A Call to the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court of the United States of America

If you are as sickened as we are by the infuriating and blaspheming decisions of the Supreme Court and are wondering what God fearing people can do -- Here it is!

An Ecclesiastical Court will be held at federal court houses in cities across this land on Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 11:30am. Then, during the opening session of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on Monday, October 6, 2003, Christians from across the nation will gather at the steps of this court to hold it in contempt of the Court of Almighty God. Hotel accomodations are posted on the front page here.

I am greatly encouraged by your response to the Ecclesiastical Court held on July 18, 2003 at the Charles Jonas Federal Court Building, in Charlotte, North Carolina. Little did any of us know while planning this event that it would have such an incredible impact on the city of Charlotte. We were met by dozens of city police, federal marshals on the ground and on top of the building, a police helicopter, and the fire department. It was a stunning sight! We began to realize that God had placed in our hands an anointed and very powerful mechanism by which to call our nation to true biblical repentance. It must be done in every city where a federal court building exists. Then we must go to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and hold it in contempt of the Court of Almighty God.

We begin by calling the men of God to lead their churches out to the federal court houses in their cities at 11:30 am., on Thursday, September 25th, 2003. There, we will have the six coffins with the six abominable Supreme Court decisions - one court decision on each coffin. We will have one worship leader play appropriate music for such a solemn occasion. A self-contained sound system is a must (please obtain sound permit). When possible have someone who can sound the trumpet (shofar). Then have the men of God conduct the Ecclesiastical court (a copy of the Ecclesiastical Court may be found on our web site: operationsaveameric.org). By the authority of the Court before whom every knee shall bow, the men of God will pronounce these decisions null, void, and not binding upon us, our children, or our nation.

We will go to the courthouse by families (moms and dads, grandmas and grandpas, little boys and little girls). We were astounded by the resistance we met as the Church of Jesus Christ comes out of the closet to confront the very gates of hell. It appears that every other behavior, no matter how perverse, is out of the closet and parading its sin like Sodom with little resistance at all. But when the Church of Jesus Christ allows her theology to become biography in the streets - watch out!

The dates: On Thursday morning, September 25, 2003, at 11:30 am. We will go to the federal courthouses in our cities. Men of God will lead an Ecclesiastical Court service at the front of the court house holding the Supreme Court of the United States of America in contempt of the Court of Almighty God. There, we will read the charges brought against the court and our reason for being there this day. We will then tear the pages from each one of the decisions (The full text of each decision can be found on the web) and give them to our children to tear into pieces and place into a small bin. We will set the contents of these abominable decisions on fire and hold them not binding upon us, our children, or our nation.

On Monday morning, October 6, 2003, at 11:30 am. We will do the very same thing at the Supreme Court of the United States of America. This day marks the opening session for the Supreme Court in its 2003 - 2004 term.

It is simple to make your own coffins. Use insulation board and draw your pattern. They should be three dimensional. They should stand about 6 feet high. Cut them out and use grey duct tape. Tape them from the inside. You may use 30 pound sand bags at the bottom to keep them upright. Spray paint them black and post the names of the six court cases on the outside.

We, the Church of Jesus Christ, do on this 18th day of July, in the year of our Lord 2003, hold the Supreme Court of the United States of America in contempt of the Court of Almighty God. We hold it in contempt of the Court before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. In so doing, we, by the authority of God's Word and without reservation, pronounce this court dead to the Law of God, dead to the biblical heritage left to us by our Pilgrim Forefathers and our Founding Fathers, dead to the historical legacy of those who died to make us free, dead to the righteousness that comes from God alone, dead to the Constitution of the United States of America, and dead before the Court of Almighty God. It has spurned its biblical mandate to judge justly. This court has surrendered its constitutional responsibility. It has forfeited all moral authority. Therefore, we hold its decisions no longer relevant or binding upon us, our children, or our nation.

"When a land falls into the hands of the wicked, He blindfolds its judges. If it is not He, then who is it?"
Job 9:24

We cite six Supreme Court Decisions that prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has become blind to the Law of God. "So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice." Isaiah 59:14-15 The lawlessness in our streets, the murder of our children, and the unprecedented violence encompassing our land are judgments from Almighty God Himself. Our nation is being turned into hell. Blood is coursing through the hallways of our schools, churches, work places, and streets. Natural disasters have become commonplace. Perversion parades its sin like Sodom as pornography spews its filth through our computers and TVs. Yet, this court persists in codifying evil into law.

FIRST CHARGE: Engle vs. Vitale (1962). The Supreme Court silenced the prayers of our children in the public schools of America. The prayer targeted for destruction stated, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country." Since this ruling, untold devastation has come upon our children, our families, our schools, and our nation.

GOD'S RULING: It is written: "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung about his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)

SECOND CHARGE: Abington vs. Schempp (1963). The Supreme Court removed the Bible from the education of our children in public schools. The knowledge of God was replaced with metal detectors, condoms, drugs, and violence of unprecedented magnitude.

GOD'S RULING: It is written: "You deserted the rock who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. The Lord saw this and rejected them ... In the streets the sword will make them childless. In their homes terror will reign. Young men and young women will perish, infants and gray haired men." Deuteronomy 32:18-19a, 25. "Hear the word of the Lord, you children of Israel. For the Lord brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land: There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land. By swearing and lying, killing and stealing and committing adultery, they break all restraint, with bloodshed upon bloodshed." Hosea 4:1-2

THIRD CHARGE: Roe vs. Wade (1973). The Supreme Court removed the humanity and personhood of the unborn. With one stroke of a pen, the laws that once protected the most vulnerable among us were struck down and it became open season to kill precious babies in the wombs of their mothers. As a result, hell has enlarged its mouth to devour one-third of an entire generation of American citizens. America has committed domestic terrorism in the womb, and we are now reaping foreign terrorism in our streets. Our nation is defiled, and the innocent blood of our children cries out to God for vengeance.

GOD'S RULING: It is written, "...Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you." Ezekiel 35:6 "...My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge ... because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children." Hosea 4:6

FOURTH CHARGE: Stone vs. Graham (1980). The Supreme Court stripped the Ten Commandments from the walls of our public classrooms, removing the foundation upon which the moral, legal, and ethical freedoms of America rest. It declared, "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments."

GOD'S RULING: It is written: "because they had not obeyed My laws but had rejected My decrees...I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by." Ezekiel 20:24-25

FIFTH CHARGE: Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992). The Supreme Court reiterated the lie of the serpent in the Garden (Genesis 3) that man can become as God. It declared that man can determine his own reality, standards, and meanings apart from the objective truth of Almighty God. In a joint majority opinion, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter said, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning of the universe, and the mystery of human life." With this statement the Supreme Court declared itself God, and discarded its historical reliance on a transcendent standard.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold lived out this newly created standard. They walked into their high school in Columbine, Colorado and mercilessly murdered 13 of their peers and then committed suicide. Eric printed this statement on the internet before his murderous rampage, "My belief is that if I say something, it goes. I am the law, and if you don't like it, you die...feel no remorse, no sense of shame." (Washington Post, April 29th, 1999)

GOD'S RULING: It is written, "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." Romans 1:28-32

SIXTH CHARGE: Lawrence vs. Texas (2003). The Supreme Court ruled, on June 26, 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas that there is a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. In one fell swoop, this court threw out God, His Law, over 4,000 years of history, and its own past precedent, to declare sodomy, in all of its perverse forms, a constitutional right in America

GOD'S RULING: It is written, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22 "Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law resist them." Proverbs 28:4

"See how the faithful city has become a harlot! She once was full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in her - but now murders! Your silver has become dross, your choice wine is diluted with water. Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widows case does not come before them."

That America is rapidly approaching her last days on earth was startlingly revealed on June 26, 2003. It is a day that will go down in infamy. Lawrence v. Texas has revealed America's slow but ever quickening spiral into moral degradation. (read Leviticus 18) She has sunk into a quagmire of filth and debauchery. Like Sodom, Egypt, and the Canaanites before her, America has now embraced sodomy and made it her god.

It would do us well to consider what God has to say about judges: "...Consider carefully what you do, because you are not judging for man but for the Lord ... Judge carefully for with the Lord your God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery ... you are to warn them not to sin against the Lord, otherwise His wrath will come on you and your brothers." 2 Chronicles 19: 6-10

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has sinned against God in its rendering of these six decisions! Far from warning us not to sin against God and His Law, it has informed us with "new enlightenment" from a "living" Constitution that sodomy, like abortion before it, is now a good thing. This is high treason against both God and this nation.

Yes, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has betrayed our God, our nation, our people, our children, and has invited the wrath of Almighty God to come upon us - all of us!

Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

The Court readily acknowledged that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at least 12 of the 13 states had state-established churches or religions.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.

A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them and upon their parents, their teachers, and their country. The Court today decides that in permitting this brief nondenominational prayer the school board has violated the Constitution of the United States. I think this decision is wrong.

The Court does not hold, nor could it, that New York has interfered with the free exercise of anybody's religion. For the state courts have made clear that those who object to reciting the prayer must be entirely free of any compulsion to do so, including any "embarrassments and pressures." Cf. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624. But the Court says that in permitting school children to say this simple prayer, the New York authorities have established "an official religion."

With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an "official religion" is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.

The Court's historical review of the quarrels over the Book of Common Prayer in England throws no light for me on the issue before us in this case. England had then and has now an established church. Equally unenlightening, I think, is the history of the early establishment and later rejection of an official church in our own States. For we deal here not with the establishment of a state church, which would, of course, be constitutionally impermissible, but with whether school children who want to begin their day by joining in prayer must be prohibited from doing so. Moreover, I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What is relevant to the issue here is not the history of an established church in sixteenth century England or in eighteenth century America, but the history of the religious traditions of our people, reflected in countless practices of the institutions and officials of our government.

At the opening of each day's Session of this Court we stand, while one of our officials invokes the protection of God. Since the days of John Marshall our Crier has said, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." 1 Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer. 2 Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has upon assuming his Office asked the protection and help of God. 3

The Court today says that the state and federal governments are without constitutional power to prescribe any particular form of words to be recited by any group of the American people on any subject touching religion. 4 One of the stanzas of "The Star-Spangled Banner," made our National Anthem by Act of Congress in 1931, 5 contains these verses:

"Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land

Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto 'In God is our Trust.'"

In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words "one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 6 In 1952 Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer. 7 Since 1865 the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" have been impressed on our coins. 8

Countless similar examples could be listed, but there is no need to belabor the obvious. 9 It was all summed up by this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313.

I do not believe that this Court, or the Congress, or the President has by the actions and practices I have mentioned established an "official religion" in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation -- traditions which come down to us from those who almost two hundred years ago avowed their "firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence" when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave new world. 10

I dissent.

---- Begin EndNotes ----

1 See Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, Vol. 1, p. 469.

2 See Rule III, Senate Manual, S. Doc. No. 2, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. See Rule VII, Rules of the House of Representatives, H. R. Doc. No. 459, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.

3 For example:

On April 30, 1789, President George Washington said:

". . . it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. . . .

. . . .

"Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend."

On March 4, 1797, President John Adams said:

"And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence."

On March 4, 1805, President Thomas Jefferson said:

". . . I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

On March 4, 1809, President James Madison said:

"But the source to which I look . . . is in . . . my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those representing them in the other departments associated in the care of the national interests. In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future."

On March 4, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln said:

". . . Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

On March 4, 1885, President Grover Cleveland said:

". . . And let us not trust to human effort alone, but humbly acknowledging the power and goodness of Almighty God, who presides over the destiny of nations, and who has at all times been revealed in our country's history, let us invoke His aid and His blessing upon our labors."

On March 5, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson said:

". . . I pray God I may be given the wisdom and the prudence to do my duty in the true spirit of this great people."

On March 4, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said:

"In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come."

On January 21, 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said:

"Before all else, we seek, upon our common labor as a nation, the blessings of Almighty God. And the hopes in our hearts fashion the deepest prayers of our whole people."

On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy said:

"The world is very different now. . . . And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

. . . .

"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

4 My brother DOUGLAS says that the only question before us is whether government "can constitutionally finance a religious exercise." The official chaplains of Congress are paid with public money. So are military chaplains. So are state and federal prison chaplains.

5 36 U. S. C. § 170.

6 36 U. S. C. § 172.

7 36 U. S. C. § 185.

8 13 Stat. 517, 518; 17 Stat. 427; 35 Stat. 164; 69 Stat. 290. The current provisions are embodied in 31 U. S. C. §§ 324, 324a.

9 I am at a loss to understand the Court's unsupported ipse dixit that these official expressions of religious faith in and reliance upon a Supreme Being "bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance." See ante, p. 435, n. 21. I can hardly think that the Court means to say that the First Amendment imposes a lesser restriction upon the Federal Government than does the Fourteenth Amendment upon the States. Or is the Court suggesting that the Constitution permits judges and Congressmen and Presidents to join in prayer, but prohibits school children from doing so?

10 The Declaration of Independence ends with this sentence: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

STEWART, J., Dissenting Opinion

I think the records in the two cases before us are so fundamentally deficient as to make impossible an informed or responsible determination of the constitutional issues presented. Specifically, I cannot agree that on these records we can say that the Establishment Clause has necessarily been violated. 1 But I think there exist serious questions under both that provision and the Free Exercise Clause -- insofar as each is imbedded in the Fourteenth Amendment -- which require the remand of these cases for the taking of additional evidence.

The First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." It is, I think, a fallacious oversimplification to regard these two provisions as establishing a single constitutional standard of "separation of church and state," which can be mechanically applied in every case to delineate the required boundaries between government and religion. We err in the first place if we do not recognize, as a matter of history and as a matter of the imperatives of our free society, that religion and government must necessarily interact in countless ways. Secondly, the fact is that while in many contexts the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause fully complement each other, there are areas in which a doctrinaire reading of the Establishment Clause leads to irreconcilable conflict with the Free Exercise Clause.

A single obvious example should suffice to make the point. Spending federal funds to employ chaplains for the armed forces might be said to violate the Establishment Clause. Yet a lonely soldier stationed at some faraway outpost could surely complain that a government which did not provide him the opportunity for pastoral guidance was affirmatively prohibiting the free exercise of his religion. And such examples could readily be multiplied. The short of the matter is simply that the two relevant clauses of the First Amendment cannot accurately be reflected in a sterile metaphor which by its very nature may distort rather than illumine the problems involved in a particular case. Cf. Sherbert v. Verner, post, p. 398.

II.

As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created National Government. The events leading to its adoption strongly suggest that the Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments. See McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 440-441. Each State was left free to go its own way and pursue its own policy with respect to religion. Thus Virginia from the beginning pursued a policy of disestablishmentarianism. Massachusetts, by contrast, had an established church until well into the nineteenth century.

So matters stood until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, or more accurately, until this Court's decision in Cantwell v. Connecticut, in 1940. 310 U.S. 296. In that case the Court said: "The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws." 2

I accept without question that the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against impairment by the States embraces in full the right of free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and I yield to no one in my conception of the breadth of that freedom. See Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 616 (dissenting opinion). I accept too the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment has somehow absorbed the Establishment Clause, although it is not without irony that a constitutional provision evidently designed to leave the States free to go their own way should now have become a restriction upon their autonomy. But I cannot agree with what seems to me the insensitive definition of the Establishment Clause contained in the Court's opinion, nor with the different but, I think, equally mechanistic definitions contained in the separate opinions which have been filed.

III.

Since the Cantwell pronouncement in 1940, this Court has only twice held invalid state laws on the ground that they were laws "respecting an establishment of religion" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203; Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421. On the other hand, the Court has upheld against such a challenge laws establishing Sunday as a compulsory day of rest, McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, and a law authorizing reimbursement from public funds for the transportation of parochial school pupils. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1.

Unlike other First Amendment guarantees, there is an inherent limitation upon the applicability of the Establishment Clause's ban on state support to religion. That limitation was succinctly put in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18: "State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them." 3 And in a later case, this Court recognized that the limitation was one which was itself compelled by the free exercise guarantee. "To hold that a state cannot consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments utilize its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals does not . . . manifest a governmental hostility to religion or religious teachings. A manifestation of such hostility would be at war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment's guaranty of the free exercise of religion." McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211-212.

What seems to me to be of paramount importance, then, is recognition of the fact that the claim advanced here in favor of Bible reading is sufficiently substantial to make simple reference to the constitutional phrase "establishment of religion" as inadequate an analysis of the cases before us as the ritualistic invocation of the nonconstitutional phrase "separation of church and state." What these cases compel, rather, is an analysis of just what the "neutrality" is which is required by the interplay of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, as imbedded in the Fourteenth.

---- Begin EndNotes ----

3 See also, in this connection, Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314: "Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence."

4 "This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith." McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 210. (Emphasis added.)

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the Scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857.

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Rehnquist

The Court rejects the secular purpose articulated by the State because the Decalogue is "undeniably a sacred text," ante, at 41. It is equally undeniable, however, as the elected representatives of Kentucky determined, that the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World. The trial court concluded that evidence submitted substantiated this determination. App. to Pet. for Cert. 38. See also Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp., 475 F.2d 29, 33 (CA10 1973) (upholding construction on public land of monument inscribed with Ten Commandments because they have "substantial secular attributes"). Certainly the State was permitted to conclude that a document with such secular significance should be placed before its students, with an appropriate statement of the document's secular import. See id., at 34 ("It does not seem reasonable to require removal of a passive monument, involving no compulsion, because its accepted precepts, as a foundation for law, reflect the religious nature of an ancient era"). 2 See also Opinion of the Justices, 108 N. H. 97, 228 A. 2d 161 (1967) (upholding placement of plaques with the motto "In God We Trust" in public schools).

The Establishment Clause does not require that the public sector be insulated from all things which may have a religious [449 U.S. 39, 46] significance or origin. This Court has recognized that "religion has been closely identified with our history and government," Abington School District, supra, at 212, and that "[t]he history of man is inseparable from the history of religion," Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 434 (1962). Kentucky has decided to make students aware of this fact by demonstrating the secular impact of the Ten Commandments. The words of Justice Jackson, concurring in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 235 -236 (1948), merit quotation at length:

"I think it remains to be demonstrated whether it is possible, even if desirable, to comply with such demands as plaintiff's completely to isolate and cast out of secular education all that some people may reasonably regard as religious instruction. Perhaps subjects such as mathematics, physics or chemistry are, or can be, completely secularized. But it would not seem practical to teach either practice or appreciation of the arts if we are to forbid exposure of youth to any religious influences. Music without sacred music, architecture minus the cathedral, or painting without the scriptural themes would be eccentric and incomplete, even from a secular point of view. . . . I should suppose it is a proper, if not an indispensable, part of preparation for a worldly life to know the roles that religion and religions have played in the tragic story of mankind. The fact is that, for good or for ill, nearly everything in our culture worth transmitting, everything which gives meaning to life, is saturated with religious influences, derived from paganism, Judaism. Christianity - both Catholic and Protestant - and other faiths accepted by a large part of the world's peoples. One can hardly respect the system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought that move the world society for a part in which he is being prepared." [449 U.S. 39, 47]

I therefore dissent from what I cannot refrain from describing as a cavalier summary reversal, without benefit of oral argument or briefs on the merits, of the highest court of Kentucky.

[ Footnote 1 ] The Court noted that even if the State's purpose were not strictly religious, "it is sought to be accomplished through readings, without comment, from the Bible." 374 U.S., at 224 . Here of course there was no compelled reading, and there was comment accompanying the text of the Commandments, mandated by statute and focusing on their secular significance.

[ Footnote 2 ] The Court's emphasis on the religious nature of the first part of the Ten Commandments is beside the point. The document as a whole has had significant secular impact, and the Constitution does not require that Kentucky students see only an expurgated or redacted version containing only the elements with directly traceable secular effects. [449 U.S. 39, 48] JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

My views on this matter are unchanged from those I set forth in my separate opinions in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 532 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502, 520 (1990) (Akron II) (Scalia, J., concurring). The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.

[...]

It is not reasoned judgment that supports the Court's decision; only personal predilection. Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:

"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought tomean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.

"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ." The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).

Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24), with the more democratic views of a more humble man:

"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).

Justice Scalia, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833 ( ...

Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653. Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Legislation Should Be Passed Before Fall Recess

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville) today called on the House Republican leadership to act to protect the public display of the Ten Commandments. The Congressman, and several colleagues, held a press conference on the matter today in Washington, DC. Earlier this session, the Alabama Congressman introduced the Ten Commandments Defense Act (HR 2045) in the United States House of Representatives. The bill is designed to protect the authority of individual States to display the Ten Commandments in public places. The basis of this legislation is the Tenth Amendment, which states that those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. This legislation also ensures the freedom of religious expression under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The bill in no way mandates that the Ten Commandments be displayed at any time, any place or in any state. It does not compel the states to display the Ten Commandments in any way.

"We have heard from the judges, now it is time that we hear from the people on this issue," said Congressman Aderholt. "The federal courts should not be telling a state that there is no room for the public display of the Ten Commandments, the founding fathers did not want the establishment of a religion. However, the single display of the Ten Commandments can in no way be considered establishing a religion." Congressman Aderholt added that now, more than ever, Congress must set the record straight as to the public display of the Ten Commandments.

"Over the past fifty years, we have seen the courts attempts to censor anything that has to do with religion. Discrimination against religion under the guise of separation of church and state must end.

"The Ten Commandments is a part of the heritage and history of our nation. They represent the values that form the basis of so much of our legal system here in America," said Congressman Aderholt. "No one can deny the fact that the founding fathers used the Ten Commandments as foundations for our government."Congressman Aderholt Calls on House Leadership to Act on Ten Commandments Legislation

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.

In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state" metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

As James Madison said, "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the "gradual and silent encroachment" of the courts upon our nation's religious liberties by supporting this bill [Religious Freedom Restoration Act]. The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech

In July, I offered an amendment to an appropriations bill that would prevent funds from being used to enforce the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling ordering the removal of a monument at the Alabama Supreme Court building that depicts the Ten Commandments. My amendment passed the House with the bipartisan support of 260 members.

A few editorial pages, as well as some constitutional "scholars," have criticized my amendment, calling it an attack on "the independence" of federal judges or claiming that we "cannot run a country" unless courts have the final say on the Constitution.

No one, however, has been able to dispute the fact that Congress can prevent funding of an unconstitutional decision rendered by a federal court. They can't, because the Constitution says we can.

In fact, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court's very existence depends on Congress. Articles 1 and 3 of the Constitution grant Congress the power to "ordain and establish" inferior courts.

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction, remove judges, set pay, even determine where the courts meet. The courts are completely dependent on the other branches for everything from their pay to the enforcement of their decisions.

Don't take my word for it. Alexander Hamilton, ardent champion of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 78: "The judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse . . . and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

Our Founders designed a government with three branches, each with a distinctive role. They did not envision an oligarchy of unelected and unaccountable masters.

The First Amendment, designed to limit federal power, says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Justice Roy Moore is not the U.S. Congress; he has not passed a law establishing a national religion and he has not in any way violated the U.S. Constitution.

Employing one of the checks provided by the Constitution, the House determined it would not provide funds for the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out a blatantly unconstitutional federal court order. If the people disagree with my amendment then many of the 260 members who voted for it will not be in Congress following the next election. The power lies with the people -- truly the final arbiters of the Constitution. CONSTITUTION GIVES POWER TO CONGRESS OVER COURTS

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.