Posted on 08/21/2003 9:53:39 AM PDT by Gargantua
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Judge Moore is about to be held in contempt of a court order demanding that he remove the statue of the Ten Commandments from in front of the courthouse where he has honorably served for years.
This fact raises an interesting question, and exemplifies a blatant contradiction as well as our modern-day courts' insitence on trying to legislate from the bench.
Our Congress is strictly and explicitly probitied by our Constitution from passing any laws prohibiting the free excercise of one's religion.
If Judge Moore's religion (Christianity) demands that he spread the Word of God (and it does), then the issuance of a legal order which deigns to prevent him this religious right is both unconstitutional and out of order in the extreme. It is also illegal, for it attempts to legally enforce a position of the Court which contravenes our Constitution.
If Congress can't pass a law restricting one's right to exercise his religion, then how can the courts try to enforce such a law?
Why did this court not demand that the words "In God We Trust" be removed from all U.S. currency? Why did this court not demand that all religious carvings and statuary be removed from all Government buildings (The U.S.Supreme Court, the Capitol, etc.)?
This court needs to be slapped down, hard, and Judge Moore is just the man for the job.
Isn't that the same intent expressed in the Alabama State Constitution? And 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 sure sounds like it speaks of the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men.
You may not believe that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights binding to state and local governments...
AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
One of those privileges and immunities is this:
Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But aparrently you think the 14th, which holds the States to the fed. Const., somehow exempts the federal Courts from it. Well, it does say "Congress shall make no law..." so I guess there is no prohibition on the Federal Judiciary.
This judge, acting in his official capacity as an officer of the court and an agent of the government, violated the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Myron Thompson? Yes! The judges of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? Most definitely. But then they are not the States or Congress so the U.S. Constitution isn't binding on them. I don't see how repealing the 14th Amend. would change that but I guess that's where the magic is.
The Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Alabama does not, as an official, have any First Amendment rights.
What?????????????
The only separation intended or written of was designed to keep Government—all three branches of Government— from imposing whatever may be their will du jour on religion.
It was never intended that we should try to rightly Legislate, Police, or Judge our society absent deeply held religious morality, for as the Founders said many times and many ways, that would be absolutely impossible.
Here is the cut-and-pasteable url for the Library of Congress' take on this topic. Don't take my word for it, go and hear it straight from Adams, Washington, Franklin, Madison and Jefferson. Here's a small preview:
"...The Smiles of Heaven can never be expected On a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of Order and Right, which Heaven Itself Ordained." President George Washington
"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?" Benjamin Franklin
"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this." Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." Noah Webster
Check it out:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
It's not his courthouse. If Roy Moore wants to buy a building with his own money he can put anything he likes in it. The Alabama State Courthouse does not belong to him.
Yes. When Moore is acting as a judge he is acting on behalf of the government. He should not impose his 'will du jour' on religion.
I'm glad that he's a religious man and I think that we as individuals should acknowledge and properly worhsip God, each according to his own conscience. The government should not pick and choose among the religious beliefs of its citizens, favoring some and discriminating against others.
Judge Moore has the official authority to do it.
I believe you are correct in arguing that there is no issue with Moore's first amendment rights as a citizen.
But I also believe it is entirely appropriate in his official capacity to place a monument to what is undeniably a moral basis of our law.
The 1st and 14th amendments apply to all branches of government, so far as I am aware.
The Bill of Rights guarantess our rights as citizens. It does not guarantee our rights as employees: employers are free to tell the employers what they can and cannot say, they are free to search their desks and listen to their phone calls.
Roy Moore, private citizen, is free to say whatever he likes, is free to put up whatever monuments he likes on his own private land, is free to search his children's rooms. As a citizen, his freedoms are protected.
Roy Moore, government employee, cannot use government property to further his own goals, cannot make whatever official statements he wants, cannot search people's desks whenever he feels like it. As a government agent, the Bill of Rights proscribes him from infringing on the rights of others.
He may be in charge of the building overall, but his actions as building custodian are subject to the laws of the land. He is the caretaker of public property. He must manage the property in such a way as not to conflict with the Constitution.
The legal system of the United States is based on a rich variety of historical precedents. The fact that the Old Testament is one of those precedents is not an excuse for placing avowedly religious artwork in a public building.
I do quibble with the interpretation of the 14th amendment you gave in another post, in which you failed to make a distinction between the original intent of A14 and SCOTUS' Doctrine of Incorporation
That aside, I do agree, indeed I think it undeniable that he is proscribed from infringing on the rights of others.
However, I adamantly deny that his actions infringe on anyone's rights.
Some have argued that this monument just sits there so it does not violate anyones rights. Do you agree that it would be possible for him to infringe on others rights by his choice of adornments for the courthouse?
For instance, would a blink neon sign over the front door saying "JESUS SAVES" be going too far? An altar to Mary in the Rotunda, complete with candles? I think is is quite possible that by his choice of decorations a building manager could seek to inapropriately impose his religious beliefs on the public who is required to use that building.
Whether this particular monument, which Moore has declared has a religious purpose, meets that threshold is a matter of degree. If he had been describing it all along as a purely historical display, it might be possible to leave it there. But he has gone out of his way to state that it is there to make a religous statement.
Neither he, nor I, have any express right to erect temples to the God of Israel, or statues of Ganesha Ganesh, on public property, no matter how we may interpret any religious exhortation to preach our faith to the unconverted.
Nonetheless, we can, I feel, have public monuments that recognize or enshrine certain basic truths, no matter whence their origins.
For example, the teachings of Aristotle contain many pertinent quotes regarding the nature of man, moral behavior, and even thoughts on laws.
One would likely find little opposition to a particular state court building having something of Aristotle's, the Code of Hamaraubi, or quotes from Thomas Moore, as these eminate from books and records that are not expressly religions. But that position unfairly excludes much of our past from comemoration, because of its origin.
The extreme positions, taken by the Courts, regarding poetry from the Psalms, on stone monuments overlooking the Grand Canyon, or monuments commerating the Ten Commandments (the Commandments which are broadly recognized as a moral underpinning of our legal code) are, of themselves, the establishment of a State Religion of Atheism.
I am not in favor of us creating any kind of sterile society, where nothing can be carved in stone in our government buildings. But it strains belief that we could legally protect words printed in a newspaper, and even enshrine them in public places, should anyone so chose, but, at the same time proscribe the commoration of any words from the Bible, simply because the work, as a whole acts as an underpinning of several religions.
Perhaps they fear the day someone might enshrine the Second Psalm in a courthouse somewhere, as a daily reminder of our Ultimate Judge.
I am sure you agree, whatever you think of him, Alan Keyes is not unsophisticated in his understanding or presentation of Constitutional issues. He asks "BY WHAT LAW is the order to remove the monument given?"
Your answer, I believe, is the first amendment establishment clause. That is the mainstream answer.
Still ignoring states' rights for the moment, there is SCOTUS scholarship (a Rehnquist dissent) that very forcefully argues that 1. it is not incumbent on USA government to be neutral on religion versus irreligion; historically it favors religion, and 2. it is senseless to level Christianity with other religions given the history and makeup of the country, 3. At the time A1 was ratified, "establishment" meant something like The Official Church of the United States is (fill in the blank: e.g. Lutheranism).
That said, of course there is required to be staunch protection of citizen's freedom of conscience/religion. But neither you nor anyone else is claiming those rights are being infringed upon. You argue establishment. Even the judges in the majority (in the Rehnquist case) agreed that at one time the meaning of establishment had been different.
If you are an originalist, that "at one time" should give you pause.
Precedent can be changed when it is proved to be wrong.
I agree that a sign saying "The Official Church of the State of Alabama is Lutheranism" would violate Alabama's Constitution which has an establishment clause.
That is certainly the answer that Judge Thompson gave.
It is DECLARED that defendant Moore's placement of his Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama State Judicial Building violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and enforced by 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.Rehnquist is a fine scholar and jurist, but dissenting opinions are of scholarly interest only. More than 200 years after the righting of the BOR we look back on those powdered and be-wigged statesmen with justifiable awe. But they did not write the 1st Amendment based on some idle wish for religious harmony. They had more than 150 years of religious strife within the colonies to draw upon as an example to avoid. Certainly there is a difference between levying a tax to support a religion and using a taxpayer purchased building to display a religious monument. But I'd argue that is is a difference of degree rather than kind.
Glassroh v Moore
Opposition to the monument removal (the BY WHAT LAW?) questions precedent. Not every debate will delve into the history. The most direct response is outrage at the tyranny of this heinous act (even though it is only the last in a long list of heinous acts).
Analyzing history is an activity which necessarily respects authoritative scholarship. Also, dissenting opinions can have a tremendous long-term impact. Just ask Oliver Wendell Holmes.
More than 200 years after the righting of the BOR we look back on those powdered and be-wigged statesmen with justifiable awe. But they did not write the 1st Amendment based on some idle wish for religious harmony. They had more than 150 years of religious strife within the colonies to draw upon as an example to avoid.
And they were successful, even with their original definition of "establishment" which no court decision older than 60 years contradicts. (Disclaimer: I can't prove that statement at the moment).
Certainly there is a difference between levying a tax to support a religion and using a taxpayer purchased building to display a religious monument. But I'd argue that is is a difference of degree rather than kind.
Well said. I will ponder it.
Careful, slippery slope (argument).
Let me put it this way: SCOTUS has made a grave error in its putative definition of "establishment", giving rise to tyrannical judgements.
We demand relief from such tyranny (this is the BY WHAT LAW?).
I suggest it is impossible to avoid tyranny when you draw the line on disbursements by the state. But even if you did, does it not create an insurmountable problem if the mandate is to cleanse each and every expenditure of religious "taint"?
Note I am not denying that the main purpose for this monument being placed may be religious in nature. As I pointed out in another post, historically there is no problem with federal or state governments acting in a way to generally promote the institutions of religion. That historical truth was radically attacked in 1947.
A: It's not his courthouse.
That's a dodge. Let's nail you down:
Where in our Constitution is Judge Moore prohibited from paying with his own money to put a statue in front of any building?
True. They were explicit and forceful in their repeated insistence on the valid and intrinsic role of Christianity in America's viability as a free constitutional republic.
Read below as they show you to be a pompous, self-opinionated nekulturney:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations. The battle is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, ALMIGHTY GOD! Give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry of the Constitutional Convention
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, 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 council 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.." "...Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency" From President George Washington's Inaugural Address, April 30th, 1789, addressed to both Houses of Congress.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" President George Washington, September 17th, 1796
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." President George Washington
"...The Smiles of Heaven can never be expected On a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of Order and Right, which Heaven Itself Ordained." President George Washington
"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?" Benjamin Franklin
"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this." Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."Noah Webster
"Whether this [new government] will prove a blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation [Proverbs 14:34]. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself and encourage it in others." Patrick Henry
"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed." Patrick Henry
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." President Thomas Jefferson
"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." President Thomas Jefferson
"Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus." Thomas Jefferson, To William Canby, 1813
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions ubridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams, address to the militia of Massachusetts, 1798.
"I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man..." President Thomas Jefferson
"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." President John Adams
"Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift [James 1:17] we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land." James Madison
"We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . . . to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." President James Madison
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." First Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay
"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court
"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools." Benjamin Rush
"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God." President John Quincy Adams
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity." President John Quincy Adams
"a true American Patriot must be a religious man...He who neglects his duty to his maker, may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public" First Lady Abigail Adams
"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests." President Andrew Jackson
If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures. If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity." Daniel Webster
"It is extremely important to our nation , in a political as well as religious view , that all possible authority and influence should be given to the scriptures , for these furnish the best principles of civil liberty , and the most effectual support of republican government. The principles of all genuine liberty , and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by it's authority.The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be accessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer...." Noah Webster
"The Bible must be considered as the great source of all the truth by which men are to be guided in government as well as in all social transactions...." Noah Webster
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws...." Noah Webster
"All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice , crime , ambition , injustice , oppression , slavery , and war , proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible...." Noah Webster
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles , which enjoins humility , piety and benevolence ; which acknowledges in every person a brother , or a sister , and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity , and to this we owe our free constitutions of government...." Noah Webster
"It is the sincere desire of the writer (Noah Webster) that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible , particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion." Noah Webster
"I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Savior (Jesus) of the world is communicated to us through this book. Abraham Lincoln
"Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teaching of the Redeemer (Jesus Christ) of mankind. It is impossible that is should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian . . . this is a Christian nation." US Supreme Court, 1892
"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state." President Harry S. Truman.
"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration to ultimate national disaster" General Douglas MacArthur
You are very perceptive (and perhaps you are an English teacher). I value your remarks.
You touched on the two areas that drive my writing and thinking: (1) a practiced dedication to saying as much as possible in as few words as possible (economy of words), and, (2) commanding the vast arsenal of the English language to direct my thoughts cogently and succinctly.
Thank you for your kind words.
Most often heard where... a courthouse? How very incongruous, huh?
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.