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.

[rottweiller_inc]

You're happy with with the federal judges' decision because it validates your belief in atheism and removes a symbol of another faith(s) that offend your eye. This is indeed the establisment of a federal religion. If a state or town had enough hindu/moslem/wiccan people to form a consensus then it's certinly allowed for them to have symbols of their belief on public display in government buildings. I would'nt go to such a place but that's what religious freedom is about. The only violation of the establiment clause would be if congress made a law making the beliefs of any religion mandatory, sort of like the way you have to buy mandatory auto insurance, If the people of the state of alabama form enough of a consensus to have the monument of the 10 commandments in a building they own that's up to them and if they did'nt want it should be worked out within the state.

[Conservative Me]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Keep applying the stereotypes to those different than you. I don't have a problem with Christians. As a matter of fact, a very nice Christian woman will be home-schooling my 4 year old.

It is not up to the government (state or federal) to enforce your Christian beliefs.

[rottweiller_inc]

On the other side of that coin nor is it up to the government to enforce atheism.

[Conservative Me]

They're not, even though that is how you see this. They have never said God did not exist (any God/god).

[risk]

I think it amazes some people that nonbelievers can be patriotic.

[rottweiller_inc]

The great thing about the form of government set up under the consistution is that it would allow states to operate with freedom. One state could favor the earth goddess if enough people agreed to it. Another state could be mormon, another atheist. This was left up to the states outside of federal control. What we have now is most power concentrated in the federal government and when that happens it starts to dictate things that were originally left up to the states. It was supposed to a great experiment because the states were free to try different things and the other states could learn from what happens in that microcosm and apply the lessons learned. When there's one big overseer there's no chance for that to work.

[Conservative Me]

So we should start practicing religious segregation? Why not just break the US up into separate countries by faith?

[Verax]

Anyway, why would good Christians want to impose their religious convictions on fellow citizens?

Only a BAD Christian would NOT want to impose their convictions on everyone. But, I guess you'd have to be a Christian to understand this.

[Conservative Me]

Better yet, let's just put all the Atheists in the desert. That way we can get a feeling of what Hell will be like.

(tongue in cheek)

[Conservative Me]

Impose or teach? To me they are two different things.

BTW, you can have good moral character without being a Christian.

[rottweiller_inc]

I doubt anyone would be forced to do anything. People tend to gravitate toward others of like mind anyway. Take the bible belt for instance. The states had the freedom to do this although all the states that had state religions dropped them eventually. But there are other provsion in the constitution to protect people from being forced. But look on the bright side, at the rate immigration and education is going soon there'll be enough people who would rather not have the constitution to vote to oust it. But while it is still the law of the land it should be followed, and that means federal judges have no business regulating religious monuments in any state.

[DeaconBenjamin]

I read him as asking "can." I read the fed courts as stating Alabama "cannot."

[4mycountry]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Does this mean that Congress, the people we have elected, should never make a law that supports the establishment of a religion or one that forbids someone from practicing their religion?

What law has Congressed passed? When was it proposed? By who? When was it debated?

So many times I feel like we debate the rigging of sails while the deck burns beneath our feet.

We say we want a Con-sti-tution, wellell you know........ it was written long ago.....

[DeaconBenjamin]

How do you find that he placed the 10 commandments above Alabamans? Also, given Justice Moore's history, what leads you to conclude that the people of Alabama did not express their support for Justice Moore's perspective when they elected him as Chief Justice?

[Noachian]

I see a lot of posts about the first part of the Establisnment clause but the second part, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", seems to be missing from the debate. "Free", means just that. Free to worship where, when, and how a person wants; even if it's in a public building.

There's also a sense that free and open Republican principles means that one atheist has the ability, the right, to tell a majority of a state's religious believers how to conduct religious affairs in their state. A Republican form of government relies on majority rule to conduct its affairs, and seeks to protect the minority - not the other way around.

The First Amendment also plainly points out that Congress, and by extension the Federal Courts, can have no say in the religious affairs of a state, yet there are those here who would deny that the Judiciary abused its authority when it erected the fiction of a "Wall of Separation." As a result of judicial activism the Federal courts now see religions being established in every religious display whether it's a monument in a state building or a bookcover on a child's schoolbook.

That the Constitution prohibits the Congress from ordaining a state religion is plain to read, but by implication that clause also means the Congress cannot DISestablish religious sects and in its place erect a Godless society. By unconstitutionally inserting itself into a state's religious affairs the courts, and Congress, have crossed a line whereby they are tearing at the roots of religion to satisfy a minority, and in the process slowly disestablishing religious life as we know it in America.

[DeaconBenjamin]

And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments. Matthew 19:17.

You, of course, may have a different definition of "good."

[risk]

Only a BAD Christian would NOT want to impose their convictions on everyone. But, I guess you'd have to be a Christian to understand this.

That's not the Christianity I know. But your comment speaks volumes. From M-W.com:

Main Entry: im·pose
Pronunciation: im-'pOz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): im·posed; im·pos·ing
Etymology: Middle French imposer, from Latin imponere, literally, to put upon (perfect indicative imposui), from in- + ponere to put -- more at POSITION
Date: 1581
transitive senses
1 a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties> b : to establish or bring about as if by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies -- C. H. Plimpton>
2 a : PLACE, SET b : to arrange (as pages) in the proper order for printing
3 : PASS OFF <impose fake antiques on the public>
4 : to force into the company or on the attention of another <impose oneself on others>
intransitive senses : to take unwarranted advantage of something <imposed on his good nature>
- im·pos·er noun

[Conservative Me]

IMO, the Bible Belt has become more heritage than anything else. Although there seems to be predominantly one faith, there are others and it is slightly more diversified than in the past, especially in more metropolitan areas.

I guess the next question would be how much room you give states in legislation. Federal legislation would automatically apply at the state level, correct? In the mind of the federal court, this would be an example.

I doubt you'll see the Constitution go away. People are immigrating here BECAUSE of the freedoms the Constitution allows. This is the greatest country in the world.

[risk]

How do you find that he placed the 10 commandments above Alabamans?

He said that our nation's laws are based on the 10 commandments without qualification.

Also, given Justice Moore's history, what leads you to conclude that the people of Alabama did not express their support for Justice Moore's perspective when they elected him as Chief Justice?

Alabamans may want a monument of any sort in their courthouse. However, they have a right to justice that is impartial to religion. Moore failed to argue that the presence of the monument was not an abridgement of that right, and he further insinuated that the 10 commandments (without qualification) were the basis of our laws.

[4mycountry]

Yeah Noachian!

It is good to know that there others who do not (as yet) accept the practices of our judiciary juggernaut as constitutional.