R. GLASSROTH

MELINDA MADDOX

BEVERLY HOWARD

Who claimed in a court of law That they found the monument offensive.

Perhaps the sign should be encased in glass and lighted so that it may be read at night.

Thanks for your response.

Me: Whom did the Founders regard as Sovereign?

You: The rule of law.

Samuel Adams: (upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence) ""We have this day restored The Sovereign , to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and . . . from the rising to the setting of the sun, may His Kingdom come!"

There is nothing about Christianity in our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution, and certainly none where these documents talk about inalienable rights.

WHAT??

"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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

"The Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth [and] laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."
John Quincy Adams

"No people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of Events and of [the] Destiny of Nations than the people of the United States ... And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed this favored land."
James Madison

... To you, God is behind these precepts.

Me and the Founders, too:^)

To me, it is my rational existence and the knowledge that others are equal before the law that justifies the rules. We both follow them to the same effect: we cooperate, and we honor each other's lives and property.

Yes, I agree. But I would point out that in the beginning of our system of government, and even before, the concept of equality before the law came from the concept that we are all alike before that Sovereign to Whom Adams referred. It was basically derived from the Scripture that "There is no partiality with God". I happen to believe based on the evidence of history that the degree to which God is shut out of public life will be proportionate to the degree of the continued degradation of both the precept and the practice of equality before the law. Just my two cents.

Cordially,

Religious oppression is happening right now in communist and muslim countries, it has never happened in America by the government, but the it's starting to show up in cases like Alabama, with atheists the oppressors.

I find two issues in this statement. First, I think the opportunity for religious oppression is abundant in every generation. What about the civil servant's conflict with his supervisors over attending Christian church services when others are at work? What about people the Pilgrims put in the stocks for disagreeing with their teachings? How about the beliefs of the Amish regarding pacifism and such? Religious freedom is not something we can take for granted, not at all.

Second, the case in Alabama may be decried as oppression, but the onus to prove it is on Moore's shoulders. He's maintaining that in the line of his work, in the day to day prosecution of his duties, a religious artifact is required to conduct his job. He maintains that without the monument, his state becomes godless and directionless, especially if he's forced to remove it on the grounds of state agnosticism. I have not been able to agree with this argument, and I am not surprised that other authorities have reached the same conclusions.

What you call sectarian justification is simply a recognition of the source of all just law, the revealed God of the Bible Himself.

No, I call it sectarian because it's Judeo-Christian. Much care was taken in the authorship of our founding documents to avoid mention of a specific religion.

This is the same litmus test the Judiciary committee is using against SC and federal appointmented judges, with the intent to cleanse the federal bench of all traces of religious influence.

I must be clear about this: it is not the same thing. In fact, as Miss Marple has commented, Moore actually makes it more difficult for the appointment of devout Christian judges because he's unable to separate his personal beliefs from the conduct of his duties. A civil servant like Pryor, who does everything he can to support his Christian constituents' rights and equal protection, including providing workarounds to school prayer restrictions right on his website, is (from all I've seen) very professional. I could trust him in any office because I know he will separate what he believes as a religious man from what he knows is his civil duties. That actually buys him time and recognition to make arguments for increased acceptance of religion within areas that the secularists had tried to make offlimits!

Atheism is the religion of communism, and I am not so stupid that I don't notice the slow encroachment of the last 60 years. We have had enough, and this will go no farther.

Communism upholds atheism as a given, as a conclusion to which all good party members shall come. Like Moore, communists make spiritual assumptions (in this case the notion that spirituality is human only) at the civil level. Instead of leaving religious proclivities to the individual, communists and Moore both champion their own beliefs and attempt to codify them as a part of government institutions. In the case of the Gunpowder Plot, Catholics were forced to attend Church of England services or pay huge fines. Communists looked for Christians to send to Siberia. Judge Moore wants a Judeo-Christian monument in his building or else he will foment a state-wide rebellion. Moore isn't oppressing anyone today with his monument, but Americans have learned to be highly mistrustful of those who would put personal religion ahead of rationality. It is a core aspect of our society, based on hundreds of years of revolt against religious oppression made in the name of morality and social cohesion.

It's easy to reach that conclusion when you are the devout believer, and it's your personal convictions you see being limited and restricted in the conduct of public service. I also agree that the Madaline Murray O'hare agenda was much too agressive, and has hurt our country deeply. For example, I see the KJV Bible as a superb instrument for teaching old English, ancient history, social order, and American culture. We need to bring it back as a grammar instruction tool, if anything else! We've gone too far in trying to avoid the Church of America (like the Church of England). Much too far. But there are good reasons for the secularization movement, and Judge Moore's agenda is one of them.

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.