Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ten Commandments on Display Has No Legal Standing
sierratimes.com ^

Posted on 08/24/2003 10:14:36 AM PDT by Timothy Paul

Ten Commandments on Display Has No Legal Standing By J.J. Johnson Please excuse the shocking title of this article. I will try to get past much of the rhetoric from both sides of the standoff about the en Commandments on display at the State Courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama. As thousands descend to Alabama's state capitol for prayer and defense of a 5300 pound rock, and legal scholars try to sort out the mess, many pundits wonder 'just what point is Chief Justice Roy Moore trying to make?' Well, here's one man's take on the matter: Despite all the historical documents from this nation's beginning, and despite everything we were taught from a young age, we are a more 'enlightened' people. We elected more 'enlightened' politicians who in turn appointed more 'enlightened' judges. And these all knowing, all powerful people, having more information at their fingertips than at any time in world history, have ruled that the basic rules of mankind that have been in place for at least 50 centuries have no place ; no legal standing in today's government.

...and that is the exact point Roy Moore is making.

The order to remove the Ten Commandments from public display at the Alabama Court Building is not the cause of a failed government, failed courts, or a failed people - it is instead, the result of it.

I will do my best here not to preach a sermon or sound like a right-wing zealot, but no one can tell me what is 'offensive' about those ten rules that are, in reality, the foundation of what was American law. But that's ancient history. We are more 'enlightened' today.

Being the greatest and most powerful country on earth, we don't need silly rules such as those ten. No, we have government today - which has become the new god. And we have finally come to a point where there just isn't enough room on the Grand Stage for two gods. Thus, the courts have consistently ruled in recent days that the 'Other God' must go.

And so, what if God does leave? What if he actually said, "ok, you guys win - and you're on your own"? That would make us a better country, wouldn't it?

Of course. And when folks like Jerry Falwell makes a statement on September 11 implying the God has removed his protective hand from us, we won't have to chastise him - since it would have been true.

And after such tragedies, we won't have national days of prayer, and prayer sessions in Congress while grieving over the dead because there will be no God to pray to. We told Him to get lost, remember? No, let us bow our heads and pray (and pay homage) to the New god of government. They will protect us from now on, and provide for all of our needs.

Let's not sing God Bless America anymore, since we really don't want him to. That's George W. Bush's job now. And let's remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, since we really don't trust him anymore. We've placed our faith in our money supply to Alan Greenspan.

And when it comes to religious symbols, we do our best to protect those in the war zone of Iraq, while throwing our own in the trash.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Word has it that a guy named Moses had gotten these ten rules straight from God himself. Even though e-mail wasn't around back then, God somehow downloaded them on to a couple of stone tablets. When Moses came back down from that mountain and saw the folks that were led out of slavery acting like too many of us today, he threw the tablets down, and they were forced to wander in the desert for 40 years.

But today, in the more enlightened America, we don't have to wander in the desert. We have military personnel to do that for us. And little by little, more will go and wander as well. You see, we have a new god now, and the whole world has become a desert.

So if and when we are plagued with earthquakes, violent storms, endless droughts, brushfires, or just people going crazy and shooting their co-workers or schoolmates, we'll call them "Acts of God", then plead to our new god (government) for our protection from all of these things. Yes, this new god is more to our liking. We can pray, and if the new god doesn't deliver, we can just vote him out of office (federal judges not withstanding). That Old God wouldn't let us do that.

Isn't it ironic that if everyone simply followed those rules, it would make not only that 5300 pound rock, but that entire building itself - irrelevant?

With the polls showing upwards of 77% of Alabamians, and the vast majority of Americans supporting the Ten Commandments being displayed at the courthouse, people are scratching their heads wondering, "why can't they just do what the majority wants?"

Answer: Because we asked for this.

We have long since slipped away from those tenants - and it's reflected in the people in government that represent us, enforce the laws, and rule on the laws. Yes, America - we didn't get the kind of government we wanted, nor the kind we needed. We get the kind of government we deserve.

We have become so 'enlightened' that we don't even know how to respect or enforce our own sovereignty. Millions cross our national borders illegally, and our leaders don't even have the will to call it illegal. As a result, we will eventually lose at least 4 southwestern states. I have all but given up trying to make it an issue anymore. We deserve it.

We have become so 'enlightened' that the only criteria for any judge to sit on a bench, despite all the other important decisions they have to make, depends on his or her willingness to sanction the killing of the unborn. Fine. We didn't want them to take the phrase "Thou shall not kill" seriously, anyway.

We have become so 'enlightened' that we fight to protect retirement schemes that we know will go broke soon, but that's okay since we've decided to let our grandchildren pay the bill. Then again, if they have no respect for that "Honor thy Father and Mother" thing when they grow up, why should they bother taking care of us?

We are so 'enlightened' that we find it acceptable to act pre-emptive, killing anyone we see fit to keep us safe, if we think they are a threat. Make sense, since we don't want God's protection anymore. We have to live this way now. We have enemies all around us and even within us we are told - because they envy us. They don't have the new god that we have, and they're jealous.

Gay Bishops are in, Boy Scouts are out, and sodomy has become a civil right, protected by the Constitution somewhere. Okay, I get it. According to our new god, the oldest industry on earth (agriculture) has become the most dangerous to the environment. And we all know that with all the craziness in schools these days, the last thing we need is prayer inside those buildings. Good thing we threw God out of there a long time ago. Just look at how much schools have improved since then.

Yes, for government's sake - let's get those Ten Commandments out of public view before something good happens.

And while we're at it, let's get all those crosses out of Arlington Cemetery. It's public property, you know. And tell all of our troops fighting overseas that worship service is history, turn in those pocket Bibles and as a matter of fact, they must all be atheists in those foxholes.

Let's do it right: Let us all come to an agreement that when the Bill of Rights was passed, they had no respect for any god, despite the fact that the Constitutional Convention was opened and closed with a Prayer to Almighty God. To Congress: Fire that priest we pay with our tax dollars to open and close each session of Congress with Prayer. We have a new god now, remember?

And one more thing: Let's not support Israel anymore, since their presence in the holy land is based on scripture, and our government's support would represent an 'establishment of religion'.

Hey ACLU and SPLC: Wanna take THAT one on?

Now, as for those people who have dedicated themselves to prevent the monument's removal, and those who have rallied to the cause - take a good look at them. That's what's left of the American ideal that was founded over two centuries ago - like it or not.

Make no mistake about it. If it weren't for too many trips already taken this year, I'd be there myself from 2000 miles away. Who knows - if the standoff in Alabama lasts, I may still be there. If I lived anywhere in Dixie, I would be writing this article from Montgomery.

Would I suggest others go? Let's put it this way: You don't even have to be a Christian, Jew or even a Muslim. God knows none of us have lived up the standards of all those rules, but it you believe the Ten Commandments should REMAIN the foundation on which this country is based, then take a drive down to Montgomery. Your fellow Americans are waiting for you.

And what about you, Mr. Bush? The silence from the White House is deafening. Is this only a "state issue" where the federal government should not get involved? If that were the case, we wouldn't be in this mess. I would not only pray for protection of the Ten Commandments, but that the President, during his fund raising travels, make a stop in Montgomery to visit with the Chief Justice, or maybe the people standing vigilant outside.

Odds are, they all voted for George W. Bush.

You see America: There is no sense looking for a legal loophole to save the Ten Commandments anymore, as God has no legal standing left in today's courts, government, or much of society. But the way things look from my piece of the world, perhaps it's time we invited Him back.

Just my opinion,

J.J. Johnson


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-194 next last
To: Pahuanui
"As far as I can see, again excluding gov't time/money/property, no Christians are being prevented from worshipping whenever they please."

The government's time and money aren't at issue. Therefore 2/3 of your point are invalid. The government owns the majority of property in America, so yes, there is a very signficiant prohibition against religions.

And yes...this prohibition is what you're supporting.

You have not demonstrated the ability to consider the meaning of removing all things that allude to religion from government property. You're focused on some flawed, and non-existant attempt toward the establishment of religion that supposedly exists in a work of art that merely has a Biblical theme.

It's not there.
141 posted on 08/24/2003 10:29:44 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 7th_Sephiroth
WHAT PERSECUTION OF NON-CHRISTIANS!?!??

The existance of a statue or monument with Biblical themes does not even present a *challenge* to non-Christian beliefs.
142 posted on 08/24/2003 10:30:45 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Did you know that only two percent of Christian Churches in America display the 10 Commandments? "

That's great!

THAT PROVES MY POINT!

The 10 Commandments aren't a religious establishment. They're a work of art with a Biblical theme.

I'd be willing to bet that they are found more often in reference to LAW than in reference to religion!!!!

However, their removal rests entirely upon objections to religion i.e. religious intolerance.
143 posted on 08/24/2003 10:39:36 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
The 10 Commandments aren't a religious establishment. They're a work of art with a Biblical theme.

That's not what Judge Roy says. Judge Roy says they are meant to establish "the predominance of God over Church and State."

That's religious.

144 posted on 08/24/2003 10:42:00 PM PDT by sinkspur (God's law is written on men's hearts, not a stone monument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
That's not what Judge Roy says.

No statements of Judge Moore are on the monument Myron Thompson censored.

145 posted on 08/24/2003 10:45:09 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
"Honor thy father and thy mother" is the foundation for laws that give biological parents first claim on children.

It is also the basis by which parents are now subject to legal prosecution for their children's misbehavior.

This commandment *is* in secular law several ways, several places, and in contemporary times.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery"

This commandment *is* in secular law in a couple of different ways. First it is the foundation for the marriage principle. It is extremely important if it is violated, when considering divorce, and it has secular implications regarding reinforcement of the marriage-as-a-contract viewpoint of marriage. MORE...it is the foundation against statutory rape of the young and counsels wisdom for youth against disease.

"Thou shalt not covet..."

Would seem to create a "thought crime" if enforced in secular law. You can find it, nonetheless, in "hate crimes". It counsels wisdom, and oddly enough also lower taxes.

The 10 Commandments are the foundation of Law in Western Civilization...and will always be the root of law if it is banned.

146 posted on 08/24/2003 10:47:12 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Ok...
...he's wrong.

They don't establish any such thing.

Unless you're already a Christian.
147 posted on 08/24/2003 10:48:13 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"See, to me, this isn't about the 10 Commandments; it's about Roy Moore and the next step on his career ladder. "

I have no problem should you choose to denigrate Judge Moore with this clear statement.

You might be right.

Don't, however, advocate anti-religious actions based upon the flaws of a zealot.
148 posted on 08/24/2003 10:51:47 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #149 Removed by Moderator

To: jlogajan
Similarly to the raving anti-religious bigot, religious neutrality and the total elimination of religion look the same. They are not the same.
150 posted on 08/24/2003 10:56:43 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
No.

The Supremes, by the authority granted *themselves* interpret the law of the land.

AND

It's another reason why a civil war is a high probability within the US.
151 posted on 08/24/2003 10:59:07 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"The only thing I fear is a theocracy, Walsh. Of any kind, under any religious banner. "

Are you implying that a total ban against all religions would be preferable for you?

It's not something that can be logically drawn from your statement, however, barring any and all religious displays does not aid in the creation of a theocracy while it *does* imply a preference for a total ban against all religions. (i.e. your opposition to the display seems to fail logic as I've demonstrated for you with your own words in a Devil's Advocate method)
152 posted on 08/24/2003 11:06:52 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: 7th_Sephiroth
Cite it.

I have never seen persecution of non-Christians within the US.

You must cite it.
153 posted on 08/24/2003 11:11:16 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You said that already, and it's still irrelevant.
154 posted on 08/24/2003 11:13:53 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

Comment #155 Removed by Moderator

To: Maelstrom
"Honor thy father and thy mother" -- biological parent's first claim to children...


baloney...
the hebrew word translate as "HONOR" literally translated means PAY your parents. It means that you are to give them what they need and what is their just due for raising you... changing your dirty diapers, feeding you all the time and wiping your nose.

PAY, MONEY and SUPPORT from the children to the parents... NOT a custody issue at all...


you are reaching.
156 posted on 08/25/2003 12:03:53 AM PDT by Robert_Paulson2 (roll the stone away... the tomb is empty... and there is no statue of the ten commandments inside.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
No statements of Judge Moore are on the monument Myron Thompson censored.


True... but they are the subject of about six legal charges wherein his colleagues on the Supreme Court (whom he did NOT consult with on his "religious statue" placement, prior to it's creation... ) are moving against him... most of them confirmed Christians, who are just as devout as the judge.

HIS statements are part of the legal judgements against him and they are part of the Judge's own testimonies under oath...

It is disingenous to act as if we can now separate the problem of the statue's placement, from the legal pronouncements made by it's creator, in a court of law. The judge's disrespect for his colleagues in doing this against their will, surrepticiously, is foundational to the removal.

It would not surprise me in the least that after they remove the JUDGE and the Marble slab... the eight authorize a similar work, with virtually all the same elements, and a few of their own additions to make this one "acceptable" to the feds.

The judge may end up doing time for dishonoring his colleagues. The eight of them together, along with a federal district court and the USSC, have a lot of collective power, to make a significant change in the Judge's career path.

You and I are on way opposite sides of this matter. But, I think that is how it will play out. And I know, you did not ask for my opinion.
157 posted on 08/25/2003 12:16:09 AM PDT by Robert_Paulson2 (roll the stone away... the tomb is empty... and there is no statue of the ten commandments inside.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
but they are the subject of about six legal charges wherein his colleagues on the Supreme Court

Which, once again, is a different matter from the censorship of the Ten Commandments.

158 posted on 08/25/2003 12:39:13 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Which, once again, is a different matter from the censorship of the Ten Commandments.


actually the two issues are connected.
159 posted on 08/25/2003 12:48:46 AM PDT by Robert_Paulson2 (roll the stone away... the tomb is empty... and there is no statue of the ten commandments inside.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
The government's time and money aren't at issue. Therefore 2/3 of your point are invalid.

You seem to be experiencig severe cognitive dissonance. Fractional division is irrelevant to the particular matter at hand, so do try and remain topical, hmmmm?

The government owns the majority of property in America, so yes, there is a very signficiant prohibition against religions.

Kindly conduct yourself to the next state park, for example. Once there, begin to pray. Or, if it better suits you, read your bible. You will find no officer of the state preventing you from doing so.

And yes...this prohibition is what you're supporting.

Again, you are not prohibited from worship on gov't property, thus such an example cannot be used to further detail some bogeyman paradigm about prohibition of religion or the free exercise thereof.

You have not demonstrated the ability to consider the meaning of removing all things that allude to religion from government property

Certainly I can consider such a concept. In the case in Alabama, however, your point is irrelevant.

. You're focused on some flawed, and non-existant attempt toward the establishment of religion that supposedly exists in a work of art that merely has a Biblical theme.

I see you are utterly unaquainted with either Judge Moore, his statements or the case in general. It's not there.

160 posted on 08/25/2003 1:04:33 AM PDT by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-194 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson