Judge Roy Moore and the Myth of the Separation Clause

Chief Justice Roy Moore’s new book So Help Me God is a captivating and unflinching first-hand account of a man on the front lines of the battle between religious freedom and judicial tyranny. This Alabama Supreme Court Justice embodies the true definition of patriotism, inasmuch he has risked his career and reputation to stand by his oath of office and refuses to deny his allegiance to the Constitution and the laws of nature and nature’s God for the mere sake of catering to the frenetic, deep-seated anti-religious paranoia of the uber-secular left.

It was on June 9, 1993 that ACLU member Joel Sogol wrote to then-chief justice of Alabama Sonny Hornsby, threatening to sue anyone who continued the time-honored tradition of praying in court. After Roy Moore took office in 1994 and refused to bring a halt to the tradition, the ACLU stepped up their threats of suit over the prayer and, in addition, began hyperventilating over the Ten Commandments plaque Justice Moore had placed in his courtroom. At the beginning of the third month of Justice Moore’s first term of office on March 31, 1995, the ACLU filed suit in U.S. district court against him on the basis that he had illegally imposed his religious beliefs on others in the courtroom, denouncing the prayer as “a religious test.”

The ACLU apparently didn’t feel up to suing all 550 members of Congress and all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who have always begun their daily proceedings with prayers. It may even be a sobering revelation to them that our very first president noted in his inaugural address, “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.” Nevertheless, it is doubtful that such words would bear much significance to a pathetic, subversive gang of rogue lawyers who have nothing better to do with their time than to bully public officials out of acknowledging their creator and to throw childish temper tantrums over harmless little plaques.

In a priceless act of civil disobedience, Justice Moore erected a 2½-ton granite Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the State Judicial Building. Moore would later write in his book that “[t]he display of God’s law was not done to make any bold statement, to intimidate or offend anyone, or to push any particular religion. It was simply a reminder that this country was established on a particular God and His divine, revealed laws; it reflected the Christian faith of our founders.”

Flabbergasted, on Halloween 2001, the ACLU ganged up with Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center to file suit over the monument. Demonstrating what loving people liberals can be, in a letter to the legal director of Americans United, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center referred to Justice Moore as a “religious nut in partnership with a fanatical church.” (And showing how smart liberals can be, the letter was accidentally sent to Justice Moore’s attorney, Steve Melchior. Whoops!)

The case was set for trial on October 15, 2002. Less than a month after it ended, on November 18, 2002, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled against the Ten Commandments display, declaring it unconstitutional. In his ruling, Judge Myron stated: “[W]hile the Chief Justice is free to keep whatever religious beliefs he chooses, the state may not acknowledge the sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian God and attribute to that God our religious freedom.” Perhaps Judge Myron would be compelled to rethink his words if he actually bothered to read the Alabama State Constitution which Moore had sworn specifically to uphold, inasmuch as it reads in the preamble: “We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama” (emphasis added).

On March 2, 2005, the New York Times expressed its disapproval of similar displays in between the Capitol and the State Supreme Court in Texas, and in county courthouses in Kentucky, accusing the displays’ backers of not accepting the “separation of church and state” while explaining that “[t]he Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of a religion.” If nothing else, at least these circumstances have given liberals yet another excuse to evince their maniacal infatuation with the “separation of church and state,” a phrase which we are supposed to believe is somewhere in the Constitution.

If a liberal sneezed and you said “God bless you” he would begin spastically whining about the “separation of church and state.” To appreciate this situation from the perspective of the judicial supremacists, the ACLU lawyers and the New York Times editors, we will just have to pretend for a moment that a) the “separation of church and state” exists in the Constitution, b) Congress is somehow responsible for the placement of the Ten Commandments monuments, and c) the monuments in effect represent an establishment of a state religion.

To the contrary, however, the left’s beloved “separation of church and state” mantra originated not in the Constitution, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 (11 years after the First Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution) regarding their concerns that the Congregationalists may abuse their power to attain a favored position. Explicitly, Jefferson wrote: “[the] wall of separation between church and state…is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.”

The self-styled progressive elites have typically justified their anti-Christian bigotry by insinuating that religion must stay away from government, and any case in which it does not is an irrevocable step towards theocracy. Their interpretation of the language of the First Amendment demonstrates how little understanding they have of its actual implications.

By including the establishment clause in the Constitution, the framers were preventing the prospects of theocracy such as that which the Pilgrims purportedly fled from in England before settling on the North American shores. However, there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (emphasis added). What Jefferson was taking into account was the imperative necessity of our leaders and authorities to recognize their inferiority to the divine laws of the solar system and their subordinance to a Higher Power, so as not to confuse themselves with that Higher Power and in due course assume a despotic, tyrannical precedence.

The functionality of our democracy is contingent upon the Hobbesian doctrine that man is inherently corrupt and therefore in need of some degree of governmental supervision. The notion of human fallibility is quintessential of the Judeo-Christian doctrines with which our founders specifically harmonized their vision of a free republic. The acknowledgement of that fallible nature is what distinguishes our system from communism – a system which presupposes that man is basically good, and therefore capable of upholding and preserving a utopian, Edinic society. It distinguishes our system as well from that of monarchism and fascism, both of which presuppose that there is such a thing as Divine Right, or human infallibility; that it is possible for a human leader to take on a godlike authority over his people and govern them in a flawless manner. But because our system recognizes that there is no such thing as human infallibility, our branches of power are balanced, and our leaders are appointed through a democratic process by which the majority of citizens decide who gets to represent them, and for how long.

Secularist liberals tend to accuse Christians of seeing things too much in “black and white,” yet they themselves have adopted a black and white perspective by declining to consider the fact that not everything boils down to the two options of theocracy and secularism. A system of government that is religious in nature does not automatically take on the form of theocracy. It does not mean that its subjects must be coerced into submission to a certain designated religious faith. Whether or not we as individuals decide to subject ourselves to personal dependence on religion, we must recognize that our freedom to do so or not do so at our own will is dependent on our democratic system, and our democratic system is dependent on religion.

It is on account of this brand of narcissistic judicial hubris, this denial of subordinance to a Higher Law that an innocent woman was allowed to be inhumanly starved to death recently, that activist judges have been able to recklessly redefine the institution of marriage, and that an unremitting fetal holocaust has been sanctioned by the highest levels of government for 32 years and counting. The more we forget that we are “one nation under God,” the more we will become “one nation under the State.” If this becomes the case, then our rights will become conditional and susceptible to abuse, rather than God-given and immune to meddling. As many could argue, resting our rights solely on the state is like building a house on sand. (Note to liberals: Please pardon the biblical reference.)

I think I could argue that a clone is not reproduction but that it is replication.

My sense is that it will result in grotesque misfits mentally incapable and reminiscent of the Island of Dr Moreau....if they can exist at all.

I also understand that, even then, there'll be the need of a womb....

But, even if we can go from test tube to incubation system have you somehow mixed the DNA of both men to produce a new combination of the two, or have you taken a cell and caused it to replicate?

I was going to bring up that Governator movie "Junior" about the pregnant man, but it just didn't seem as witty as your remark about Sarah.

But you're right about the weakness of the argument. What if two men could reproduce?

No, Gay marriage should be illegal not because men can't reproduce, but because homosexual acts are an "intrinsic moral evil."

One in most states cannot refuse to rents to gays period. Churches don't file licenses, couples do. If the Church does not recognize the marriage, they won't sign the certificate. The Catholic Church officials will continue to sign certificates with respect to marriages over which they recognize and officiate, just as now. In any event, getting the certificate signed can be done just by showing up at the courthouse.

I regret that you conflate the bedroom thing with the intimacy, commitment and the public square recognition thing. Most folks don't, no matter where they come down.

One in most states cannot refuse to rents to gays period.

Specially protected class & all that. Yes, I know. I thought you said you were against those.

Churches don't file licenses, couples do.

You're right. I'm glad you pointed that out, since I do not mean to leave my "i's" un-dotted, nor my "t's" uncrossed.

If the Church does not recognize the marriage, they won't sign the certificate.

They will certainly recognize the marriages they perform, but they might stop recognizing that the state has anything to do with them. In order to prevent the state from leading their flock astray, they might refuse to assist the state in furthering an abomination.

The Catholic Church officials will continue to sign certificates with respect to marriages over which they recognize and officiate, just as now. That is an assumption. Abortion supporting politicians assumed that the Church would never take, state a formal position about their public actions.

In any event, getting the certificate signed can be done just by showing up at the courthouse.

Yes, I suppose it can. I regret that you conflate the bedroom thing with the intimacy, commitment and the public square recognition thing. Most folks don't, no matter where they come down.

I can be troublesome that way. Anytime too many people seem to agree with me about anything, I begin to wonder where I might be wrong.

One thing we do not do is allow 5 oligarchs to arbitrarily become social engineers........This is the mantra of the fundamentalists baptist types since the 1950s, it gets old hearing it

Wake up Step, all this shows is that the groups that the news media has systematically and purposely demonized are the ones who have had it right long before anyone else.

They would not have to keep repeating it if the abuse was stopped. The only reason it is getting old to you is because you favor an oligarchy that will force your secular revolution on everyone. Get a righteous purpose for your life and enjoy our great freedom in this great nation.

I regret that you conflate the bedroom thing with the intimacy, commitment and the public square recognition thing. Most folks don't, no matter where they come down.

I think I should explain where my unique world view on this comes from. It is the same reason I responded to you in the way I did about Lawrence, by refusing to take a personal position on it.

Over 20 years ago I was discriminated against in a hiring because of my race. I was hired & un-hired in the matter of a few hours. I guess the employer was up against a lawsuit for past discriminatory behavior & they figured that the job they had informed me I was hired for would be a good place to try to undo some of the harm from their past behavior. A test we all took showed me as the best candidate for the job, but I was the wrong color.

It was a powerful life lesson. Life is not fair. I had no case for the racial discrimination that had cost me that job. Lesson two, it is not the place of the law or the government to make lesson one untrue. Sometimes the government can be the creator or contributor to making sure I learn life lesson one.

I take the government at it's word & in response, I will push it to it's unnatural limits. It is around the edges where we can discover some of the unintended consequences of a government action.

Who would have ever imagined the unintended consequences of controlling the southern border in the way our government went about doing it? If you don't know what I'm talking about, look into what was behind making marijuana illegal.

The Alabama Constitution recognizes God's primacy and Judge Moore was simply following that Constitution.

No it does not, and no he wasn't.

In the Alabama constitution, the framers prayed for God's guidance and blessing. That's a far cry from "recognizing God's primacy".

Moore, the huckster, violated the requirement in Alabama's constitution that no preference was to be shown by the government to any religion. Why else did Pryor, the devout Christian attorney general, take him on ? Why else did ALL the Alabama Supreme Court Justices condemn his actions ?

Because Moore's actions were ILLEGAL and in violation of his oath of office. Hence he was rightfully stripped of it.

I will post the first sentences of the decision removing Moore, because you obviously have not read them.

At the outset, this court emphasizes that this is a case concerning only possible violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. It is not a case about the public display of the Ten Commandments in the State Judicial Building nor the acknowledgment of God. Indeed, we recognize that the acknowledgment of God is very much a vital part of the public and private fabric of our country. - LINK

Moore, the huckster, violated the requirement in Alabama's constitution that no preference was to be shown by the government to any religion.

As the decision states, Moore was removed for an ethical violation, disobeying a federal order, not for violating the Constitution.

You may not realize this, but it's not up to a federal judge to enforce the Georgia's constitution. Moore was not accused of violating Georgia's constitution, he was accused of violating the First amendment, which does NOT forbid preference for religion by government.

At least get your facts right.

If the Alabama Constitution obligated Justice Moore to use his civil authority to express his religious views, then it did the same for every other Alabama civil officer.

The other Alabama officers used their civl authority over religion to express their religious views by getting rid of Roy Moore. It appears to be a classic case of "be careful what you ask for."

Moore wanted the government to have authority over religion and that is what he got. Too bad his views were not that of the majority. What a fool!!!

FS

The falicy in Rehnquist's argument in Wallace v. Jaffree is his premise. The name of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State may have come from Jefferson's letter, but the legal substance was derived from James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785 and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Statute for Religious Freedom, Madison revised it, the Virginia General Assembly made a few changes and finally entacted it 1786.

FS

Hi Fred,

Bit of an old post to drag up, but I don't mind.

I grant that the two documents contain in substance the "separation of Church and state," although the statue prohibits only substantial government support of religion - I can't see that a merely verbal acknowledgement even of a particular religious body as the true religion would be contrary to the Statue on Religious Freedom, but it certainly would be illegal under the modern version of the "separation."

But I'm hardly convinced that this is the interpretative key to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Madison himself (as Rehnquist quotes him in Wallace) describes the purpose of the clause as follows: "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." The legislative history of the Amendment, as Rehnquist relates it, sticks closely to this understanding, and it seems to have been the originally and generally accepted one (which I reckon the proper test for the interpretation of any law). Now this is rather different from the regulations of the Statue on Religious Freedom.

Personally, I consider Rehnquist's mistake in Wallace to be not protesting against the supposed incorporation of the establishment clause. I think Justice Thomas is much closer to the mark in his opinion in Newdow.

Let me get this straight - Are you saying that the Memorial and the Virginia Act contain the substance the religion clauses, but they only prohibit substantial government support of religion?

Do believe that the fundamental principle of religious freedom is no substantial government support of religion?

What if a law requires summary execution of those who advocate or practice infant baptism? Would that pass the test for “no substantial government support of religion?”

Why do you suppose Rehnquist only presented half of Madison’s description of the purpose of the proposed amendment that read, “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed” and why didn't you read everything Madison said about the meaning of the amendment before deciding to own Rehnquist's "I only see what I want to see" view.

Below is Madison’s complete statement of his understanding of the purpose of the proposed amendment.

MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that CONGRESS SHOULD NOT ESTABLISH A RELIGION, AND ENFORCED THE LEGAL OBSERVATION OF IT BY LAW, NOR COMPEL MEN TO WORSHIP GOD IN ANY MANNER CONTRARY TO THEIR CONSCIENCE. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE, AND ESTABLISH A NATIONAL RELIGION; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

Madison actually provided two interpretations of the proposed amendment in the same paragraph. :

· Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.
· Congress should not make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a national religion

Madison saw the primary fundamental purpose of the proposed amendment to be the prohibition of laws infringing on the rights of conscience. Establishing a compulsory religion or a national religion were just two of a million different ways of violating the rights of conscience.

You wrote:

The legislative history of the Amendment, as Rehnquist relates it, sticks closely to this understanding, and it seems to have been the originally and generally accepted one (which I reckon the proper test for the interpretation of any law). Now this is rather different from the regulations of the Statue on Religious Freedom.

I say:

I am laughing my ass off right now my dear friend and I am truly sorry for being disrespectful, but that was the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.

You seem to actually believe that Rehnquist examined the legislative history of the religion clauses to find the truth. What he did was pop in, pick out what he liked, ignore what he didn’t all the time secure in the knowledge that his audience wouldn't’t give a ship shank if he was lying.

The vile and despicable Mr. Rehnquist certainly loved the part about a national religion but apparantly has as much distaste as Satan for the right of a man to follow his conscience, so he, being the sorry excuse for a human that he was, just ignored the truth. Sorry pal, I am in search of a theory that explains all the facts.

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.