Posted on 08/19/2003 3:01:13 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
Alan Keyes is calling on everyone within driving distance to rally in Alabama with him-- a candlelight vigil tomorrow at 7:00 PM. Keyes is fired up about this. Mike Savage is fired up about this. Hannity asked Ambassadore Keyes if Judge Roy Moore might land in jail. Keyes replied, "Only if I go to jail with him!"
Judge Roy Moore will be on Hannity tomorrow night. Whoever can't go [I can't go-- wish I could], please pray for these patriots.
BamaG can't keep his eye on the ball. He hates Moore for some reason. Perhaps he made fun of his girlie walk in grammar school years ago or something. It is ridiculous.
"The Sunday laws have a divine origin. Blackstone (Cooley’s) Par. 42, page 36. After the six days of creation, the Creator Himself rested on the Seventh. Genesis, Chapter 2, verses 2 and 3."
Similar declarations made by courts of: New York, Alabama, Florida, Oregon, and Kentucky, Georgia, Minnesota, and others
Louisiana Supreme Court, 1951:
Recognized the Decalogue as the basis for the unchanging civil laws against theft:
"In the Ten Commandments, the basic law of all Christian countries, is found the admonition, Thou Shalt Not Steal.”
Other courts acknowledged the same, including the Utah Supreme Court, the Colorado Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court, the Missouri Supreme Court, etc.
Supreme Court of Indiana, 1974:
"Virtually all criminal laws are in one way or another the progeny of Judeo-Christian ethics. We have no intention to overrule the Ten Commandments."
MY, MY, how soon we forget . . .
What a mess. I don't always agree with you, but I think you're a brave patriot to stand up for separation of church and state here. I'm more afraid of people who lobby for Sunday laws than secularism in this country.
Anyway, there isn't a law on our books from the U.S. Constitution down to a city regulation, nor a document of founding fathers' correspondence that will change these zealots' minds. All the more reason to resist them.
besides, it's the lobbying for the enforcement of sunday laws which already exist.....which ought to be of concern.
the dragon (satan) is indeed, "wroth with with woman (Christ's true church) and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (revelation 12:17-check it out!)
it's that pesky "remnant" (who) obey the commandments that raises satan's (and most everyone else's) hackles the most.
You claimed (in #206) that Moore openly declared partiality. This is not that. Seeking favor and guidance from a supreme being is patently not the same as favoring or disfavoring parties before the court based on their religious inclinations.
Your claim was vacuous.
Why don't you do some research on Hank? This guy has made a living out of bashing other ministries instead of proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ. He has good info on cults, but he frequently rips legitimate christian ministries, if their theology doesn't exactly match his opinions. He's more harmful than anything else, so please don't use his opinions as justification for your suspect views.
Disagree with your first statement halfway, agree with the second.
The 14th incorporates itself to the States by its own terms, not by court decisions, and also all the articles of the Bill of Rights via the "Rights and Immunities" clause.
And I agree with you that posting the Mosaic law on a courthouse lawn as a memorial doesn't rise to "establishment" in the sense the Framers meant it.
If the Judge planned to post the Commandments, and then refer to them when ruling on motions or handing down sentences, then that would be "establishment", in the same sense that Islamic republics establish Sharia.
Well, Luis, apparently you would prefer a completely sanitised courtroom, one free of all vestiges of Christian or otherwise religious influence. How about this: go to Key Largo and start swimming south. About sixty miles later, you will reach such an arrangement. Have a nice day, and watch out for sharks.
Were its authors aware of its secret anti-religious meaning?
Yes, they knew about the secret invisible tinfoil-proof bibles!
Joseph Storey, Commentaries on the Constitution, no. 1874 (1833): "Probably at the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation if not universal indignation."
This is in reference to That the only way one can expect Justice in his Alabama Court is to invoke the God of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Luis Gonzalez #213
Thank you for providing the quotes related to your claims re Moore. However, in each case you have deeply mangled the meaning of the quote. This quote apparently speaks of the monument invoking the Judeo-Christian G*d. There is nothing to indicate that the party before the court should or should not invoke any G*d in order to receive Justice.
I would agree, however, that the religious freedom section of Alabama's Constitution does not support Moore's claim of a Constitutional duty.
OTOH, this quote is clearly taken out of context. It sounds like a response to the ridiculous suggestion that "equal time" monuments be erected so that the moral codes of other faiths be included in the display.
In any case, this again has nothing to do with partiality of judgement.
Most blue laws are mildly annoying at their worst. To the more intrusive ones I am opposed. However, I think your professed fear is misplaced. The forced march of secularism is a bigger danger to this country.
Anyway, there isn't a law on our books from the U.S. Constitution down to a city regulation, nor a document of founding fathers' correspondence that will change these zealots' minds. All the more reason to resist them.
I assure you, it is not only believers who decry the incorrect interpretation of the establishment clause (either of the US or Alabama Constitutions) as calling for the strict separation of church and state under the modern interpretation. That interpretation was a radical step by SCOTUS in 1947. Rehnquist, in a later dissent, nuked the commentary of that earlier court. It was good scholarship and makes for good reading.
One of the ways in which the democrats refuse to allow a vote on conservative judges is that they demand religious statements from the candidates and then say that those religious views would influence their opinions. Conservative candidates have consistently said that their duty is to enforce the law as written, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Now we have a conservative judge (although not a candidate for a federal judgeship) saying that regardless of the law and the opinions of the higher court, he is going to do what he believes is right.
I feel I must point out that in taking this stand and attracting so much publicity, he gives democrats a justification for their delay of federall judicial nominees. It seems to me that Judge Moore, while taking a stand on what he believes is right, may make it more difficult to get conservative judges confirmed.
I have enjoyed seeing you insert logic and reason into these rants.
Here is the preamble of the Louisiana constitution.
PREAMBLE We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, 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:
I will also post the entire text of Judge Moore’s speech at the dedication of the monument. If you read, as I have, the entire 83 pages of the judgment against Judge Moore, you will find that the judge spent more time discussing Moore’s motivation than on the proof that the placement of the monument established a religion in Alabama. In fact, to believe that as a result of the placement of a monument Baptists are now the established church in Alabama entitles one to the tin foil hat award.
Thompson begins his opinion with the following: ” The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."”
My comment is that this quotation from the first amendment is similar to the famous use of ellipses by Maureen Dowd. The rest of the clause having to do with religion says that we are not supposed to be prevented from freely exercising our religion. This, the courts in numerous decisions, have constrained in an increasing number of ways. In Judge Moore’s case, he is acknowledging his religion very publicly – one could say exercising his religious freedom, by posting a monument containing, among other things, quotations from the Ten Commandments.
The issue of “standing" is raised. Judge Thomas – on PP 15-16 cites case law; ”… the plaintiffs must suffer personal injury "as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error, other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees." … The personal injury may be noneconomic in nature…. An "effect on an individual's use and enjoyment of public land is a sufficient noneconomic injury to confer standing to challenge governmental actions."
One must be a lawyer to understand the fine legal distinction between disallowing psychological consequences for standing and allowing standing based on an individual’s use and enjoyment of public land – a totally psychological reaction in the case of the plaintiffs. Never the less, Judge Thompson found that the plaintiffs have standing.
Judge Thompson next goes on to give us a great deal of background on Judge Moore, his beliefs and his association, such as it is, with Coral Ridge Ministries of which Dr. James Kennedy is pastor.
Judge Thompson then gives us a guided tour of the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building, noting the prominence of the monument, the fact that people walking into the building can’t help but see it, the fact that 14 other quotations inscribed on the monument are not as prominent, that the 10 Commandments look like an open Bible, that two other plaques in the rotunda are not as easily spotted, and that Judge Moore made a speech at the unveiling noting that “the monument depicted the moral foundation of law.”
As if that were no scandalous enough, Judge Thompson – addressing himself in the third person as “the court” found himself in the judicially impermissible position of feeling that the ” monument and its immediate surroundings are, in essence, a consecrated place, a religious sanctuary, within the walls of a courthouse.”
Much is made in this opinion about Judge Moore’s belief in the supremacy of God, not just when the deity is walled away in the sanctuary of a church, but also in our daily lives. In this Judge Thompson has much in common with Charles Schumer who believes that people who take their Christianity seriously must not be permitted to ascend to the bench, since their beliefs disqualify them from rendering impartial judgment in accordance with the law and the constitution.
Since Judge Moore’s beliefs are very much at issue here, and since Judge Moore has made no effort to hide his beliefs, it becomes clear that the motivations of Judge Moore are the underlying issue. If an act by a Christian is ruled illegal, when the same act by an atheist is ruled legal, we have – in an effort to remove Christian symbols form public property – instituted a very definite religious test for public office.
It should be noted that despite the length of the discussion of Judge Moore’s religious beliefs in the decision, there is no claim in it that Judge Moore’s judicial rulings were unconstitutional or even that they were shaped by his religious beliefs.
The bottom line regarding this decision, is that Judge Thompson has – in what appears to be an example of popular judicial religious intolerance - made a major issue of Judge Moore’s religion and his public profession of it. In all of Judge Thompson’s citations of Judge Moore’s statements, Judge Moore seems to be perfectly congruent with mainstream (albeit not Main Line) Christian theology.
It appears that Judge Moore’s display fails the Lemon test. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, that test says it’s OK to have a symbol of the Christian religion on public property if it is sufficiently surrounded with non-Christian symbols so as to neuter its religious message.
What’s interesting is that Judge Moore is the first major public figure to take on the Christian bashers unapologetically. It’s refreshing.
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.