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.

[.30Carbine]

religious icon= NOT

Moore tried to slip God into government

God was in American government and jurisprudence from the beginning, ref., Declaration of Independence, Paris Peace Treaty, First Inaugural Address of George Washington, etc., etc.

For example, Christmas nativity scenes. As long as they're not exclusive.

Christmas, by definition - "the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating Jesus' birth [i.e., 'nativity']" - is very exclusive. The word, like our Constitution, has been bastardized, but the original meaning of both remains the same.

[.30Carbine]

Because it was only put up for historical reasons, and was never justified as a religious basis for the laws in Chester county, it was allowed to stay.

To deny that the Ten Commandments have a religious origin (as well as American historical significance) is a lie. For Roy Moore to deny that they have religious significance to him personally (as well as significance in American and Alabamian jurisprudence) would be a lie. For Moore to have framed his argument on a purely historical basis would be to deny his faith, the expression of which (as well as free speech in many forms) the First Amendment was designed to protect.

[leprechaun9]

When does a court Order brek down? If the (in)Justices ordered the murder of Judge Moore, would they have followed it?

[strela]

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it.

[risk]

Both are icons in a larger sense: when you think of the 10c's, they invoke a deep resonance in your mind. A picture of them, a sentence containing the phrase "10 commandments," or a monument all strike a chord in your mind. This is what I meant by icon.

.30, you're just the kind of person Moore was targetting. You believe strongly, have deep convictions, and are familiar with the religiousity of our founding fathers. You hear a lot of technical jargon and then out of the blue, the monument is being removed! Why, you say? How can this be? It's due to the precise nature of the legal language Moore used. He made some statements about what the monument meant to the people of Alabama that exceeded his authority, but most people didn't hear that part because they felt their interests were being served by the monument's presence in his courthouse. The majority of Christians probably appreciated Moore's actions in bringing the monument. He's every bit as sophisticated as you think, so he knew what he was doing. When someone challenged him, he wasn't being forced to justify his actions and his comments because they were religious. It was because he had tried to apply the meaning of the monument too broadly to the state, his court, and his judicial actions. However, he has persuaded you personally that all Christians across America have been insulted by the removal of the *icon* from the courthouse. Very effective, and also dangerous. The 10c's got removed because of the fine print that Moore uttered. But a lot of Christians aren't hearing the fine print, or if they did, they ignore what it means to other Americans in an undemocratic way.

>>>> God was in American government and jurisprudence from the beginning, ...

Not a specific God, not in our legally-binding founding documents. And the first amendment in the bill of rights makes it clear that this was both a forseen issue (they knew we'd be arguing if the Catholic or the Protestant religions would prevail, or if we would try to call ourselves "Christians" given the presence of Jews and other faiths). Discussion of Christianity outside the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is personal on the part of the founder in question.

>>>> Christmas, by definition - "the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating Jesus' birth [i.e., 'nativity']" - is very exclusive.

You're reaching a couple of conclusions here a bit too quickly. It's an easy mistake to take what these types of symbols mean to you personally, and apply the interpretation to others, bypassing a number of external steps that would have to happen for that to be so. Symbols mean different things to different people, and we all accept that. In the case of the Nativity, you see what your religion states about it. I don't. But like I do, you also see a historically significant and culturally meaningful symbol. So we share some reactions but not all. That you believe a doctrine that excludes others does not make the display of your doctrinal symbols an affront to me! This is one of the problems with some of the worst anti-Christian legal cases trotted out on Christian radio and TV -- someone didn't want to be reminded of Christianity, so an evangelical Christian was sued, etc... The display of your religious symbols does not force me to adhere to the conlusions you reach in your mind. This is similar reasoning to why the Chester county 10c's got to stay. It's also the kernel of religious tolerance non-Christians and Christians who want absolute separation of Church and state must have for their fundamentalist conservative Christian fellow citizens.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

How well schooled are you in math & physics?