Posted on 09/01/2003 12:46:50 AM PDT by 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.
"Can" is easier to argue than must.
And if the First Amendment is not applicabe to the States (by way of the Fourteenth Amendment), some states could have freedom of speech and press and other states could forbid private ownership of newspapers or make it illegal to criticize state officers.
That might be a big price to pay for this monument. ;-)
Of course, as long as he can separate his religion from his prosecution of justice.
Moore has failed to do that, according to the judicial ethics committee, and I agree. I think Thompson's ruling to have the memorial removed was the dilemma Moore wanted, since he appears to enjoy public controversy. But once he failed to follow it, he crossed over the line into letting his personal beliefs interfere with his judicial practices.
What some Christian fundamentalists want to do is link keeping the commandments in the courthouse to religious expression, religious practice, and a religious basis for law. All three have finally been dismissed in this case. The first two were not an issue (a Judge shouldn't need to impose his personal, religious expressions using public property if they are found to be offensive to his constituency) and the third one is a violation of the exclusion clause in the first amendment.
But we will continue hearing cries of religious oppression, when it's that very oppression the courts are seeking to avoid. If a justice can't keep his Judeo-Christian, personal convictions out of his procedings, he is violating nonbelievers' and non-Christian/Jewish believers' civil rights. This is very different from a mere expression of religious beliefs!
I have no problems with the commandments being anywhere in any government setting. What I do reject is the argument Moore makes that they are all 10 the basis of my nation's laws. I would hope that Christians would try to understand how non-Christians feel about that.
Pryor is setting a good example of this so far. It's ironic to see him criticized for following the laws he is sworn to execute, but I am not surprised.
It will be interesting to see how this whole case has affected Pryor's chances for appointment to the 11th circuit court.
Why then are the Subcommittees doing nothing?
Because we are not holding their feet to the fire. It is time we all called our member of congress asking that they impeach some of these out of control activist judges.
Does it worry you that Hillary Clinton agrees with your worries about activist judges, albeit the conservative, reactionary ones?
What do you want to accomplish with these bright, shiny new judges you seek who will interpret the constitution your way? When you can impose Judeo-Christian law, what will you do first, and just how will it help our country? I'm most interested in your serious answer to that last question.
But Moore said that all 10 of the commandments (without qualification) were the basis of our laws. By doing so, he:
I personally am not usually concerned with religious expressions in schools, courts, or anywhere else in this country. But when Moore failed to limit the breadth of his announcement that a Judeo-Christian icon was the basis for our entire legal system, I noticed.
Please try to understand that this is not a negative, anti-Christian sentiment on my part. is what you
Your world is one populated by thought police and the prevetnion of crime before it happens.
Justice Moore has a written record. It should be relatively simple for you and your side to cite opinions of his where he disregarded his oath to uphold the Constituion of Alabama and substituted theocratic beliefs.
It should also be relatively easy for you to post the names of Alabama citizens who have had their rights violated or been coerced in some manner by some a law in Alabama establishing some nefarious theocracy.
So, risk, post away or quit telling tales.
You're argument is with the authors of the DOI and Constitution who KNEW that unalienable rights came from God and not SCOTUS, not Judge Moore.
And like all the rest, you don't have the wherewithal to admit it.
Hmmm... Interesting that Farah would print a bald-faced lie like this. Apparently, he hasn't taken the time to read the opinions.
"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." Amendment 10 would cover that.
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.