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.

[Conservative Me]

So are you saying that the display of the Ten Commandments is practicing faith? I disagree. Is prayer being "outlawed" at the courthouse? Should all non-Christians be forced to hold themselves to only the Christian standard, and not that of their own faith, whatever that may be?

[Noachian]

However, they have a right to justice that is impartial to religion

Do they have a right to a justice that's PARTIAL to religion?

[xzins]

"Can" is worlds different than "must."

"Can" is easier to argue than must.

[Scenic Sounds]

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.

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. ;-)

[Noachian]

The people of the states, by majority rule, have the right to decide for themselves how religion plays out in their state as long as constitutional rights of minority's are obeyed. It's not for one person to overrule the state's majority and decide how religion is to be conducted in a state.

If anyone has a problem with a state's laws concerning religion that person has the freedom to vote with his shoes and find a place more conducive to his religious leanings.

[Conservative Me]

So any non-Christian should move out of the state of Alabama because the law follows only Judeo-Christian values. Religious segregation will breed social unrest and come off as religious persecution. Isn't that what our ancestors came here to get away from?

[risk]

Do they have a right to a justice that's PARTIAL to religion?

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.

[c-b 1]

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?

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.

[AnalogReigns]

Our system is based on, in the words of various founders, "self government." By this, they didn't mean as we usually define the term today, "democracy," they meant persons who were able to govern themselves without being coerced into it by the state; their term, "self-government" today would be called "self control." THE basis of self-government in this sense is the moral law of God--summarized in the 10 Commandments.

Not ONE of the founders, even the most secular or deist, felt our system was based on some sort of abstraction of "pure reason." Reason itself is founded on the idea of a stable consistant universe--which arose from the idea of a stable consistant God. The whole concept of "rights" in the constitutional sense, is anchored in the idea they are irrevocably given by God, not given (revocably) by government.

Acknowledgement of God--yet while not establishing an official religion--is at the heart of being American--as its the heart of our historic idea of liberty.

[risk]

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.

[TheFrog]

Re:"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" Sounds like the Pharisees of old. I do not know what religion you are preaching but it is definitely not Jesus’ teaching.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[risk]

Acknowledgement of God--yet while not establishing an official religion--is at the heart of being American--as its the heart of our historic idea of liberty.

But Moore said that all 10 of the commandments (without qualification) were the basis of our laws. By doing so, he:

1. Established Judeo-Christian beliefs as the primary basis for American law (the obvious meaning).
2. Imposed the belief in Jehova as a legal requirement for all Americans, as he had failed to limit the scope of the set of commandments to either inspiration, or to the last six, and he further failed to set forth any qualifications as to state residence.
3. Dismissed reason and logic as the primary source for our laws.
4. Confirmed that a particular brand of morality was required in the enforcement of our laws.

Reasonable Christians need to at least try to understand the implications of Moore's civil disobedience. If that is what you want, then you are asking for a constitutional change. If that is not what you want, then try to understand why Moore's inability to articulate a qualification or limit to the scope of his pronouncements has the entire secular community of this country worried.

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

[jwalsh07]

You know risk, I have heard your argument ad infinitum and its as ad absurdum today as it was the first time I heard it.

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.

[jwalsh07]

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.

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.

[risk]

You're also welcome to cite the rulings of Thompson, the Alabama supreme court, or the Alabama judicial ethics committee in your posts, as well.

[risk]

And yours would be with them as well then, as they specifically avoided the words Judaism or Christianity in the Constitution, and were distinctly worried about the kind of problems Moore has been causing.

[jwalsh07]

That's the usual answer risk. You have no answer, none, nada, zippo. Not one Alabam citizen who has had his rights violated or been coerced into supporting a religion not of his choosing nor one case where Judge Moore violated his oath.

And like all the rest, you don't have the wherewithal to admit it.

[lugsoul]

"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."

Hmmm... Interesting that Farah would print a bald-faced lie like this. Apparently, he hasn't taken the time to read the opinions.

[rottweiller_inc]

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.

"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.