Posted on 09/10/2003 4:45:44 AM PDT by 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Thompson, who said that the display of the stone containing the Ten Commandments (which also contains a host of other historical documents) is illegal.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.
Question #1: Is it constitutional to display the Ten Commandments in a government building?
Answer: Yes.
Question #2: Is it constitutional to display the Ten Commandments in a government building by:
A. Making the Ten Commandments a huge monument that overwhelms and crowds everything else at the main entrance to the building.Answer: No.B. Ignoring all the local regulations about changes in the government buildings, such as not informing the building superintendent or fellow justices who have proper jurisdiction in the review to changes to this building.
C. Claiming publicly in front of TV cameras that the reason the Ten Commandments monuments being placed in the building is to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God by the state, and that any other gods, such as the god worship by Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Shintoists is not the same as the Judeo-Christian God.
D. Testifying under oath in federal court, that the reason for the monument is to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God, and that non-Judeo-Christian religions are not religions recognized by the state, but just "faiths."
E. Ignoring legal procedures, such as failing to file motions and ask for injunctive relief in timely fashion because the First Amendment does not apply to the states.
That’s exactly what the federal judge in this case has said.
Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause.But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law.
Rather the court's limited holding, as will [*3] be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible.
Using Lemon v. Kurtzman the judge concluded that this:
display of the monument fails this test, frequently called the Lemon test, in two ways: (1) his fundamental, if not sole, purpose in displaying the monument was non-secular; and (2) the monument's primary effect advances religion.
Bible thumpers scare the bejesis out of me, exactly as the sandmaggots do.
Having said that, professional militant atheists as below scum, childmolesters and perverts in my estimation.
Wait...
Am I repeating myself?
He is so wrong. Of course the state can - the people do.
Our condition is the church's fault:
2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Note that He says "MY PEOPLE". We, as Christians, have the responsibility to pray and seek his face for our land. We have not consistently done so.
But in some of our churches that is changing. We are now actively seeking God's blessing for our country in at least the church I attend.
I used to think this was hyperbole.
Not so sure anymore. History shows nations fall when they fragment into atheistic, licentious, gnostic rebellion.
It happened to Greece, to Rome, to England. There's little doubt that much of the U.S. has set its course for oblivion.
God willing, He is using America as the one example of a nation which turned from its error to learn from the past.
A Republican President and a Republican Congress should, if so inclined, be able to right the country.
It hasn't happened yet.
Can you please define your terms? Those who devoutly believe in the Koran created Iraq. Those who devoutly believe in the Bible created the U.S.
I think there is a clear difference. It's not faith that is dangerous, it's what you have faith in.
Not that there aren't good examples of bad people who claim every faith on the planet, including "fundamentalist" atheists. (Remember Stalin?) But I can never understand why people want to equate believing Christians with the Taliban.
As I said, maybe I just don't know what you mean by a "Bible Thumper."
Shalom.
I believe individuals should be free to discriminate. Just not government.
I heartily disagree. When it comes to history and scripture, we have been in hot pursuit of the title "ignoramus nation" (ignoramus = agnostic) for many years. And we have been accomplishing the task without him just fine, thank you very much!
Do you believe that this is what Judge Moore is when he tries to put a monument to the 10 Commandments in the rotunda of his courthouse?
Shalom.
Two points: (1)I don't believe any such language appears anywhere in Thompson's decision.
(2)People who focus on "a single federal judge" neglect to mention that a 3-judge panel of the Court of Appeals (including one Reagan appointee and one Bush Sr. appointee) unanimously affirmed Judge Thompson's decision, and that the Supreme Court unanimously denied a stay.
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.