Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Keyes' 10 Commandments Speech
E-mail ^ | 8/16/03 | Alan Keyes

Posted on 08/25/2003 8:53:37 AM PDT by Iconoclast2

Ten Commandments Rally in Alabama ~~~ Alan Keyes ~~~ August 16, 2003

I have to start out today making a bit of a confession. That's, by the way, appropriate for a catholic, I guess--making confession. But I have to say that very often I stand before crowds, and I believe that I speak from some knowledge that I've gained over the years, or some meditative thought. But today, I come to you befuddled a little bit because, here we stand, in the midst of a crisis--a federal judge has threatened the Chief Justice of the state of Alabama. We're all gathering together in defense of his action. And the judge has told him he's got to take the Ten Commandments out of the courthouse.

And all of these people are out running about, telling us that if we stand here against those pronouncements of this judge that we're somehow breaking the law, that we are somehow showing contempt for the Constitution.

Now, I gotta tell y'all. All of my life, I have done my best to stand for a few things. Chief of all is respect for Almighty God, [audience: amen!] and all that He enjoins upon us with His will. But among them has been respect for the Constitution of the United States. And I want to tell you: I would not stand anywhere where my standing there could be construed in a way that undercut or damaged the Constitution of this country, on which I believe our liberties depend.

But there's something I don't understand. This is my ignorance. Because I've thought about it, I've read a fair amount about the Constitution and laws, and so forth and so on. Would somebody point out to me the law that this judge is basing his decision on? Because if I'm breaking the law, or if Judge Moore's breaking the law, I'd like to know which law it is. I'd like to know who passed it, I'd like to know where it's written! [cheering, applause]

They tell me that if, somehow or another, I don't respect this doctrine of the "separation of church and state," I am disrespecting the Constitution. I sat down again the other day. I scoured the document--it's not very long, by the way. You could get through it in a fairly short time. That was the brilliance of our Founders. It didn't take them a hundred thousand pages. It's not like the treaty that established the World Trade Organization, which ten thousand people couldn't get through in ten thousand years. No. You could sit down and read the Constitution in a short session. I scoured it. I looked through it once, I looked through it twice. I looked through it a dozen times. I didn't find a single mention of this "separation!" [cheering, applause]

Where?! Where, I ask them, is the law that is being broken? Where is the Constitutional provision that is being defied?

I'll tell you where it is. It's right there in front of our eyes. We were reminded of it again today. We ought to look at it and think it through, word by careful word, as our Founders did: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Now hold on, hold on. Before we jump to conclusions here, I want to point out that those words don't, by the way, simply forbid Congress to establish a religion. That's not what they say. And the liberals, all these people always act like "establishment is forbidden." No. That's not what's forbidden. It is forbidden for Congress to touch this question! It is forbidden for Congress to address it! It is forbidden for Congress to deal with it! [cheering, applause]

And I'll stand here right now. I'll ask with Howie Philips. I'll ask with every constitutionist of conscience. If Congress is forbidden to make a law, how can this judge be enforcing a law they cannot make?

But we need to continue, though: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise . . . " Now, I want to stop there because, you know, I'm middle-aged now, and I gotta tell you. When you're young, it's bad enough. As you get a little older, this business of exercise becomes a real challenge. It has been for me. I still have a son young enough that I've got to be encouraging him to get his body ready for high school, and get out there and run and work. And you've got to lead by example, so exercise has been much on my mind.

One thing I've noticed about it: as much as I wish it were not so, simply sitting back in my Lazy Boy thinking about it doesn't help. Having a firm opinion about it, believing deeply in exercise with all my being, that doesn't make my body stronger. No. Last time I looked, exercise means that you've got to get up out of the chair and act on what's in your heart. You've got to live it out in what you do, in what you say, in how you act, in how you govern your life!

All those liberals in this country have tried to put us in a box, where freedom of religion means the freedom to believe as you chose. No! The free exercise of religion means that we have the right in our families, and in our schools, and in our communities, and in our governments, and in our states to live according to the word of God! [cheering, applause]

Now, again, see. There are going to be those folks--they would like to accuse of me: "Well, that's Alan. You don't get to impose your views on it. That's your view," and such. No, it's not. This is what I don't understand also, because for most of our country's history, it not only never occurred to judges and courts that folks didn't have the right to read the Bible at the workplace, teach it in the schools, respect the law of God in their lives. It was so far from occurring to them that they acknowledged it as one of the foundations of our life and freedom. And in many decisions, including decisions by the Supreme Court on polygamy and so forth, it was explicitly cited as one of the bases for our understanding of law.

It's also true that this free exercise of religion was very deeply important to the people who founded the country. Why do you think a lot of the first colonies were founded--Massachusetts and other places like this? People who were fleeing from war and tyranny and persecution came here.

Now, what kind of persecution was it? It wasn't just the persecution, "I'm going to throw you to the lions if you don't believe what I believe." No. What they were doing in Europe in those days, on one side and the other, was looking at folks and saying, "I'm the sovereign. I'm the national power. And in your cities and in your provinces, you must act according to my religious beliefs." And there were cities, and there were towns, and there were provinces, and there were states that stood up and said no--and they fought, and the blood ran red for their right to live in communities that were governed by laws that reflected their faith! [cheering, applause]

If nothing else today, I think all of us who are here, and all of those of Christian faith and belief and conscience, and all of those who stand on a ground of biblical tradition, all of those who believe that we cannot live without the law and rule of that God we invoked when we claimed our rights--all of us must stand and make clear, to the courts, and to the Congress, and to the president, and to every power that be, that we remember now what our freedom of religion is supposed to be! [cheering, applause] And that we shall demand against every coercion that we be granted again what the tyranny of the courts have sought to wrest from us: the freedom to live in communities that are governed by laws that reflect our beliefs. [applause]

Now, see, our Founders were wise, though. They looked at the terrible wars that had taken place in Europe, and they didn't want it to happen here. And they realized, at the root of those conflicts had been the effort of national sovereigns and overall sovereigns to impose their religious belief and practices on people and states and provinces and localities beneath their civil administration. So what did they do? They put an amendment in the Constitution with the wording we've talked about. Wording intended to tell the Congress and thereby the national government that the whole business of religious belief, that whole business of any regime, any attitude to be imparted through law, that it was none of the federal government's business.

Now, that still gives rise to the possibility. Some folks don't want to see it. There might be states in which they require a religious test or oath of office. There might be states in which they have established churches, where subventions are given to schools and so forth to teach the Bible. There might be places where you and I might disagree with the religion some folks wanted to put in place over their communities. But guess what the Founders believed? They believed that people in their states and localities had the right to live under institutions they would put together to govern themselves according to their faith.

There is, I believe, going on right now a violation of the Constitution. There is, I believe, a lawless act against which we must stand. But it is the lawless act of the federal judges who seek now to wrest from us that liberty which is ours--not by right of the Constitution, but by grant and right of the Creator, God. [cheering, applause]

We have the right to live in communities--and that means the people in Alabama can live in this state. And you know how come I know that this is so, that the First Amendment didn't intend to destroy this right, that in fact such communities could exist, such states could exist? Because at the time the First Amendment was passed, at the time they put it on the books in the first place, there were a majority of states in the United States--at the time, the former colonies--where there were religious tests and oaths of office, where there were, in fact, established churches.

How do they mean to tell us that the people who wrote the amendment then went back on to live in contradiction of its terms? This is a lie! And it's time we threw this lie back into their teeth! [applause]

And I want to answer right now. No, I want to answer one objection from them: "Well, Alan, that means you believe in religious persecution," and all this. No, I don't. Quite the contrary. But I think that what we are faced with now is an effort to set the stage for religious persecution. See? These folks claim that they are acting in order to oppose, somehow, the imposition of religious views--but no. What they are doing in the courts, what these judges are doing when they toss out the Ten Commandments, toss out and against the will of people in the states and in communities their desire to show their reverence for Almighty God, what they are doing is imposing a uniform national regime of disbelief and atheism on the people of this country! They are doing exactly what the Constitution of the United States forbids. [applause]

It could be, now--and here, again, this is where I am overcome by my apparent lack of knowledge. [laughter] Because, folks want to tell me, as well, that if the judge violates the Constitution, and then in the decision wrests my rights away, then I have no recourse--Moore has no recourse, the people of Alabama have no recourse. We've just gotta sit back and take it. [audience: no!]

And I'm hard-pressed. See, I look at the history of the country, and I'm scouring the pages to see where it says that that's so--and what do I stumble across but a Declaration of Independence that says, when, by along train abuses, they evince the pattern that is going to destroy our rights, the Founders said that it is not only our right, it is our duty to oppose them! That's what I see. [applause]

And I couldn't stand here today. I couldn't stand here today in this spot which is so important to the history of our country, where, indeed, as I was reminded earlier today, the very dissolution of America over the issue of slavery took place. This city, where so many hearts dedicated to the liberty of people, joined together in order to begin that civil rights movement that would result in the end of a regime of oppression for people of my racial background.

I couldn't stand here today, except I remembered that there was a time when the majority and the law enslaved my people, and there were people of conscience who stood against that slavery, though it meant that they defy those laws!

There was a time when law segregated Americans into black and white and forced some into a situation of oppression--and it would be the same today, if some had not had the courage to stand against those unjust laws! [applause]

We stand here today in a great tradition. Not as our lying critics would have it--in the tradition of those who defied the courts in order to oppress and destroy the rights of their fellow human beings--but in the tradition of those who stood against unjust laws in order to stand for the rights of all our people! This is where we stand! [applause]

But even as it was the case, that those who stood against slavery and for civil rights had stood in fact on the solid ground of American truth and constitutional freedom, so it is today. And I think we have to be clear. The fact that some people were wrong when they invoked the rights of the people in their states in the name of institutions that trampled on the rights of individuals does not mean that it is right today to stand silent while the rights of the people of this state of Alabama are trampled by a tyrannical and arbitrary judge.

If we can act aright, if we can act with knowledge and precision, if we can act with care and courage as we defend our liberty in this place, then it could be here today that finally we draw the line against those who seek to abuse the color of law in order to destroy the substance of liberty! [applause]

I'm glad that I see all of you here today. I know that you represent many, many millions more around this country. And I do want to address the work. Because some people say, "Well, what if this happens? What if that happens? What if they come and try to take down the Ten Commandments? What if it goes to the Supreme Court, and they decide differently--what then?" And everybody seems to think we've just got to sit back.

First of all, there is a person in this country who could solve this problem. Fairly easily. I remembered that when I was running for president a long time ago. [laughter] People used to ask me questions about this. Some people think that the pardoning power in the Constitution is a--well, just imagine we wake up tomorrow, and George Bush, having read about this as President of the United States, says, "OK. The judge says, Judge Moore, that you have been breaking the law. I'm sending you this, and let it be known to everybody in the country that I pardon you now for this offense, and I pardon all people in their states of all such offenses, because I believe that they are acting according to their Constitutional right." [cheering, applause]

The president could solve this problem with a word, in the proper exercise of his Constitutional authority, in defense of our Constitutional rights. So might the Congress, by cutting off the funds to enforce it, as some have introduced into the Congress. By, as Howard said, disestablishing the courts that dare to assault the rights of the people in their most fundamental guise.

All these are possible courses of action, but what they should remind us of is that we live in a constitution in which no branch was supposed to be the absolute tyrant over the others. Not the courts over the Congress and the presidency. Not the president over the others. If the president decides that the courts are wrong, it is up to the Congress to stand against it, and if they stand with him, then the Constitution has been served. [applause]

We have three branches of government. And I stand here today in hope that all Americans will stand to call on the president and call on the Congress to take courageous action finally to put the bridle on these unruly courts! [cheering, applause]

We can! We can make the difference, for we know that what is at stake is not just the symbolic display of the Ten Commandments. It is the reverence that we must hold for them in our hearts if we are to fulfill this nation's promise of true self-government. For, self-government in the end cannot come from the external impositions of law and police forces and military forces. True self-government begins where our Founders knew it began, where our Lord knew it began. True self-government begins in the heart. And it is the heart of a people governed by respect for the Ten Commandments and the word of God writ upon their hearts--it is the heart of such a people that fits them for a freedom that will endure.

God bless you.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alankeyes; rally; speech; tencommandments; transcript

1 posted on 08/25/2003 8:53:37 AM PDT by Iconoclast2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
Good speech and good find.
2 posted on 08/25/2003 9:00:51 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Roy Moore has more guts than the entire Democratic Party and most Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
To me, there is truth and wisdom in this speech.
3 posted on 08/25/2003 9:03:09 AM PDT by RAY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
To me, there is truth and wisdom in this speech.
4 posted on 08/25/2003 9:03:09 AM PDT by RAY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
To me, there is truth and much wisdom in this speech.
5 posted on 08/25/2003 9:04:12 AM PDT by RAY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

If I were the defendant in this case, I would make it the government's responsibility to prove just WHAT religion I was trying to establish. Christianity? Mormonism? Judaism? What?

The Ten Commandments being quoted doesn't constitute a religion any more than the "I Have A Dream" speech being celebrated and quoted. And MLK was a preacher!!
6 posted on 08/25/2003 9:09:05 AM PDT by January24th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
Thanks for the post. I wonder if the "separation of church and state" freerepublicans will show up?
7 posted on 08/25/2003 9:13:34 AM PDT by Nephi (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
Howie Philips??
8 posted on 08/25/2003 9:16:33 AM PDT by Xthe17th (FREE THE STATES. Repeal the 17th amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: January24th
Islam, too, which is a bastardization of Judaism and Christianity.
9 posted on 08/25/2003 9:17:25 AM PDT by Nephi (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
The farther we move ourselves from the law of God, the less freedom we will have. Our choice is to have a government which recognizes that it is not sovereign and must obey the law of God, or a government which sees man as the highest authority. If the latter there will be only tyranny. History, in this case, is a great teacher. What kind of students will we be?
10 posted on 08/25/2003 9:21:35 AM PDT by aardvark1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
bump for later read
11 posted on 08/25/2003 9:23:57 AM PDT by RightField (the older you get ..... the older "old" is ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

It is a wonderful speech to read ... but hearing him deliver it on the C-Span replay was inspiring! Reading it misses the masterful intonations Alan Keyes brings to his speeches, and the well placed pauses.
12 posted on 08/25/2003 9:25:40 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2

We have three branches of government. And I stand here today in hope that all Americans will stand to call on the president and call on the Congress to take courageous action finally to put the bridle on these unruly courts! [cheering, applause]

13 posted on 08/25/2003 9:40:53 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
Heard it and was hoping for a trascript. thanks!
14 posted on 08/25/2003 9:45:12 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
Stand up against tyrannical judges Bump!!
15 posted on 08/25/2003 9:46:22 AM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2,2933,95443,00.html

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Last night, Chief Justice Roy Moore (search) told us right here on HANNITY & COLMES that he would fight to keep a monument of the Ten Commandments (search) inside the Alabama state judicial building, despite a federal court order to remove it.

Thousands now have rallied and are rallying in support of Judge Moore, including our next guest.

Joining us from Montgomery, Alabama, is former presidential candidate, our good friend, Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes.

How are you, sir? Welcome back. It's been awhile. We missed you. Good to see you again.

DR. ALAN KEYES, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's good to be with you, Sean. Thank you.

HANNITY: You've got thousands of people vowing to lay down and try and prevent any effort to remove this monument from that building. Where does it stand right now?

KEYES: Well, right now, in the course of the day, as you probably know, the eight associate justices have taken action to overrule Judge Roy Moore and have ordered the removal of the monument. As yet, no action has, in fact, been taken. But that is where things stand at the moment.

HANNITY: Yes, but we have two things that happened in the last, what, 24, 36 hours, ambassador. One, the Supreme Court refused to block the removal of this. And also, Judge…Chief Justice Roy Moore's colleagues have come out against him and asked that they remove this monument expeditiously, which was a big disappointment to him.

KEYES: Well, I think it was. Though, of course, he anticipated the fact that we have been watching as folks in the state hierarchy showed that, what I think is real cowardice, in defense of the right of the people of the state of Alabama to acknowledge God in and through their state institutions as the Constitution provides, free from federal interference, free from federal meddling and intervention. That's what the First Amendment in its first clause is, in fact, all about.

HANNITY: Yes. I don't know …I can't see really fully behind you as you are right outside the judicial building there. How many people are there now?

KEYES: I'm really not sure. I just arrived. It looks like a goodly crowd that has gathered for the evening rally. It's actually now starting to be a nightly event.

HANNITY: Yes. I want to ask you this question here.

Our Declaration of Independence…and you know this. You're a great scholar of this nation's history. They speak of God, they speak of natural rights. Our founders similarly speak of God, they speak of natural rights.

It seems that courts in the past, if it's Dred Scott (search) and slavery, if it's Plessy v. Ferguson (search) and segregation or even Roe v. Wade (search) and abortion, that courts get issues wrong.

If it's a natural-right issue, if our rights come from God as the Declaration says, ambassador, then Justice Moore is correct in saying he should stand against courts when he's wrong. Correct?

KEYES: Well, see, I think the great problem in the first instance, though, Sean, and the problem I have most of all that is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That is to say…and some people say that means they can't establish religion. No.

It means they can't address this issue. They can't touch it. It is very clear. Those words are simple. No law respecting this issue.

And when people say you're breaking the law if you don't do what this court says, I say, ‘Where is the law? What law?’ Do judges now get to have dictates? Are we under a dictatorship of the bench where they outlaw our foundation and they can simply tell you what to do?

HANNITY: Let me ask you this, quick. And I can hear the sound of the crowd. It sounds pretty enormous there.

Is there not a concerted effort or a campaign to replace God-given rights, if you will, with man-made privileges here? Isn't that what they're ultimately saying, that there's a choice here?

If the effort begins here, if this is a watershed mark, is it not ‘in God we trust’ in coins, ‘one nation under God’ in the pledge, Congress can't start with a prayer, God save the court, all of these things now go away?

KEYES: Sean, I think that we have to focus, though, on the clear constitutional issue.

At the national level there is no doubt we are not supposed to have any kind of national, uniformly imposed regime with respect to religion. And Congress shouldn't make any laws, the federal government has no lawful basis for doing so. That was clear in the founders' statements and intentions.

They wanted these issues to be handled at the level of the state governments and the level of the people themselves in and through their state governments. They were to decide to what extent they would acknowledge God, in what way, in what manner they would do so in and through their government institutions.


KEYES: What we're seeing is an effort to impose a uniformed national regime of atheism on religious matters and that is deeply constitutionally...

COLMES: I don't know how you get from a decision not to allow the Ten Commandments to sit there to imposing atheism. That's quite a leap.

But welcome to the show. It's good to have you back. It's been a while.

Look, also, one man doesn't get to decide. You have the associate justices, who have now overruled Justice Moore and they say, and I quote, that "they are bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it."

Aren't they right? Don't they have an oath to follow the law? If a higher court says you must do this, doesn't it mean they have to obey?

KEYES: Well, as usual, you're not listening.

COLMES: No, no, that's a cheap shot, Alan. That's a cheap shot.

KEYES: Let me finish.

COLMES: That's a cheap shot. And it's unfair.

KEYES: Can I finish, Alan?

COLMES: Yes. I was listening. Go ahead.

KEYES: No, because you need to address the issue I raised.

You keep saying respect for the law. Respect for the law does not mean respect for lawyers. And the rule of law does not mean the rule of lawyers and judges. It means the rule of law. They, too, are bound by law. They, too, are required to have a basis in law for what they do.

And when people say some law is being broken here, I say what law? He's a federal judge. He needs a federal basis for what he's doing. But Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

He has no grounds, no basis whatsoever from which to address this issue. He's a lawless judge, taking his opinions from out of the air, not on the basis of the law, and imposing them against…not because I disagree.

COLMES: Because you disagree. Now you're filibustering, Alan. And you're accusing me of not listening. This judge is not listening to a higher court. And he's not even listening to his associate justices on his own state Supreme Court. He's the one not listening.

KEYES: He's listening to the constitution of the state of Alabama and the Constitution of the United States, which he is sworn to uphold and which, by the way, the governor and even the president and everybody else is sworn to uphold and preserve, protect, and defend.

And that Constitution is clear…the federal government should not meddle in these matters. The Tenth Amendment (search) leaves them under the purview of the states.

The whole train of legal precedent that has been fabricated fraudulently from the bench has no basis in our Constitution, and to say we must simply submit to baseless dictation from the bench is, as Jefferson himself pointed out, to surrender to judicial despotism.

COLMES: I'd like to ask you this. How is it, as you've just accused, and you're quoted by the Southern Baptist group, you accuse these people who want the Ten Commandments plaque removed, of promoting atheism? What is that? Because you don't believe that you should establish a plaque or a symbol in a courtroom you're promoting atheism?

KEYES: No. Did you read the decision?

COLMES: Yes. Yes, I did.

KEYES: Because in the decision…let me finish…in the decision, the judge himself says that the issue is whether the state can acknowledge God. That's what he says. I didn't make that up. He says that that's the core issue and he says the answer is no. He is imposing, through his order, this atheism and he has said so himself.

So you say I'm inventing it because you haven't looked at the clear, plain words.

COLMES: You're wrong. Again, you're making a false accusation.

KEYES: You need to look at the clear, plain words of the Constitution.

COLMES: I've looked at it. And here's what the decision said. If you adorn the walls this way, should you adorn them with murals with decidedly religious quotations? Should every government building be topped with a cross, a menorah, a statue of Buddha? Where do you draw the line? How many monuments of Ten Commandments should you have? If you have one, can you have 12? Can you have 14 other symbols?

KEYES: Excuse me. Alan…Alan, the clear issue is he says whether the state can acknowledge God. My clear question, based on the Constitution is whatever arcane disagreements you want to get into, the Constitution said this is not a matter for the federal government.

HANNITY: Ambassador...

KEYES: It is a matter for the people in their state government.

HANNITY: Hang on.

KEYES: And they can have this debate. They can have this argument.

COLMES: Taking your argument, Alan, that only the state, not the federal government, can make decisions having to do with religion, does that mean a state could decide that they are a Christian state, a Muslim state? Could Alabama say we are going to declare ourselves a Christian state or an Islamic state because we can't be interfered with by the federal government? Would that be constitutional?

KEYES: When the First Amendment (search) was written and adopted, there were, I believe, 7 of the states that had the Church of England established. There were 5 other religions that were established in other states. There was one state that did not have an established church. There were varying degrees and extents of what this meant and how they implemented it.

But in point of fact, it was in place at the time and, yes, the founders did mean that one could go even as far as England has gone if that was. Now, that wouldn't be the will of anybody in America today, you can bet, but it shows the extent to which this amendment was meant to countenance on the part of the people of a state an expression of the desire to see reflected in the laws and the institutions their religious beliefs.

I'm not saying it. This was the way it was when the amendment was written.

COLMES: Your view and interpretation is that the state can declare itself a particular religion.

But here you have a chief justice that is being disagreed with by his own associate justices. They are saying this is wrong. They want to obey the law. They're telling him he is not obeying the law. These are other people on the state level who don't agree with you or Justice Moore.

KEYES: Excuse me for saying so, but I think it's time we got away from this way of believing, that we live under arcane priesthood of lawyers and that we don't use our own common sense and eyes when we read the documents of our country's history.

We should not turn over our liberties to arcane interpretations and fabrications by a legal clique that desires to amass great power over our lives and tells us what we should say. That despotic dictatorship was predicted by Thomas Jefferson and he said that we should reject it and we must now.

HANNITY: Ambassador, I want to ask you this question. Explain how the Ten Commandments provides the basis for America's jurisprudence. Explain that.

KEYES: It seems to me quite clear. As a matter of fact it was acknowledged by the founders that the Ten Commandments are the 10 basic and simple rules. What do we need to know?

"Thou shalt not steal." That's laws against theft. "Thou shalt not kill." Laws against murder. "Thou shalt not bear false witness," the whole apparatus that exists in our courts and in our lives to guarantee testimony in courts will be truthful and where, by the way, throughout history the oath has been "so help me God."

It seems to me we are trying to destroy the moral foundation evident in every age of our history and let a clique, a handful of people, rob us of to the collective right we have to see our…the acknowledgment of God.

HANNITY: We are rejecting the moral underpinnings of our society which our founders…there's no ambiguity when you read our founders. There's no ambiguity in their writings. They were crystal clear.

What's more interesting, you and Alan were going back and forth over the issue of jurisdiction as it relates to is there any federal jurisdiction here. But the Alabama Constitution, which Chief Justice Roy Moore is sworn to uphold, clearly it says, as a matter of fact that the recognition of God is the foundation of that state's Constitution.

KEYES: Well, I think that that is very clear, and that means that as the chief justice…this is not just an individual. He's an elected chief justice. He has told the people of his state what he stood for, the Ten Commandments. He was known as the Ten Commandments judge when he ran. And he had an obligation to the Constitution...

HANNITY: And they elected him.

KEYES: He is actually a representative of the people of his state. He's not just an individual. And he has an oath that he has to abide by at the highest level of his state, representing the sovereignty in this matter of his people.

If he simply surrenders to the dictates of a federal judge on a matter where there is no clarity of federal jurisdiction, he...

HANNITY: One last question. Are you willing to go to jail? And I have to break.

KEYES: I have made it very clear. People say that Roy Moore will be threatened with jail. I will not let him stand alone, come what may.

COLMES: All right, Alan. Thanks very much for being with us.

16 posted on 08/25/2003 9:51:00 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
17 posted on 08/25/2003 9:52:56 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Vote against the tagline tax!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
What better weapon for America's enemies than to have us tear our own Judeo-Christian heriatge apart?
18 posted on 08/25/2003 10:05:12 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
Freedom of religion--not freedom FROM religion, BUMP
19 posted on 08/25/2003 11:07:12 AM PDT by two23 (---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: two23; All
Anybody have Alan Keyes' email address bump? It's urgent. We're trying to save Terri Schiavo in Pinellas County, FL. Her wish to die has been divined by her adulterous husband. She is not in a coma. She is disabled.

The Judge holds a hearing on Sept. 11th to pick the date her starvation begins. Then it will be 10 to 15 days and Terri Schiavo will be dead.

She will be killed because Florida law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL regarding "exit protocols". She had no Living Will. Oh, well. Starve her then. We are calling EVERYBODY. Do a Terri Schiavo search at FR. Thanks. FV

20 posted on 09/04/2003 12:11:35 PM PDT by floriduh voter (TO JOIN TERRI PING LIST CONTACT kimmie7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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
Topics · Post Article

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