The Ten Commandments Debate (Federal Judiciary Tyranny Alert!)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 9/01/03 | Joseph Farah

[goldstategop]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

-- First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

What does the First Amendment really mean – particularly in the context of the current, raging debate over the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama state judiciary building?

Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the Ten Commandments monument removed from the Alabama courthouse, believes it means no one can reference God in a government building.

Is he right? Not if you read and comprehend the clear and concise words of the First Amendment.

Most people understand it means:

the federal government has no business interfering in the individual free exercise of religion;

and that the federal government cannot declare an official, state religion. But it means more than that. The First Amendment clearly says the federal government has no business passing any law even addressing the issue of establishing a religion – not for it or against it.

Couple the First Amendment with the 10th Amendment, which says: "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." Now you clearly have to see the federal government has no power to interfere in Alabama's affairs on this matter raised by the actions of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who brought the Ten Commandments monument into the judiciary building.

If Judge Thompson's ruling is permitted to stand, it will be the beginning of the end of any mention of God in the public square. Period. End of story.

It's amazing to me that so many otherwise sensible people cannot understand what is at stake in this conflict. It is profound. It is as monumental as any great debate this country has ever had. This is much bigger than the washing-machine-size granite monument in the Alabama courthouse.

Simply, we will not recognize America a decade from now if Thompson's ruling stands. It will open the floodgates of litigation that will strip the country of its national spiritual heritage. It will distort and destroy the meaning of the First Amendment. It will turn us from a nation established on the rule of law and self-governance to a nation ruled by men, ruled by elites.

This is big. This is very big. I do not exaggerate.

This is a national crisis. You may not think so because no one is losing life and limb in this conflict. But we are losing our freedom – and we have always sacrificed life and limb in this country's history for the preservation of freedom.

As Justice Moore himself puts it: "The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as 'the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.') Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: 'Can the state acknowledge God?'

"Those were the precise words used by Judge Thompson in his closing remarks in open court. Today, I argue for the rule of law, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgment of God in the public sector. We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes 'the favor and guidance of Almighty God' as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's Supreme Court, I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment."

He continues: "By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order violated the rule of law."

I concur.

We must do everything in our power to see that Justice Moore prevails.

[c-b 1]

I have no interest in a religious discussion, your beliefs are none of my business.

People's right to use their property as they see fit, their right to own firearms of their choice, etc. are being trampled by judges. Your solution of appealing to a higher court is in many cases not practical, you or I do not have the resources fo fight the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy or the Federal Government in court.

What is the solution?

[risk]

>>>> There are atheistic governments that will assertively 'protect' you, try enjoying freedom in one of them.

America is not an atheistic government because it prevents believers from imposing their beliefs on others through the force of law. I don't know what you mean by abandoning pretense, maybe you can clarify?

[Conservative Me]

mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

From dictionary.com

[risk]

Justice is creaky. I've noticed that. I also think the status quo is much closer to what we want than we realize. That point of view is deeply inspired by my dad, a 79 year-old vet with a purple heart who is a tireless patriot and a devout Christian.

[risk]

What is this concept of Right Order, and where can I read more about it?

[ninenot]

And, BTW, I'd like to get Moore out of the equasion and go back to the Constitution as written.

I think you agree that this whole thing arose because someone took an offense at what is patently unoffensive--a rock with an inscription. I have passed a million inscribed rocks without reading them, as you most likely have. Whoever complained needs a life.

But the complaint, of course, was a set-up, just as was the Texas sodomy originating complaint, and the emerging lesbian vs. Catholic school complaint in Oregon.

The thesis which unites all these 'complaints' is the thesis that States do NOT have the protections afforded by the 10th Amendment AND that the First Amendment should be read to exclude ANY denominational principles from public policy or practice in the USA.

This thesis, IMHO, is not only incorrect, but the obverse of right order, and is, as one poster above stated, the flowering of a "national crisis."

[ninenot]

It would take a lot for me to sue over anything, no matter how wrong I felt something was.

OK.

Now--are the principles espoused by the Big 10 "offensive" to you?

[ninenot]

Conforming to standards...right and just...</>

Now you and I know that 'everybody' understands 'right and just' in approximately the same fashion, right?

If that is so, how does "everybody" know WHAT is 'right and just?'

[ninenot]

Thomas Aquinas' work, based mostly on Aristotle. See: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ for a searchable table of contents.

[mrsmith]

" imposing their beliefs on others through the force of law. I don't know what you mean by abandoning pretense"

This is pretense. There is no force of law and you and Judge Thompson don't and can't find any- that's why the Lemon test is admired by you. None need be found.

Glad I could help you.

You've used the "Supreme Court says so", "barring the establishment of religion will lead to the establishment of religion" and of course the ever popular "Judge Moore is a poopy-head Mommy" constitutional reasons for removing the monument.

I guess that takes care of all of them unless you have a new one.

[Conservative Me]

It is not a matter of me being offended. It is a matter of what I believe to be right and wrong, although the first three Commandments wouldn't even apply to me.

[Conservative Me]

You would argue that what is defined as "right and just" comes from Christian standards? Was there no rightness or justness BEFORE Christ walked the Earth.

I would argue that society defines morality. It has evolved over time, not necessarily due to faith.

I don't want to offend you, so I am trying to be careful out of respect. There are many things I can say because I believe the Bible to be a book of folklore, based loosely on people who may have once existed. Compare it to Aesop (sp?), I guess.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

>>>> Perhaps, from the first, you could see the danger in the state acting as God. Would be gods see Him as competition.

But I don't believe in God, so how does this persuade me?

For one, you have not been persecuted for your non-belief. The same cannot be said of believers in lands where belief is banned.

Second, having God as A generally common public presence has done nothing to hurt the growth of this nation to become the giant of the planet nor to deter its people from prospering to become the envy of the world. Why would you fix what was not broken?

Third, if you would not have God, you will suffer having gods imposed upon you. Gaia, for instance, as the envirowacko symbol and excuse for sacrificing your lands to her priests.

Those who don't look where we've been cannot see where we are going.

I also reject your notion that the state is taking on the role of God here.

Explain why did you felt the need to add "here" at the end of your statement?

Your flat denial of what has obviously been developing over the last 70 years does nothing to decrease our, er, risk in accepting your assertions. The Statist element is growing hugely even as, and likely in response to, the Left marginalizes itself.

I don't understand how you linked my comments to Marxism.

This is an important question. I'm sorry if you missed the step: if you did, perhaps so did others.

It came in when you included equality as a goal of this nation. Equal treatment before the law is not the same as seeing to it that everybody has an equal result in life. The former is American, the latter is Marxist.

And security is the promise that Statists use to make gains. Statism is a term I've been working hard to make better understood so that it may be used properly. It is incipient Statists who are the risk implied in my tagline. I have a short link if you're game.

[ninenot]

You would argue that what is defined as "right and just" comes from Christian standards?

I did not so argue.

You can be relaxed--I can't bite through the Net

Your intuition about Aesop, BTW, is quite good. Here's why: Aesop, and other 'morality legends' from the Far East, as well as Native American legends, all have several morals-in-common. They are certainly not congruent, but there is an obvious intersection on several points.

Briefly, if all these 'legends' correspond, where did they all originate? If you posit that various tribes sprang up worldwide, it is even more curious that they all had similar concepts---OTOH, if you accept the "adam/eve" 'legend' (and I do, not as legend but as fact) then where did THEY come from?

What I am getting to, obviously, is that there is a God. Denial of the existence of God leads ineluctably to the denial of 'common' moral law.

[risk]

I need to take a break, but I'll try to respond to your latest comments:

>>>> And, BTW, I'd like to get Moore out of the equasion and go back to the Constitution as written.

But Moore is the aegis many Christians are carrying into this battle. He either wanted to overstate his purpose, or mistakenly failed to qualify it. In either case, that makes for problems, much as we've seen. I personally think he wanted that, and any serious Christian should be cautious about his real intent.

>>>> I think you agree that this whole thing arose because someone took an offense at what is patently unoffensive--a rock with an inscription.

The offense was in his reason for keeping it there, which was deemed to have had an effect on his ability to serve as an impartial servant to justice. That's no small accusation, but I think he earned it. The issues I outline above are pretty serious to someone who values the goal of a rational society.

Aughhh, you brought up the Oregon case. I'm DISGUSTED AND SICK about this. Just as sick as you are. I just don't happen to subscribe to the idea that it should be solved by a spiritual argument. I think we can talk about this right order business and come through with secular reasoning! If we can't, we're not worth our salt. There are several big issues at stake there, but the PRIMARY one is the freedom of association. I'm on the Catholic church's side 100% and I will never waver on that. I don't even want to discuss the other two issues, but suffice it to say that

1) I believe in constitutional privacy -- you started it, but I can't spend time justifying it right now, and probably not in this thread.
2) We as a society have NO IDEA what it means to raise children in same sex domestic partner households, and given the fact that it's a huge laboratory experiment that these people are conducting without fully explaining their reasoning and purpose to the American people, I decline to support them. Reproduction is as basic as animals on a farm. Without a male and a female, nothing is going to happen except in a petri dish, and that's not what I want for the future of humanity.

Again, religion is not an issue here for me. The future of the human race and our society is. My perspectives line up with most here except on the issue of privacy.

>>>> States do NOT have the protections afforded by ...

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree, except that I'm quote open to the notion of justifying policy on religious principles AND secular arguments, but not religious principles alone.

>>>> This thesis, IMHO, is not only incorrect, but the obverse of right order, and is, as one poster above stated, the flowering of a "national crisis."

1) I need to learn more about right order still.
2) Moore is not the right horse to bet on in this race.
3) And this is very important to anyone still willing to read my point of view: there are ways of arguing for most conservative values without falling back on pure metaphysical justification. Success in this respect is critical for our country's future, because families, morals, and values -- most of which originated in the Judeo-Christian tradition ALSO have rational justifications. But to the secularist, or the Hindu, it makes no sense if we just fall back on our traditional dogma.
4) I challenge the idea of a slippery slope. As a society, we must get beyond that and deal with issues one at a time on a rational basis. Yes, we've emboldened the agenda. No, some of it is not our business. Yes, children ARE our business. And yes, immigration and benefits packages paid by the state ARE our business. None of it has any real benefit to our (statist?) goal of a healthy, happy family unit, the fundamental building block of society.

If this is a national crisis, leave Moore out of it, and find rational arguments for the values. Yes, it takes time and energy, but if you care, that's what you'll do. I think God would approve because you can admit to all the religious justifications you like in my model, you just can't make it the exclusive one.

[ninenot]

although the first three Commandments wouldn't even apply to me

Fine. As long as you're as civil and engaging as you are, please buy my neighbor's house and we can have great discussions, except on Sunday AM's when I am engaged with...well, you know.

[Conservative Me]

So, for clarification I have a question. Do you believe that more than one god exists, but that your God is the one true God?

BTW, you might not be able to bite through the net, but in my experience religion is very personal and people can get very easily offended. I am glad you are not one of those people.

[risk]

You've mostly agreed up until just before my last post. How did we differ before, and is that still pretty much the same? I'm interested in your perspective.

[risk]

Will try to respond later, thanks.

[ninenot]

Some on FR make gratuitous and unwarranted slams. I only respond in kind--

I believe, firmly, that there is only one God, in three Persons. That's confusing enough as an initial response.

But since there's only one God--it's also a simplification--because there can only be one set of Rules.