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

Skip to comments.

Battle Over Commandments Monument Part of Larger 'Culture War'
The Centre Daily Times [College Station, PA] ^ | August 27, 2003 | Mark I. Pinsky [The Orlando Sentinel]

Posted on 09/01/2003 12:16:40 PM PDT by quidnunc

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's pugnacious campaign to make the Ten Commandments the rock on which to build his view of church-state relations in America is almost over.

On Wednesday in Montgomery, a moving company shifted the 5,300-pound monument from the Alabama Judicial Building's rotunda to another area of the building, and the state's attorney general predicted it would be removed entirely by the end of the week.

The judge's effort to redraw the line between church and state has struck a responsive chord among evangelical Christians hungry for a champion in the nation's "culture war," but it was doomed, even conservative attorneys say.

"You can't ethically advise your client to disobey a court's order, no matter how much you disagree with the order," said Matt Staver, of Liberty Counsel, a Longwood firm specializing in church-state issues.

The controversy over the Ten Commandments in Alabama evolved into a test of sovereignty between the federal government and one state judge, with a preordained outcome. But, in a larger sense, it is the latest round of a 200-year debate on the division between government and religion.

Installation of the monument in the summer of 2001 provided a rallying point for those who think religion should be front and center in public life — and that Christianity is under assault.

"I do think it's part of the larger culture war," said David T. Morgan, retired professor of history at the University of Montevallo in Alabama.

"So many people in this state are convinced that the country is going to hell, and here's a man who is standing up for old-time religion and old-time values," said Morgan, author of The New Crusades, the New Holy Land: Controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention, 1969-1991.

At the same time, the Ten Commandments controversy provided a target for those who think the line of separation between church and state is being blurred.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the monument's removal "a tremendous victory for the rule of law and respect for religious diversity."

Partisans on both sides are working from the same texts, starting with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

However, there is considerable disagreement on the meaning of the texts.

Moore's supporters argue that the passage was written by the Founding Fathers to avoid giving one Christian denomination favored or official status. Because most of the framers were at least nominal Christians, his supporters say, they assumed they were creating a Christian nation. Thus, evangelicals maintain that removing the monument is, in effect, abridging the free exercise of religion.

Moore's opponents rely on President Thomas Jefferson, who provided his interpretation of the passage in a letter to the Danbury, Conn., Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God," the president wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Recently, the Rev. Jerry Falwell has dismissed Jefferson's explanation of the separation of church and state as a "shadowy phrase culled from a letter."

But Robert Parham, director of the Baptist Center for Ethics in Nashville, sharply disagreed.

Parham said Jefferson "clearly interpreted the religious liberty clause in the First Amendment to mean the separation of church and state."

The federal courts consistently have agreed with Jefferson's interpretation. They also have ruled that where the Constitution says "Congress" in the First Amendment, the passage applies to all arms of government — federal, state and local.

-snip-

Where should the line of separation be drawn between church and state?

"The answer lies somewhere between the extremists who want to impose Christian values, mainly Protestant, on everyone else, and their secular counterparts, who want to ban religion completely from public life and make it a purely private matter," said Steinmetz.

"This society will accept neither extreme. What we need to do is what we are doing; we need to argue it out. The good news is that we live in a robust democracy. It will survive this disagreement."

(Excerpt) Read more at centredaily.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: culturewar; publicsquare; roymoore; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: george wythe
Do you believe that the First Amendment does not apply to the states?

The First Amendment has several clauses invovled. The clauses acknowledging the inalienable individual rights of man are undoubtedly incorporated by the 14th Amendment to the states.

The establishment clause, a restraint on the Federal gov't, was never meant to be incorporated. However, if you don't believ me research the 15 attempts by Congress to amend the First to include the states. It failed each time.

But that's neither here nor there because the original intent of the First Amendment was never to build a "Wall of Separation". A rudimentary knowledge of the history of America, it's founders and the debate on the First Amendment while states had established religions would confirm that, no?

Do you believe that the current SCOTUS will rule that the First Amendment does not apply to the states, specifically to a state supreme court justice?

Absolutely not. I believe there are 5 votes on this court to find a right to transcendent rights to whatever they can dream up.

Justice Stephens to Justice Ginsburg:

Ruthie, have you found any precedent for banning the voluntary recitation of the POA with the words "under God" included?

No Jean Paul, can't seem to find it anywhere in the Constitution or original intent per se, doggonitt!

That's OK Ruthie, we'll just find it in the 14th like we usually do!

Ohhhhhhhh Jean Paul, you're the man!!!!

21 posted on 09/01/2003 1:26:56 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
It's time to stop worshiping at the altar of the elitist, asshole oligarchs in robes.

Now there is a real Christian statement for you. Of course, if one of us on the other end of the ideological divide had called Moore that, we'd expect hordes of angry, hurt posters slamming the abuse button.

22 posted on 09/01/2003 1:31:20 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (if you can read this tagline, you're following too close)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
george wythe wrote: Do you believe that the First Amendment does not apply to the states?

I believe that the 14th Amendment made the provisions of the Constitution applicable to all governmental entities at every level.

The federal courts have ruled on the subject therefore the question is stare decisis until SCOTUS renders another decision.

Roy's rock is a cooked goose, so it's time to accept reality and move on.

23 posted on 09/01/2003 1:33:59 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Now there is a real Christian statement for you. Of course, if one of us on the other end of the ideological divide had called Moore that, we'd expect hordes of angry, hurt posters slamming the abuse button.

You got the wrong guy Pal. I'm a sinner, always have been. I do my best but have never quite gotten my arms around the turning of the cheek thing for one.

So save your moral indignation for somebody who is not wont to smack you back.

24 posted on 09/01/2003 1:34:50 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
It's time to stop worshiping at the altar of the elitist, asshole oligarchs in robes.

HEAR HEAR!(I couldn't have said it any better!)

FMCDH

25 posted on 09/01/2003 1:35:19 PM PDT by nothingnew (The pendulum is swinging and the Rats are in the pit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The federal courts have ruled on the subject therefore the question is stare decisis until SCOTUS renders another decision

Like Bowers?

26 posted on 09/01/2003 1:35:46 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I wish that the 14th Amendment were interpreted closer to your opinion, but I have to admit that I don't see that possibility in the near future, especially with the current make-up of the SCOTUS.

Once the federal courts take power away from the states, they are relunctant to give it back; that seems to be the mindset of both conservative and liberal justices in the SCOTUS.

IMO, we will need to confirm at least three more solid conservative justices to the SCOTUS while keeping the current conservatives; these freshmen must take the lead and not follow the current justices if the states have any chance of getting back some of the usurped powers.

27 posted on 09/01/2003 1:36:31 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Oh,yeah. Feel free to hit whatever button your little rat heart desires.
28 posted on 09/01/2003 1:37:03 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Bowers v. Hardwick has nothing to do with church/state issues.
29 posted on 09/01/2003 1:38:44 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
I agree with you George and you've put your finger on the problem. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and in our America the closest thing there is to absolute power lies in the heart of the federal judiciary and there seems to be absolutely nothing to be done about it.

Congress doesn't have the heart or soul do take them on.

Hence, the frustration that you rightfully see from me.

30 posted on 09/01/2003 1:41:34 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Bowers v. Hardwick has nothing to do with church/state issues.

Bowers was settled law UNTIL a new court said it wasn't. The issue is judicial activism, ergo its' relevance.

31 posted on 09/01/2003 1:43:03 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I'm a sinner, always have been. I do my best but have never quite gotten my arms around the turning of the cheek thing for one.

So save your moral indignation for somebody who is not wont to smack you back.

I'm with you. I'll "turn my cheek" when it comes to foolish words and asinine thoughts...but when the attack is on my core beliefs, beware.

FMCDH

32 posted on 09/01/2003 1:43:33 PM PDT by nothingnew (The pendulum is swinging and the Rats are in the pit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
jwalsh07 wrote: I agree with you George and you've put your finger on the problem. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and in our America the closest thing there is to absolute power lies in the heart of the federal judiciary and there seems to be absolutely nothing to be done about it. Congress doesn't have the heart or soul do take them on. Hence, the frustration that you rightfully see from me.

Ah yes, but are you one of those wingnut cranks who would rather vote for some lunatic-fringe candidate on 'principle' rather than voting for an electable Republican who actually might be able to get conservative judges appointed and confirmed?

If so then in my opinion you have no standing to complain.

33 posted on 09/01/2003 2:00:19 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Ah yes, but are you one of those wingnut cranks who would rather vote for some lunatic-fringe candidate on 'principle' rather than voting for an electable Republican who actually might be able to get conservative judges appointed and confirmed?

LOL. Here at FR I have run the gamut from statist to wingnut. I vote and will always vote in the primaries for pro life, pro gun, pro constituion and pro America candidates. In the general elections I have always voted for the candidate closes to those views with a chance of being elected.

If so then in my opinion you have no standing to complain.

Just goes to show what some opinions are worth.

34 posted on 09/01/2003 2:14:59 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
I'm with you. I'll "turn my cheek" when it comes to foolish words and asinine thoughts...but when the attack is on my core beliefs, beware

:-}

35 posted on 09/01/2003 2:38:28 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
http://www.gohotsprings.com/focus/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=434

Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937

In 1919 an Italian socialist named Antonio Gramsci began to publish a newspaper in Milan called, L'Ordine Nuovo, or "The New Order." Loosely rendered, he concluded that the average person would never voluntarily reject the faith and culture of the West. He concluded that the best way to implement a collectivist government was to use an intellectual elite to destroy traditional values by attacking fundamental Jewish and Christian beliefs.

Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937

...A. The New Order (L'Ordine Nuovo)
......1. Italian Communist newspaper, founded 1919
......2. Co-founder of Italian Communist Party, 1921
......3. Pre-Prison Writings, ed. Richard Bellamy (Cambridge, 1994)
......4. Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Intl. Publishers, 1971)

...B. Lenin was wrong, and the Leninist revolution will fail
......1. The workers will see the revolutionary government as a new boss
......2. When the revolution fails, the west will re-import Capitalism

...C. Gradual revolution through infiltration & subversion by revolutionaries
......1. Infiltrate the State: elective & appointed office; judgeships
......2. Infiltrate the military: enlist & subvert from within
......3. Infiltrate justice: undermine and discredit state constitutions
......4. Infiltrate education: professors & administrators
......5. Infiltrate & discredit religion: scoundrels as clergymen
......6. Register, then license, then confiscate all privately held weapons

...D. Form or infiltrate international organizations to promote goals such as "global understanding," "economic development," "transfer of resources"

...E. Both Capitalism and Judaeo-Christian culture must be destroyed before a Communist revolution can succeed
......1. Religious sentiment cannot be destroyed through legislation, as Lenin believed, but must be redirected from the divine to the state
.........a. Terror will only drive Religion underground
.........b. Religion will then reemerge when Leninism fails
.........c. So Religion must be destroyed in the minds of men
......2. Infiltrate religious academies and become priests and clergymen
.........a. Subtly promote heresy within religious organizations
.........b. Infiltrators must act so as to discredit the church
............(1) Cause financial and sexual scandals
............(2) See that this is given a high profile in the news
............(3) Like-minded infiltrators in the media will cooperate
......3. Once religion is discredited from within, continuously promote the idea that only the state can solve the problems that have been traditionally brought before the church
...F. When propagating revolutionary ideas, cloak them in polite terms
......1. National Consensus
......2. Popular Mandate
......3. National Pacification
......4. Pluralism
......5. Global Community
......6. Economic Justice
......7. Economic Democracy
......8. Liberation Theology
......9. Direct Action
...G. Marxists "must enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity in every nation, leavening them as yeast leavens bread."
36 posted on 09/01/2003 3:53:58 PM PDT by steplock (www.FOCUS.GOHOTSPRINGS.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm
Wake-up Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts

37 posted on 09/01/2003 4:26:15 PM PDT by Patriotways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc; All
See tag line to sign up for Terri Schiavo updates. Guardianship Judge orders "exit protocol" for a disabled woman who is neither a vegetable or in a coma. The Judge snubbed Governor Bush by refusing to place Terri with a guardian ad litem. Guardian Hubby and Hospice would like to end her life asap.

The pro-death crowd are annoyed by "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Help us call and email or a simple prayer for Terri would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Get up to speed by doing a search under Terri Schiavo. FV

38 posted on 09/01/2003 4:34:41 PM PDT by floriduh voter (TO JOIN TERRI PING LIST CONTACT kimmie7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
read later
39 posted on 09/01/2003 5:06:43 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"A losing argument if ever there was one."

Your cronies have been making it repeatedly here on FR.

40 posted on 09/01/2003 6:11:07 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 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