Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ten Commandments Debate (Federal Judiciary Tyranny Alert!)
Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 9/01/03 | Joseph Farah

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aclu; alabama; chiefjusticemoore; constitution; freedom; josephfarah; religiousliberty; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-186 next last
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."

A federal judge ordered Alabama's state officials to violate the Constitution and laws of the state they were sworn to uphold. In Chief Justice Roy Moore's own words its as succinct a definition of federal judiciary tyranny as our nation has ever heard. This cannot and must be allowed to stand, both for Justice Moore's sake and that of freedom in general and religious liberty in particular in our country. Those who believe the federal judiciary is NOT above the states must do everything in their power to ensure federal judges don't override local mores and customs on a mere whim simply because they're politically incorrect or out of fear the ACLU would disapprove. If federalism is to mean anything, its that final say should always rest with the people of the state and not with unelected tyrants in black robes. The stakes have never been higher.

1 posted on 09/01/2003 12:46:50 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
USA is choosing a path of destruction, choosing to forget God in everything, now and forever. USA courts are upholding evil over good.
2 posted on 09/01/2003 12:51:06 AM PDT by tessalu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; P-Marlowe
Can the state acknowledge God?

1. Does this mean that only Alabamans (or states with similar phrases) can acknowledge God since their constitution has that phrase, "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God?"

2. "Can" "Can the state" versus "Must the state" seems an important distinction. Which does Moore mean?
3 posted on 09/01/2003 1:12:08 AM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Aunt Enna
"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."

I do not believe this statement. Moore is losing his bid to keep the 10 commandments in the courthouse because he failed in an adversarial courtroom setting to defend their presence. Our courts are like that. People can argue whatever they like, and when an attack comes on a position we hold dear, we must be prepared to explain why it matters to the rest of society, not just ourselves. He failed because he argued that all 10 of the commandments are the basis of all of our laws. This is not a theocracy, the first amendment applies at the state levels (see the 14th amendment), and just as much as the second amendment annoys the anti-gun movement, the first amendment is simple and plain on the matter of establishment.

As a Californian, I am grateful that Moore isn't on the supreme court of this state. There may be devout Christians who are suffering because of the expression of their beliefs in this country. Moore is suffering because of something else.

People crying that God is being excluded from our nation's public halls purely on the basis of Moore's legal problems are distorting the facts and hurting the cause of Christian freedoms where they actually matter.

4 posted on 09/01/2003 3:09:23 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: risk
The adverserial process is not the do all end all of our system. First, of course is the rule of law. This means that you follow the written law whether you agree with it or not. If you want you can try to change it. The Ten Commandments is no more or less a violation of our Law than if a judge or any one else put up, say, some approiate Koranic lines. As Americans we are familiar with with wisdom from sources as diverse as the Bible, Ghandi,Plato, Mohammad, confucious the Koran and on and on. I once saw a sampler at the New York DMV with lines from ALL of the above. It matched a poster my guidence counsler had in his office. This is pre 1975. when I read these sources they were all familiar to me from gradeschool and I thiught nothing of them In fact I'll bet there ARE lines from the Koran or Mohammad, unattributed, on some court wall or other state edifice. I'll go so far as to say (though I can think of no examples offhand) that I have no doubt that the writings, public and private, of the founding fathers are sprinkled with wisdom from all of the above sources and many others. Educated people gloried in such knowledge and enjoyed propagating it. Once in America we could do these things...well... I guess you could STILL put up any lines you wanted from the Koran or Confucious.
6 posted on 09/01/2003 4:46:22 AM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: risk
Moore is losing his bid to keep the 10 commandments in the courthouse because he failed in an adversarial courtroom setting to defend their presence.

My prayer:

"Lord, please hasten the day when these lawyers attempt to argue legalisms before Your ultimate seat of justice and, in Your Almighty Presence, attempt to explain to You the conditions under which Your Heavenly Commandments are inferior to their mortal, flawed law."

If this world had true justice, we would close every law school in America and "outsource" every lawyer from the United States before they destroy every moral underpinning of this fine nation in deliberate mockery of Almighty God and before they finish robbing every last, hard-earned dime from the earnings of its good people.

7 posted on 09/01/2003 5:02:21 AM PDT by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: risk
Did you even bother to read Farah's article?

The federal judiciary is completely out of bounds here and we must defend Moore (if not for his sake, for ours.)

Having a monument in a State Courthouse is not "establishing a theocracy," btw.

8 posted on 09/01/2003 5:16:52 AM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a king?" "Because he doesn't have sh*t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
The Ten Commandments is no more or less a violation of our Law than if a judge or any one else put up, say, some approiate Koranic lines.

It's not that he put them up. It's that he put every one of them, from one through ten -- above Alabamans. And then he failed to justify that in a court of law.

This is not about who can put the 10 commandments where, it's about why they do or don't belong in a courthouse. I could have made a better argument for keeping them there, and I think I could have won. They would still be there today if I had been able to advise Moore.

They were there to remind citizens that American laws were inspired by the Judeo-Christian tradition of morality and personal responsibility. But Moore said they were the basis of our laws. These are two different things.

9 posted on 09/01/2003 5:20:02 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: risk
I recall nothing in 14th amendment that repeals the 9th and 10th amendments, nor i recall where it repealed the part of the first amendment that restricts it to congress on the federal level.
10 posted on 09/01/2003 5:23:23 AM PDT by rottweiller_inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
The federal judiciary is completely out of bounds here and we must defend Moore (if not for his sake, for ours.)

Wrong on the first point, and we must not make up inappropriate pretenses for legal cases. Moore supporters are doing that now, because he didn't lose his initial plea to keep the commandments in the courthouse because they were Christian, he lost the case because he said our laws are based on them -- all of them. He's wrong, they're based on reason and logic, and to state otherwise would imply a theocracy. Unbelievers are not represented by such a state, and therefore it's a violation of the establishment clause.

Anyway, why would good Christians want to impose their religious convictions on fellow citizens? Isn't reason and argument enough for the construction and enforcement of our laws?

11 posted on 09/01/2003 5:25:18 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rottweiller_inc
So the second amendment isn't supported by the bill of rights? This is basically what the non-exclusionists are saying. They sound like anti-gunners who think they've found a loophole in the second amendment that proves that militias aren't comprised of individuals. Not happy with the constitution? Find a technicality. That's the true essence of the judicial activism we decry as conservatives. That's wrong.
12 posted on 09/01/2003 5:27:56 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: risk
"Court of Law. Amusing. Emanations and penumbras, sodomy, SCOFLA on the last election, THAT court of "Law"?

A Court of Law is not a natural force. It is made up of men and as such must either adhere RIGIORUSLY to WRITTEN law or perish.

Also, those who pick and choose what has FORCE ie; "A Court of Law" or an "adverserial system" over ANYTHING and ALL things are demonstrating their intellectual corruption.
13 posted on 09/01/2003 5:29:37 AM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
You're happy with the courts when they say what you like. You're not happy with them when they violate your Christian morals. However, the republic continues to thrive despite your anxiety.

What do you want, I mean ultimately? How will seeing your morals served in our courts help us as a nation? What specific problems will it solve?
14 posted on 09/01/2003 5:32:17 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: risk
What? This has nothing to do with the second amendment. The first amendment specifically prohibits congress from making a law establishing religion. I order for your theory to work that the 14th amendment was made with the intent of applying the constitution, which was incidentally created to form a federal government and define its' powers, to the states the 9th, 10th and the part of the 1st prohibiting congress would've had to have been repealed. What we have here is not the federal courts deciding the constitutionallity of any laws, but rather federal judges usurping the lawmaking powers delegated to congress, not only that the federal jurists are doing what is specifically prohibited in the first amendment by establishing atheism as the federal religion.
15 posted on 09/01/2003 5:37:35 AM PDT by rottweiller_inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rottweiller_inc
It has everything to do with the second amendment. Regardless of what either of us thinks about the 14th amendment, the first amendment prevents you from imposing your religious believes on me with any law passed by congress. Now you can debate all you like, but why would the founding fathers want the local states to do that, too?

Like the anti-gunners who say the plain English of the second amendment that says citizens can bear arms means not as individuals but as state-sanctioned militia members only, you are interpreting the legalese of the constitutional record and surrounding discussion to prove your point. However, it's not working. The country isn't following your point of view because in our representational form of government, executive-appointed judges are not hearing this argument and buying it. The status quo is following the simple, English intent of the law.

Just like it ought to be doing with respect to the second amendment.
16 posted on 09/01/2003 5:41:38 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: risk
Utah was formed by Mormons. State religions did exsist after the constitution was ratified. The second amendment specifically says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This was so people with arms could rise to the call to defend the state. What the second amendment has to do with your argument is still a mystry to me.
17 posted on 09/01/2003 5:48:45 AM PDT by rottweiller_inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rottweiller_inc
The whole point is that there is no "federal religion." Would you all be so supportive of Judge Moore if he had posted similar teachings from another faith (non-Christian)? I doubt it. I would hope, although I am sure the argument will be made to the contrary, that the federal courts would be equally against any similar display from another faith.

I am an Atheist. I agree with the Federal Court's decision, as I would about any single faith display similar to this, not because I am against faith, I certainly am not, but because I find it disrespectful to those who find moral value in the teachings of other faiths.

Is the argument that it does not violate the Establishment Clause, or whether the Federal Courts should be involved at State level decisions? I am sure some would say one the other or both.
18 posted on 09/01/2003 5:49:14 AM PDT by Conservative Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
There are really two problems here. The first is action taken by a Federal District Court against the Constitution of the state of Alabama; the second is why is the Congress, who has authority to regulate the Federal courts, not convening its Subcommittee on the Judiciary to look into this matter.

There's been much debate over the right and wrong of Judge Moore's stand, but little if no attention paid to the obligation and duty of the Congress to look into such matters. Judge Moore has raised a question of Constitutional law that has caught the attention of this nation, and sparked a national debate over something basic to our system of law. This is not a triival case, and the issues it raises are basic to the American rule of law.

Congress has Subcommittees set up specifically to deal with questions relating to the Federal Courts and to the Constitution. As Judge Moore's appeal to the Federal Court winds its way through the legal system these Congressional Subcommittees should be preparing their members to investigate, and hold hearings on, the action of the lower Federal District Court's original and subsequent ruling, the action of the Supreme Court that will surely follow, and the final disposition of this case as it concerns the constitutionality of our system of law.

Why then are the Subcommittees doing nothing?

No investigations, or hearings, by the Judicial Subcommittees are being planned. The Congress itself remains largely silent on the Alabama events. What's the purpose of having Congressional Subcommittees to oversee the actions of the Federal Judiciary if those Subcommittees do nothing when a question of Federal authority vs State's rights occur?

How can the lower Federal Courts, as well as the Supreme Court, be expected to follow constitutional guidelines if the Congressional Subcommittees that are mandated to oversee the actions of those courts shirk their duty? The elected representatives we send to Congress are suppose to protect the people from excesses by the lower Federal Courts and the Supreme Court. By staying silent on the questions raised in Alabama the Congress, through the inaction of its Judicial Subcommittees, are emboldening the Federal Courts to do as they wish with impunity. In this regard Congress is encouraging judicial activism, and should be made to answer to the people.

19 posted on 09/01/2003 5:52:52 AM PDT by Noachian (Legislation Without Representation Is Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rottweiller_inc
I would argue against a Mormon state religion in Utah based on the first amendment, as well. (And I'd win.) I'll try one more time with the second amendment analogy: anti-gunners twist the simple English of the amendment around to interpret it their way, yet they're wrong. The first amendment protects me from religious zealots who would impose laws on me without the benefit of rational discourse and logic. The first commandment is an irrational law to an unbeliever, and therefore belongs in a Judeo-Christian theocracy, not a democratic republic like ours.

In any case, why would you want to impose religious laws on your fellow citizens? What aims do you seek to accomplish by requiring that they follow rules that are comprised of purely metaphysical requirements, the likes of which may not even have application in the minds of said citizen? The first commandment exhorts men to have no other gods before Jehova. Do you wish to impose that law on someone who doesn't believe Jehova exists? What possible purpose could that have?
20 posted on 09/01/2003 5:56:57 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-186 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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