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Thompson, who said that the display of the stone containing the Ten Commandments (which also contains a host of other historical documents) is illegal.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.
There is no religion that has been established, therefore the above is true. Thompson believed his "opinion" to be the law RATHER than the law itself being the law.
Then why do you use a forum on the topic of what the judge has done to talk about how all true believers are like the Taliban? If you do not assert that Judge Moore's actions are similar, then why confuse the issue? Why not talk about what Judge Moore has done? There is of opportunity in this situation for some serious debate without the inflammatory prose.
Shalom.
True. We should also recognize that the American people have become so jaded to the message of Christianity that putting a monument in any location is about as likely to cause anyone to think about G-d as cancelling "The King of Queens" is likely to return good programming to T.V. If the ACLU hadn't decided to make a stink, that monument would have mattered no more than a f**t in a hurricane.
Except to Judge Moore.
Shalom.
Non-belief isn't a belief. An assertion that G-d does not exist is a belief, especially since a negative can not be proven.
Shalom.
1. No religion established by a rock monument.
1. Does God exist?
2. Prove to me that your answer is right.
Your statement is wrong. The official federal position is now that there is no God. No founder intended it that way. There is no power in the Constitution that gives the courts that kind of power.
What the court officially has instituted is that acknowledgement of God on federal property is against the law. That's an endorsement of Atheism.
First, you agree that no religion has been established. That really settles the case. Second, No religion has been helped....it's just a display/decoration about law. What organized religion has been helped?
2. The questions were based on your saying in the previous post that you could not see how a "non-religion" is viewed as a religion.
You answer the question yourself. 2. There is no way to prove either the existence or non-existence of a Deity.
Some work at proving the existence; some work at proving the non-existence. Both are belief systems regarding God. They are GOD STATEMENTS.....religious in nature no matter which direction you approach them from.
The key is that they cannot "prove," but must instead use the word "believe."
Therefore, if it is true that some non-organized belief system is aided by the stone monument, then it is true that a non-organized belief system is aided by removing the stone monument.
Better to just allow everyone in charge of the building to have their turn to set up the displays/artwork that interests them. The next guy in charge will decorate differently and/or put up different displays. If he's an atheist, he can put up nothing. If a buddhist, he can put up buddhist art. If he's a Christian, he can hang Michaelangelo on the walls.
In the area of educational displays, the new guy can choose which ones he likes. Then his successor can remove the old and put up the new. And then the next successor....ad infinitum.
Do you make it a habit to insult the intelligence of people who take opinions that counter yours? If so, you must not have very many open and honest debates.
Just so you know, very intelligent people can disagree with each other, and all still be very intelligent.
Shalom.
You and I both know that if Judge Moore had decided to put up a print of that crucifix in a jar of urine there would have been no lawsuit to have it removed. There would have been a lawsuit if anyone had tried to remove it.
I may not agree with what Judge Moore did from an evangelistic point of view, but he has raised some very valid legal questions that deserve to be treated seriously. I wish more FReepers knew how to treat a discussion seriously.
Shalom.
You are 100% correct. If he had put up a print of the "cross in urine art," they would have fought to the death for his right to have it set up in that lobby.
Free Expression is the issue!
It's an honor to meet you.
No I don't think I'm overboard.
Argee just mentioned this idea: If he had put up a print of the "cross in urine art," they would have fought to the death for his right to have it set up in that lobby.
The issue is "free expression." Leave his monument along -- it's just his expression. AND as chief justice, he gets to make those kind of decisions for his building. The next chief justice will hang up something different.
Thanks for the kind words. It is nice when we can just discuss ideas without name-calling isn't it? I wish there were more on FR like you.
Anyway, Free Expression is one big issue. The best thing about what Judge Moore has done is raise a lot of them. I agree that the monument should be allowed, but I'm not sure I agree with the Chief Justice's stated reason for putting the monument there. Any citizen group could have put the monument there as a testimony to G-d, but the Chief Justice could only put the monument there as a statement of history. Judge Moore could even have petitioned the State Legislature as a private citizen to put the monument there as a testiment to G-d. But he probably should not give Sunday School lessons while acting in his official capacity.
Your thoughts?
Shalom.
He could have written on his monument: "This is a testimony to the 'Almighty God' mentioned in the Alabama Constitution."
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.