Federal Judge Makes It Official -- America Now an Atheist Nation

American Family Association ^ | Sep 5, 203 | Don Wildmon

[xzins]

Federal Judge Makes It Official -- America Now an Atheist Nation

The issue isn't a granite stone with the Ten Commandments inscribed on it. Never has been. The issue is much more diverse and important than a piece of stone.

The issue was best stated by none other than Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who said that the display of the stone containing the Ten Commandments (which also contains a host of other historical documents) is illegal. Thompson said the central, most important issue was this: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

After asking the question, he went on to answer it. "No."

That is the issue. Lest we fail to understand what has occurred here, let me explain. A single, lower-court federal judge has bluntly told every American that America is now officially an atheist nation.

In one swift stroke of the pen, Judge Thompson tossed out over 225 years of American history and law. In one swift stroke of the pen, he has instituted a new form of law based on what he wants it to be. Rex has become lex. He wears a black robe and he says he is the law.

Go back and read the First Amendment, the one Judge Thompson destroyed in the name of preserving it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the First Amendment says. Congress has passed no law establishing religion. But what Congress refused to do, indeed because Congress refused to do it, Judge Thompson did. He instituted as the law of the land the religion of atheism, which says there is no God.

Not only did Judge Thompson usurp the power of Congress, he also took away the rights of every individual and state. The second half of the establishment clause of the First Amendment reads: "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This is precisely what one lower federal judge has done. He told Americans who disagree with his official state religion of atheism that he can and will prohibit the free exercise of their religion -- unless, of course, that religion is atheism. He stripped both Congress and the people of their rights. He set himself above the law because he considers himself to be the law.

From this day forward, our entire judicial system must be based on the religion of atheism. Follow that to its logical conclusion. In the future there will be no frame of reference from which to decide law. Law will become what any person wearing a black robe and sitting in court desires it to be. The First Amendment has been ripped apart in the name of upholding it. Orwell's 1984 has arrived.

No, you will not notice any drastic changes immediately. There is still a remnant left in the hearts and minds of the current citizenry. But when that remnant dies out, those who come after us will see a big difference.

The state will become intolerant of any religion other than atheism. That, of course, will come into conflict with people of conscience whose religion differs from that of the state. That is when the persecution, quite legal I might add, will start. It was the atheist Santayana who said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote: "The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Indeed, Santayana and Jefferson were right.

[Jim Noble]

The Ten Commandments were delivered to the Jews, not the Christians.

If Roy Moore were establishing a religion (which of course he was not-indeed, as Chief Justice of Alabama, he could not), it would be Judaism.

[Jim Noble]

I want government to be strictly neutral when it comes to religion

Bummer, dude.

All you are going to get is Congress (not government) not establishing a national church.

In a nation whose people are passionate about religion, the "neutrality" you seek (besides being unconstitutional) is an impossibility.

[strela]

If Roy Moore were establishing a religion (which of course he was not-indeed, as Chief Justice of Alabama, he could not)

Why not? He has repeatedly made pro-Christian statements from the bench - he's rather famous for them as a matter of fact.

it would be Judaism.

I wouldn't want a Torah on the door of the courthouse either.

[strela]

All you are going to get is Congress (not government) not establishing a national church.

Which could be construed as happening when a government official, acting under color of law, posts material that advocates or is favorable to one religion over others in a public place, on the public dime.

[Jim Noble]

Why not? He has repeatedly made pro-Christian statements from the bench - he's rather famous for them as a matter of fact

Because an unlimited, endless stream of pro-Christian (whatever that means) statements by the Chief Justice of Alabama, or by the President of the United States, is not an Act of Congress and does not constitute an establishment of religion.

The vast majority of Americans are Christians, and are called to vocally and publically profess their faith and attempt to convert others.

This free exercise of religion is constitutionally protected, and establishes nothing.

[ArGee]

Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932 and was created by the British and other European nations who drew Iraq's borders and established their first government.

Thank you. The history is interesting, but does not alter my point. Romulus and Remus created Rome but you wouldn't talk about them when talking about modern day Italy.

That said, it probably would have been better if I had used Afghanistan, since the Muslim influence on Iraq was more an issue of the political machinations of Hussein than any devout religious fervor. I must grant you that point.

Shalom.

[Jim Noble]

Which could be construed as happening when a government official, acting under color of law, posts material that advocates or is favorable to one religion over others in a public place, on the public dime

Government officials are not Congress.

And it could only be so construed if you dishonestly distort the clear meaning of "establishment".

[george wythe]

It's obvious which religion Chief Justice Moore tried to established.

First of all, he claimed that the state constitution only recognizes the Judeo-Christian god, not any other god worshipped by other religions.

Furthermore, he claimed that only Christianity is a religion, meaning Buddism is not a religion, Hinduism is not a religion, Islam is not a religion.

In Glassroth v. Moore , U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson wrote:

Shortly after his election, now-Chief Justice began designing a monument depicting, in his words, "the moral foundation of law" and reflecting "the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men." By God, the Chief Justice specifically meant the Judeo-Christian God of the [*5] Holy Bible and not the God of any other religion.

Thus, he [Moore] made clear that, while the monument depicted the "moral foundation of law," it was ultimately a monument to the giver of this foundation, the Judeo-Christian God.

He [Moore] explained that the Judeo-Christian God reigned over both the church and the state.

At trial, the Chief Justice reiterated his belief that only Christianity meets the First Amendment definition of religion, and repeatedly called any other creed a "faith," rather than a religion. As such, the court must also reject the Chief Justice's legal understanding of the First Amendment concept of religion for its lack of support in Supreme Court precedent

The court cannot accept the Chief Justice's proposed definition of the word "religion" because it is, simply put, incorrect and religiously offensive. The court cannot accept a definition of religion that does not acknowledge Buddhism or Islam as a religion under the First Amendment, and would in fact directly violate Supreme Court precedent by doing so.

For example, the following dialogue occurred between Chief Justice Moore and judge Thompson:

During one extended stretch, Thompson engaged Moore in a series of questions with no attorneys interrupting. The conversation was almost casual, friendly, like two men well-versed in their subject discussing an issue around the fireplace after dinner.

"What you're telling me and others is that we have a separation of church and state, but not a separation of God and state?" Thompson asked.

Moore: "Right."

Thompson: "God himself is over both?"

Moore: "That's exactly right."

Thompson: "Both the state and church fall under the sovereignty of God?"

Moore: Right.

Thompson: "You couldn't really have the state unless you have God?"

Moore: "Right. That God. Who that God is so important. It's the God of the Holy Scriptures."

Thompson: "When you refer to 'that God," you mean the Judeo-Christian God?"

Moore: "Yes, the God that both the Jews and Christians worship."

Thompson: "Why is that significant?

Moore: "Any faith that worships a different God doesn't worship the God that gave us freedom of conscience."

Thompson: The Judeo-Christian God is at the top in that he has given freedom of conscience to worship other gods and pursue other religions?"

Moore: "Right. If it wasn't the Judeo-Christian God, then what they are accusing us of doing would be true."

Of course, Moore had more to say about religions who do not worship the Judeo-Christian God:

From the bench he [District Judge Myron H. Thompson] asked [Alabama Chief Justice] Moore, “Would you acknowledge that Buddhism is a religion?”

Moore replied, “Buddhism was considered a false religion by the forefathers. It is not my definition of religion, no. It was not their definition of religion under the First Amendment of the Constitution.”

“I wasn’t really asking that,” Thomp­son said. “I was just asking whether religion – within the confines of the First Amendment as you view it historically – [if] the term ‘religion’ includes Buddhists, the Islamic faith, the Hindus?”

Moore refused to budge.

“I don’t think so, sir, that Buddhists and other faiths – and I won’t speak to all faiths because I’m not a theologian – recognize the Creator, God,” he replied. “Some might, but if they do, it’s not the God of the Holy Scriptures. And that’s why the Bible is used for the very foundation upon which we take our oaths.”

[ArGee]

Yep, -- "hard core" Christians, professional militant atheists, and Bible thumpers scare the bejesis out of most everyone, exactly as the sandmaggots do.

Then I asked you if you thought Judge Moore's actions reflected one of these groups and you said no. Now, maybe I'm sensitive, but it is not unreasonable to think that you brought up the comparison between the "hard core" Christians, Bible thumpers, and sandmaggots because you wanted to make a connection between those who destroyed the WTC and Judge Moore putting a monument in his courthouse. If that was not your intention then I'm still not sure why you even brought it up. Did you just want to vent?

Shalom.

[ArGee]

(Republican, no less.)

In this day and age it is a huge mistake to confuse "Republican" with "Bible Scholar", "Christian", or "Tax Cutter".

In any day and age the first two would have been a huge mistake.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Anyone with a brain completely rejects the characterization of America as an "atheist nation."

I have a brain, and the X-rays to prove it, but I would not reject that notion.

It is no more required that an officially athiest nation remove all churches than that an officially Christian nation remove all mosques.

A nation that permits all expression except religious expression is an officially athiest nation, whether it requires you to worship at the altar of atheism or not. It is just as offensive as a nation which would make it illegal to take the name of G-d in vain.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

He's the one that tried to pressure Holiday Inn to stop offering R-rated "pay per view" movies in its rooms.

What's your problem with that?

Shalom.

[george wythe]

Government officials are not Congress.

And it could only be so construed if you dishonestly distort the clear meaning of "establishment".

"You" means the US Supreme Court?

I'm not a lawyer, so I will post a few comments I found through google. As you probably know, the SCOTUS has its own 'logic,' therefore don't blame me for posting their contradictory reasonings ;-)

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Although the 14th Amendment to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ratified in 1868, was designed to restrain state governments from abridging the rights of former slaves after the Civil War, it has been used to extend virtually all of the personal liberties and rights granted in the BILL OF RIGHTS to protection against infringement by state governments. The amendment itself defines citizenship and restrains states from abridging the privileges or immunities of a citizen, requires Due Process of law and equal protection of the laws to persons under its jurisdiction, reduces representation in for states that deny voting rights, disqualifies for office certain officials of the Confederacy, and invalidates any war debts of the confederate states.

The amendment was first construed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and then in Hurato v. California (1884) to deny that all personal rights and liberties extended by the Bill of Rights were protected from impairment by a state. In cases such as these the basis was laid for Government Regulation. In LoOchner v. New York (1905), however, and in other decisions through the 1930s, the Court interpreted the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to invalidate state legislation regulating working conditions, hours, and minimum wage laws. Many of the notable dissenting opinions of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis Brandeis, and Benjamin Cardozo, which later became law, can be found in decisions of this era relating to issues arising under the 14th Amendment.

It was not until 1925 in Gitlow v. New York that the Court used the due process clause of this amendment to incorporate a provision of the Bill of Rights by extending the FIRST AMENDMENT protection of freedom of speech to persons against abridgment by state action. By 1937 (Palko v. Connecticut), all of the 1st Amendment protections were binding on the states under the theory that those provisions of the Bill of Rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" were included in the due process guarantee of the 14th Amendment. The Court has gradually included all amendments of the Bill of Rights except the SECOND, THIRD, SEVENTH, TENTH, and the requirement of grand jury indictment in the FIFTH Amendment in its "selective incorporation doctrine," protecting individual rights from state encroachment. The due process clause has also been used to acknowledge the right to privacy (Roe v. Wade, 1971).

The equal protection clause has been used to limit racial discrimination (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 1954), maintain fair legislative apportionment (Baker v. Carr, 1962), and to forbid the use of rigid quotas in public equal opportunity programs (University of California v. Bakke, 1978). The 14th Amendment has been both praised and vilified over the years. While proponents point to advancement in standards of justice and civil liberties, critics assert that the Supreme Court interpretations of the due process and equal protection clauses have inappropriately broadened the scope of judicial review to the examination of the substance of much state and federal law, a responsibility that these critics assert is properly the responsibility of legislative bodies.

[Matchett-PI]

"It's clear that he's a firm believer in censorship of anything he considers "indecent" and indeed the evidence suggests he would prefer a Christian version of sharia to the freedoms we enjoy today."

We have nothing to worry about as long as we make sure that the Constitution that stands in the way of religious and/or secular tyrants isn't torn down.

Because the Christian Framers were most all Calvinists, they were well aware of the realities of fallen human nature. They didn't trust it. They knew people are not *basically* good (even though they are capable of good). Our whole government was very carefully set up so as to PREVENT even those who call themselves "Christians" from ever gaining absolute power and control over their fellow man.

And we have seen the wisdom of what they did over and over again. Our Constitution was definately inspired.

[E Rocc]

He's the one that tried to pressure Holiday Inn to stop offering R-rated "pay per view" movies in its rooms.

What's your problem with that?

It's none of his business. These are movies that have to be specially ordered. Their availability is solely the concern of Holiday Inn and its customers. If there was no demand, they would not offer them.

-Eric

[tpaine]

Daft.. Can't you read?

I 'bought it up' in answer to the question posed about zealotry, and to make Koestler's point about fanaticism being everywhere, not just in religion.

Indeed, -- YOU brought up moore, -- who imo, isn't so much of a zealot, as he is a cynical political hack trying to attract them to his cause.

Your own obsessive behavior here is helping me prove that very point. - Thanks.

[ArGee]

It's none of his business.

Maybe so, but he has the right to ask, and Holiday Inn has the right to answer. It's not censorship even if every hotel in the country decided to agree with him and pull their porn. Of course, then those men who like to sneak porn where people can't see them wouldn't be able to do that, and they might react as if they were being censored, but it still wouldn't be censorship.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Daft.. Can't you read?

Yep, you brought it up to answer a question that was not posed to you and which you admit is not germane to this post.

I guess you are just a zealot who likes to beat his drum.

Please forgive me for assuming you meant to implicate Moore by posting on a thread that is about Moore.

Shalom.

[Held_to_Ransom]

In one swift stroke of the pen, Judge Thompson tossed out over 225 years of American history and law.

This sort of stupidity annoys me. Do they really think that 225 years ago American law and history just popped out of the vapors into existence? That none of our law or history has any sort of precedents at all prior to this date? What rubbish.

[Jim Noble]

Establishment of religion is an affirmative act by a People (in the West, through an act of legislation) to set one church above the others and to require all, including non-members, to pay for the expenses of said, "established" church.

Roy Moore or George Bush could confine their public utterances to verses from the gospel, exhort Jews, Muslims, and athiests to convert to Christianity at every opportunity, hold Easter sunrise services at their respective offices, and announce that they would only appoint Bible-believing Christians to offices under their jurisdiction without infringing the First Amendment.

They might be breaking the law, and insofar as they need votes to stay in office they would be most unwise-but it would not constitute Congress (or, if you accept the absurdity of "incorporation", the Alabama legislature) establishing a religion.