[veloce851]

Important point to make on Moore case-

First moderators please hear this out.. while I'm aware this thread was closed.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35914
I believe that was because it ended in an arguement over religion. And was not about firearms.

I believe a very important aspect to this case was left out. One that DIRECTLY effects ALL gun owners, and of course anyone who believes in the constitution.

This case is not about religion. We all know that our entire constitution and foundation of law is based on the premise that MAN is not who gives freedom to ourselves, but our higher power, our creator...God.
The term God is often confused with the stating of a religion. The belief in a higherpower is not religion. In order for our Constitution to be worth more than the paper is it printed on, we must all believe that our rights are endowed by our creator and not by another human being. The Constitution simply upholds those inalienable rights and sets forth a manner to establish law to maintain civility.

While I don't want this thread to turn into a debate on the interpretation of the 1st amendment. What we can all agree on is we believe in three documents: The Decloration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. Read them and tell me that our society isn't specifically based on the notion that MEN do not give freedom, and the rights that support it, but our creator (whatever you you may call him/her/it ).

The point to this case is this: should a federal judge be allowed to state that a sovereign state may not recognize God at all? If this were to be true then it stands that none of the sovereign states in the union can recognize the term God at all. Which then leads us to the complete and total removal of God in our Constitution and any reference to God or a creator.

Do any of you realize the implications this makes.... it means that judges human judges shall dictate all that we feel and believe. Once the notion that it's not God (insert the name of your creator) whom our freedoms are derived from, but man himself. That means the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are history.

They can then rewrite the entire Constitution!! And you can bet that will include the 2nd Amendment.. in fact it would be among the first on the their target list.

BTW The Ten Comandments sit above the members of the Supreme Court.
All of which are upheld by laws on the books.

This case is about state rights, and wether or not the founding papers have any meaning.

Now if any moderator feels this is not a civil liberty issue and directly a firearm subject. Then close the thread.
But I feel it is of dire importance that we all understand the implications of this case on the future of our country as a whole.

[Quartus]

Well said. If a Federal judge can get away with this, he can get away with anything. Ron Paul is right - the increasing power of the Federal government is the biggest threat to our liberties out there.

[NukemJim]

the increasing power of the Federal government is the biggest threat to our liberties out there

Agreed.

NukemJim

[rock jock]

Very well stated. And, BTW, this issue is not just limited to rights.

[jimpeel]

The referenced thread was mine. I started it as a question of whether a Constitutional Amendment was nacessary to clarify the First Amendment but between my posting the thread laeder and my second post asking that question, it took a turn for the worse.

This a civil rights/Constitutional/States' Powers issue. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion outside of the fact that the word "religion" appears in the text of the First Amendment.

It is my contention that a defining amendment (XXVIII) has now become necessary to clarify the First amendment's "separation clause" for all time. I posted my version, with an invitation for others to do likewise or modify mine. That iteration of a proposed amendment stated:Amendment XXVIII: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a government sponsored or government operated religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof by any individual, group, or entity -- private or public; 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.

I beleive that such an amendment is necessary based on the obvious confusion which is evidenced by the number of lawsuits and court cases citing this amendment.

Hopefully, those who post to this thread can separate the digfference between religion and a simple statement of Constitutional human rights. If not, this thread will meet the same fate as the previous one.

[Quartus]

It is my contention that a defining amendment (XXVIII) has now become necessary to clarify the First amendment's "separation clause" for all time.


:confused:


Jim, how do you clarify what isn't there?



What we need is a Congress with the balls to impeach and convict judges who make up things like the "separation clause" insteed of enforcing the law as it's written,

The 1A is clear enough - it's the JUDGES who need clarification.

[jimpeel]

You know its not there. I know its not there. Even THEY know its not there. It is simply time to have the Constuitution tell everyone its not there.

Imagine this. The decision was based upopn a single letter from Thomas Jefferson, the text of which is on the original thread. There are tens of letters by the founders on the subject of the Second Amendment which state the right to arms is an individual right.

Do you, or anyone else reading this post, believe that the justices will be as anxious to embrace the tens of letters comfirming an individual right to arms as fervently as they did the single letter espousing the separation of church and state?

Don't hold your breath unless you look absolutely marvelous in blue.

[Quartus]

Gotcha, Jim.


BTW, as a matter of fact, I do look absolutely marvelous in blue.


Well, at least my wife thinks so. :D

[veloce851]

You guys do bring up a point...
On what ground does this federal judge stand in order to even tell Judge Moore what to do in his state.

Federal judges are not to establish law... they are only there to interpret the law when a case is brought before them. And this ultimately is a Supreme Court case. However that has nothing to do with the fact that there isn't a "case " to begin with. And there fore the Supreme Court should turn it down and that would end it right there.

[TearsOfRage]

I gotta wonder how many people are for states' rights when it means they get their way... but are also in favor of, say, a constitutional ammendment prohibiting states from allowing same sex marriage? Or federal drug laws for that matter?

[braindead0]

On what ground does this federal judge stand in order to even tell Judge Moore what to do in his state. I think it boils down to how you interpret 'establish'. Would changing the federal court building so it looked like a Buddhist temple qualify? How about putting a crescent moon on the top of the building? How about a lawn area with a huge fire pit for American Indian / Pagan (and whoever else) to conduct their rituals?

The problem is that the Constitution didn't draw the line, I believe on purpose so that the people could (in theory) decide as the times change.

The real problem is that special interests and corporations own our government, who in turn appoint Judges....etc..etc..

We need to ban businesses and organizations from donating to politicians for starters. All campaign financing should come from the voters.. if some organization wants to ask it's members to donate is a particular way, well that's fine.... I think if we can get all involvement of non-voting entities out of the election process, perhaps we will stand a chance of taking it back.

[tyme]

I think it boils down to how you interpret 'establish'. Would changing the federal court building so it looked like a Buddhist temple qualify? How about putting a crescent moon on the top of the building? How about a lawn area with a huge fire pit for American Indian / Pagan (and whoever else) to conduct their rituals?
I think all of those ideas would be really cool, especially the fire pit. :evil:

I no longer consider the 10 commandments stone a serious problem, though I think it's inappropriate for christian precepts to be put on display in a courthouse as if they were authoritative.

The problem is the moron judge who's as much as announced he considers secular law subordinate to religion. Who knows what sentences he'll adjust up or down, or what other havoc he'll wreak on defendants whose actions may or may not be in accordance with Christian ideals. Anyone who cannot reasonably disassociate judging from religion should not be a judge, as far as I'm concerned. Any bets on what he'd do in a case involving a gay defendant or a defendant who cheated on his/her spouse? What about a case involving genetic engineering? I don't have any confidence that this judge would render appropriate decisions in any case where the defendant or a witness has done something frowned upon by his religious beliefs.

[Quartus]

it's inappropriate for christian precepts to be put on display in a courthouse as if they were authoritative.



Like it or not, they are the foundation of our legal system. Check any number of the Founding Fathers on that point. Saying it ain't so is on the order of arguing that Washington surrendered to Cornwallis.

[TearsOfRage]

There was a time when slavery was an important part of our economic system but that doesn't make it right.

[jimpeel]

SECTION 1

Equality and rights of men.
That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

SECTION 2

People source of power.
That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.


SECTION 3

Religious freedom.
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.
Basically, if the courts declare the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional it also negates the laws written under that Constitution as well. It would also cause the release of every prisoner currently incarcerated and the expungment of all records of those who had been convicted under that Constitution prior to its being found unconstiitutional.

Until a new Constitution could be drafted and the laws recodified thereunder, the state would be wide open under anarchy. What a fine time that would be.

[tyme]

Like it or not, they are the foundation of our legal system. Check any number of the Founding Fathers on that point. Saying it ain't so is on the order of arguing that Washington surrendered to Cornwallis.
"Thou shall have no other gods before me"

Please show me a constitutional law based on this commandment, or otherwise explain why that statement has any place in a courthouse.

The commandments form a personal code of ethics for those who choose to obey them. They are not to be applied to others, and certainly not by force. The commandments stone in question is not being applied by force, but it's still irrelevant to secular law. And there are several other commandments that are not only irrelevant to, but are incompatable with, secular law.

It is just as correct to say that the ten commandments were based on moral codes that were adopted as societies began to form. But of course this runs into the roadblock set up by religion: The commandments were dictated by god, they must be primary source.

[Quartus]

Read some history. Like I said, you don't have to like it, but everyone involved in the writing of our Constitution understood what they were doing, and wrote about it copiously. And more than our Constitution - the very foundation of the idea of human rights and liberty came from the same source. You can argue that other cultures NOT based on the Judeo-Christian ethic had the same ideas, but that doesn't change the fact that the founders of THIS country got their ideas solidly from the Bible.

That's not my opinion, that's THEIRS.

[Alan Smithiee]

if I were to put up was a Pagan Pentagram or a Star of David in that location that Judge would have it removed and my butt in lockup by close of bussiness the first day.

I wonder how he is going to explain that he had a Witch executed for not paying a parking ticket?

that is Gods Law. and he has stated, on the record, in front of his God and everyone that Gods Law comes first.

[bountyhunter]

The point to this case is this: should a federal judge be allowed to state that a sovereign state may not recognize God at all?

I believe you will find that what they are ruling is that states may not encapsulate "God" into any laws, programs, provisions or rulings for the general public. Because in so doing, they trample all over the rights of those who choose to not believe in God.

I am a devout Christian, but I definitely prefer my God and my government to be as far apart as possible. I don't really care what is printed on our money and neither does God. When Chrsit was asked if they should pay taxes, He said hold up the coin and tell me whose picture is on it: they said "Caesar's".

Christ said: render unto Caesar that which is caesars, and unto God that which is Gods.

And that which is God's which we should give to Him is prayer and faith. And, if you don't believe, having kids parrot the Lord's prayer in the morning isn't going to convert them. The BS about our country going to hell because the Baptists can't broadcast prayers over the loudspeakers in public schools is a crock, and everybody knows it. This is a non-issue.

[bountyhunter]

Read some history. Like I said, you don't have to like it, but everyone involved in the writing of our Constitution understood what they were doing, and wrote about it copiously. And more than our Constitution - the very foundation of the idea of human rights and liberty came from the same source. You can argue that other cultures NOT based on the Judeo-Christian ethic had the same ideas, but that doesn't change the fact that the founders of THIS country got their ideas solidly from the Bible.


And I recall the debates among the founders that separating church from government was so important it had to be a founding principle, even if it allowed atheism as a concept (which they did not like at all).

[2dogs]

That's not my opinion, that's THEIRS.

So you're saying we should let reality get in the way of some folks personal bias against religion?;)

Personally I don't care if the judge has the ten commandments, verses from the Koran, the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Egyptian Book of the Dead- if it bears some relation to the establishment of our Constitution and laws then I see no problem with it.

What's with atheists anyway- you can tell they are liberals by THEIR D@MN&D WHINING. :evil:

And yes I agree- this is a states rights issue. That chunk of stone is harming no one- and I challenge anyone to prove they have been harmed by it.

More power to Moore.:cool:

[Graystar]

This case is not about religion. We all know that our entire constitution and foundation of law is based on the premise that MAN is not who gives freedom to ourselves, but our higher power, our creator...God. No, we do not all know that. I am here because I am what you get when you let the right mix of chemicals cook on the right planet for 4 and a half billion years. No "higher power" had anything to do with me being here.

This case has everything to do with religion. When a state judge decides not to obey a federal judge's ruling because he believes his religion's law is higher than federal law, you have an extremely dangerous situation.

What you have is a judge that will not judge within the powers delegated by the people, but by his own will. This is the kind of judge that will violate our rights if he believe that his religion calls for it. That is why he should be removed from the bench.

What if this judge interprets "Thou shall not kill" to mean that we can't have guns? Would you agree with his position then?

[Quartus]

And I recall the debates among the founders that separating church from government was so important it had to be a founding principle, even if it allowed atheism as a concept (which they did not like at all).

REally? Where? Are you referring to Jefferson's ONE letter on the subject, where he clearly spelled out that the "wall of separation" was to keep the State from interferening with religion, but was NOT meant to keep religion from guiding the State?

[veloce851]

No, we do not all know that.
Greystar perhaps you didn't read my statement close enough.
We all know that our entire constitution and foundation of law is based on the premise that MAN is not who gives freedom to ourselves, but our higher power, our creator...God.

I did not state that we all know we are made from God. I said we all know that the Constitution (which is the entire foundation of our law) is based on the premise that our rights are given by our creator... not man.
Let me refresh your memory...
We declared this:
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
The wording is precise. It did not say by our lord God, father to Jesus Christ.
It simply states that mankind itself does not give us freedom.

If you believe you were created in the manner you stated. Then it is that process that gives you freedom.

we then went on to state this in the Bill of Rights..
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Where in there does it state that a State itself does not have the right to simply recognize God. It is not a relgion being established by Congress. It is simply a monument to the very essence of all human law.

edited-to ad that I'm aware the Declaration of Independence is not a part of the Constitution. But bears frame of reference for the wording of our constitution.

[Chris Rhines]

Here's the real issue.

On your own property, you can display anything you like, from a copy of the ten commandments to a thirty-foot sculpture of a donkey phallus. Your property, your rules.

The courthouse is NOT the judge's property. Whether it belongs to The People, the government, someone else, or no one at all is a matter for debate, but it does not belong to the judge.

- Chris

[Baba Louie]

Some quote I found somewhere once about Presidential Inaugurations:

"Deeply rooted in tradition, the presidential inauguration marks a new beginning for both the United States and its brand new president. Beginning with General George Washington's 1789 inauguration in New York City, many presidents have added their own unique traditions that will continue into 2001.
The oath of office is the main focus of the inauguration ceremony and the only part required by law. In Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, the founding fathers provided an oath of office for the President-elect's official swearing in. This 35-word vow has not changed since the 18th century.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will try to the best of my ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

George Washington added the phrase "so help me God" to the end of his oath, and almost every president has added it since.


I believe the above was taken from GWB's Inauguration website.

Here's another later version, altho I have a hard time comparing this man to Washington, Adams, Jefferson or Madison...

"Surrounded by members of Congress, Justices of the Supreme Court, dignitaries, family and friends, the President stood next to his daughter, Chelsea, and rested his left hand on a family Bible held by Mrs. Clinton. He repeated the oath of office administered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ending with the traditional words, "So help me God."


What's that? Left hand on the family Bible??? I'm sure all of the other presidents placed their left hand on the D.C. phone book... yeah, that's the ticket.

veloce851 said it best (well, I do believe someone else coined the phrase originally)...

...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

...prohibiting the free exercise thereof... Unless you wear a black robe and have tenure for life.

I would venture to say that the vast majority of Americans today worship the almighty dollar and the temporary satisfaction/conveniences that it helps procure... maybe there's nothing wrong with that either, if its your cup o tea. Lord knows I could use more (gotta work smarter)

Some here worship the freedom that owning firearms and the study and practice of less government equalling more freedom brings. Whether its a falsehood or the truth, if you believe it and champion its cause, there it is. You're good to go.

Its that annoying habit that some people in authoritative positions hold that their way is the one true and only way, and then back it up with men (or women) with guns and badges... thats a pretty hard pill to swallow. Especially when I can read the darned words myself and know exactly what the authors meant.

Everybodies gotta believe in something... I believe I need more ammo.

Gotta keep the kids fed ya know.

Adios

[Quartus]

It's not his, but he does have legitimate authority over it, and he is acting in complete accord with the law (not the Federal judiciary's twisting of it) and with the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Where in the world did a Federal judge get the idea that HE has anything to say about it?


Where did YOU?

[johnpmahler]

the judge chose one particular translation of a hebrew text to post. Different denominations have chosen to translate those words different ways over time, and have fought bloody wars over the placement of the punctuation. There is a lively debate as to whether the text 'I am the L-rd your G-d, thou shalt have no other G-ds before me' is one commandment or two.

just the simple choice between 'thou shall not murder' vs 'thou shall not kill' makes a big difference (specially if you're up on charges for shooting a rapist)

My point is, the judge chose His translation of the text and elevated it to the level of supreme truth. He 'established' one denominations text as the definitive one.

btw, if memory serves, the 10 commandments in the scotus building is part of a larger collection of relevant text & the like. It's not standing alone. Current case law is real specific about that kind of thing. If the Judge had put together a display with some quotes from the Koran, a bit of Tao & Buddism, and some Amerindian peace pipes along with the 10 commandments, this would not be an issue.

John

[Graystar]

Greystar perhaps you didn't read my statement close enough. Perhaps *you* didn't read your statement close enough...
...our creator... Was I to ignore the implications of this part of your statement?

And what of the gun related question I posed?
What if this judge interprets "Thou shall not kill" to mean that we can't have guns? Would you agree with his position then?

[labgrade]

Never mind.

[johnpmahler]

Labgrade -

please don't take this as a 'flame', but how do you figure the SCOTUS is going to rule on a case without interpeting the constitution? Yeah, it can go to extremes I suppose...and start reading all sorts of cr*p in there...but it seems to me the FF left things as general principles and guidelines, knowing that if they tried could'nt cover every possible contingency.

as an example, a literal reading of 'freedom of speech' could exclude sign language...

[labgrade]

Ah & a reason why I stopped awhile back - a long story. & sorry for revising my reply - sorry for losing the thought line of my reply & yours.

"Interpretation" is just that. One reads into it what they themselves believe - a huge problem with the political problems of the appointive process in the first place.

It's really not all that tough to figure.

The bill of rights (formally capitalized & worth its ink) has a preamble which (in part) states:

"The Conventions of a number of of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declatory and restrictive clauses should be added ..... "

The bor was, as is the constitution, a restriction on federal powers, not the opposite.

As far as sign language = nope. Speech isn't limited any more than a GE mini gun was envisioned.

[labgrade]

Bennies of the back function & cut/paste.

Stuff this into my "never mind" post just prior to John's query-thing. What I previously wrote.

"Interesting discussion, to say the least.

Coupla points tho' ....

SCOTUS shouldn't interpret the constitution, they should just read it & rule on it's (duh) constitutionality.

Too, rather than hope for/request an amendment, wouldn't it be too peachy for us to try first (again) to adhere to what we used to have? = a clear reading of the constitution prior to the revisionisms?

(obviously rhetorical) ... it seems to much somehow to harken back to those "easier" days."

Interest of integry & all that .... ;)

[braindead0]

I agree that the Feds shouldn't be involved in this. The Alabama Constitution seems 100% clear in Section 3:
that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship;
This is obviously a preference.

The problem here is that this Judge should be removed.

[Graystar]

You guys do bring up a point...
On what ground does this federal judge stand in order to even tell Judge Moore what to do in his state. A civil action was brought against Moore in the District Court. Moore was accused of violating the 1st Amendment.

This action was the proper way to address situations when the state violates our rights. As per the Cruikshank and Slaugherhouse cases, when a fellow citizen violates your rights, the state is charged with defending your rights. But when the state violates your rights, it is the federal government that comes to your rescue. That is what happened in this case.

The federal order is proper and fully authorized by the people of this country.

[Quartus]

The problem with that is, that is assumes the reigning perversion of the 1A to be correct.

But there's not one thing in the 1A about what the states can do. There's not even anything in there about what the President can do. It simply says, "Congress shall make no law...".


How does a state official setting up a monument equate to Congress making a law?

[braindead0]

The basic problem here is that this Judge is ignoring his oath to Uphold the Alabama State Constitution..

[johnpmahler]

"But there's not one thing in the 1A about what the states can do. "

Fourteenth (?) amendment applies the entire bill of rights to the states as well.

[rock jock]

The problem is that the Constitution didn't draw the line, I believe on purpose so that the people could (in theory) decide as the times change.
I hear this argument from the antis all the time, so just for reminder's sake, are we talking about the First or Second Amendments?. I forget sometimes because there is so much intellectual inconsistency on THR on this issue.

[Graystar]

The problem with that is, that is assumes the reigning perversion of the 1A to be correct.

But there's not one thing in the 1A about what the states can do. There's not even anything in there about what the President can do. It simply says, "Congress shall make no law...".

How does a state official setting up a monument equate to Congress making a law? It doesn't. Nor does it have to. You are not understanding what a bill of rights is.

A bill of rights, by legal definition, is an enumeration of fundamental rights. These rights exist outside the existence of any government. As such, no government can place limitations on our fundamental rights. But by the same token, neither can a government place limitations on what constitutes infringements of our rights.

The fact that the 1st Amendment names a single limitation upon freedom of religion does not mean that there aren’t other limitations, just as the enumeration of certain rights doesn’t mean that we have no others (9th Amendment.)

This case really exhibits the problems people have understanding what a right is and how rights are reviewed in the courts. Our rights are not written down. There is no definitive “book of rights” anywhere. Neither is there any definitive list of infringements. That is why judges that understand the law and our rights are so important to the protection of our rights. These judges must make decision on what constitutes infringement on a case-by-case basis.

I believe Justice Moore is incapable of making such decisions, as he places his personal interpretation of “gods law” above the laws of Alabama and of the United States.

[Gordon Fink]

Where in [the Frist Amendment] does it state that a State itself does not have the right to simply recognize God. It is not a relgion being established by Congress.

Veloce, get this! Christianity is not the only religion practiced in this country. Unbelievable, isn’t it?

Governmental acknowledgment, recognition, etc., etc. of any religion (various flavors of Christianity being the most popular), without doing the same for every other religion, establishes, in point of fact, a legal preferential status for that religion. Is this really so difficult to see?

In another thread, we discussed issues including a state’s mandate that public-school students read verses from the Holy Bible every day. How is forcing Christianity upon these students not unconstitutional under the First Amendment?

~G. Fink

[tyme]

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

[jimpeel]

as an example, a literal reading of 'freedom of speech' could exclude sign language...In U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
BAD FROG BREWERY, v NYS LIQUOR AUTHORITY the case was about the label on the beer which depicted a certain offensive bit of sign language.
The gesture, also sometimes referred to as "flipping the bird," see New Dictionary of American Slang 133, 141 (1986), is acknowledged by Bad Frog to convey, among other things, the message "???? you." The District Court found that the gesture "connotes a patently offensive suggestion," presumably a suggestion to having intercourse with one's self.


Hand gestures signifying an insult have been in use throughout the world for many centuries. The gesture of the extended middle finger is said to have been used by Diogenes to insult Demosthenes. See Betty J. Bäuml & Franz H. Bäuml, Dictionary of Worldwide Gestures 159 (2d ed. 1997). Other hand gestures regarded as insults in some countries include an extended right thumb, an extended little finger, and raised index and middle fingers, not to mention those effected with two hands. See id . The court held:The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Bad Frog on its claim for injunctive relief; the injunction shall prohibit NYSLA from rejecting Bad Frog's label application, without prejudice to such further consideration and possible modification of Bad Frog's authority to use its labels as New York may deem appropriate, consistent with this opinion. Dismissal of the federal law claim for damages against the NYSLA commissioners is affirmed on the ground of immunity. Dismissal of the state law claim for damages is affirmed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Upon remand, the District Court shall consider the claim for attorney's fees to the extent warranted with respect to the federal law equitable claim.

[Quartus]

Veloce, get this! Christianity is not the only religion practiced in this country. Unbelievable, isn’t it?


Not being denied. Also completely irrelevant. The monument is about the HISTORICAL FOUNDATION of the laws of our country. Fire-worship, Islam, Buddhism, whatever, are not part of that history. Judaism and Christianity ARE. That's what the people that wrote the document believed. I suspect they know better than you what they had in mind. You are free to dislike that fact, but it remains a fact. If you want to argue that we should ignore that fact, go right ahead. But it's still a fact.

You are not understanding what a bill of rights is.


Your "understanding" (or SCOTUS') of what some generic bill of rights is or ought to be does not have anything to do with it. The question is about what OUR Bill Of Rights says. It says what it says. And the Founding Fathers made abundantly clear that THEIR intent in writing the Constitution, especially the BOR, was to LIMIT THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It never entered into their heads to apply those limitations to the states. That monster was created long after.

[rock jock]

I believe Justice Moore is incapable of making such decisions, as he places his personal interpretation of “gods law” above the laws of Alabama and of the United States.
That is simply untrue. At no time has Judge Moore stated that he will no longer administer the laws of the State of Alabama or the U.S., or replace them with Biblical Law. He is simply allowing a historical reference to the foundation of our own legal system to exist.

It is quite amazing the mental gymnastics you will go through to reinterpret the 1A and then condemn antis for doing the same to the 2A.

[Chris Rhines]

It's not his, but he does have legitimate authority over it, and he is acting in complete accord with the law (not the Federal judiciary's twisting of it) and with the intent of the Founding Fathers. If Judge Moore does not own the court, then it is owned by someone else. That someone else is the only person who gets to decide what use his property gets put to. If Judge Moore wants to display a plaque of the Ten Commandments on property other than his own, then he needs to seek the permission of the property owner. Failing to do so is certainly not 'acting in complete accord with the law.'

The critical question here is, "Who owns the courtroom?" Answer that, and you decide the case.

- Chris

[CZ52GUY]

I find it amazing that those who believe in the RKBA can adopt a perversion of the 1st so easily.

I'm guessing Judge Moore is empowered within his position to place the monument where it is, or the argument would have been presented differently in the case.

The Establishment Clause does not apply where no law has been passed by Congress to Establish any religion.

Judge Moore has placed a 2.75 ton monument which includes the text of the Ten Commandments within the powers of the office he holds. The "nightime installation" is often referenced as evidence of his guile...I don't know about you but I don't think I'd want to be around when they forklifted that thing into the rotunda. After hours installation made some sense.

In the end, those who are offended by the very mention of God will be those who scream the loudest both here and elsewhere.

The burden of proof is clearly on those hostile to religion seeking to imagine that which the 1st d-o-e-s n-o-t s-a-y.

The reference to the 14th's application of uniform due process is bogus. Convenient, but bogus. That argument applied here is especially dangerous to states rights everywhere. Any individual can claim injury for anything therefore that interpretation of the 14th allows for Federal intervention anywhere, anytime. Not a pretty picture.

The Federal Judiciary has no standing to impose a God-free society at the behest of those who seek to impose that on the rest of us.

Exposure to the Ten Commandments didn't make all the Hebrews believers...suggesting that exposure to them will convert the public at large can be hoped for by Evangelicals but the odds are against it.

In the end, the Free Exercise provision, which I believe includes the rights of communities to select any religion they would like (there are dozens of combo' church/schoolhouse/town halls in my neck of the woods as objective evidence), including no religion.

Congress has passed no law, the people of Alabama have every right to object if they wish, but the Federal athiests in robes have no standing this time, nor did they in many other cases in which they imposed the bidding of a fundamentalist athiest minority.

BTW, slavery was amended out of our society as should be required to change the 1st or the 2nd rather than allowing the lib's to elastize the BOR and Constitution into a document to impose tyranny rather than guaranteeing freedom.

CZ52'

[johnpmahler]

I'm neither Liberal nor offended by the mention of G-d's name. I do however object to the 'state', in this case in the guise of a high court official, declaring that the tenants of a particular religion are the core of justice within his jurisdiction.

He could have had 'In G-d we trust' put on that monument, or '..endowed by their creator', or some such similar theme. Heck, he could have quoted the relevant passages from the state constitution.

He didn't do that. He chose a particular Christian translation of a religious text that includes a commandment to worship a particular g-d. Sounds close enough to establishing a state religion to me, to at least be very worrysome.

Yeah, I have a problem with that.

[Graystar]

That is simply untrue. At no time has Judge Moore stated that he will no longer administer the laws of the State of Alabama or the U.S., or replace them with Biblical Law. Actually, I believe I did read quotes to that effect. However, I'm having trouble locating them. So I will retract my statement and stand corrected until I can provide the evidence.

However, Moore did say this...
"Separation of church and state never was meant to separate God from our government. It was never meant to separate God from our law," This is clearly wrong. If what he says is so, then what does "separation of church and state" mean??

[Graystar]

I find it amazing that those who believe in the RKBA can adopt a perversion of the 1st so easily. I agree completely.
I'm guessing Judge Moore is empowered within his position to place the monument where it is, or the argument would have been presented differently in the case. No, he wasn't. He tried that argument in court and was rejected.
The Establishment Clause does not apply where no law has been passed by Congress to Establish any religion. That is not so. Religious freedom is a right and there are no limitations on what constitutes infringement upon our rights. As you mentioned, religious freedom also includes the right to not be religious as well. So it is Justice Moore who is imposing a religious view, not the federal court.

[CZ52GUY]

I'm neither Liberal nor offended by the mention of G-d's name. I do however object to the 'state', in this case in the guise of a high court official, declaring that the tenants of a particular religion are the core of justice within his jurisdiction.

I believe that the judge did so based on objective review of historical precident which several posters have referenced. Can you provide compelling proof that the Ten Commandments are not relevant to the code of justice of Western civilization?

He could have had 'In G-d we trust' put on that monument, or '..endowed by their creator', or some such similar theme. Heck, he could have quoted the relevant passages from the state constitution.

So you are acknowledging that his office entitled him to select "thought provoking content" for public display? You believe that his selection of the Ten Commandments as a relevant "thought provoking content" inappropriate based on the merits of the Ten Commandment's historical influence on codes of justice? If so, this is hardly a 1st Amendment relevant complaint requiring a remedy?

He didn't do that. He chose a particular Christian translation of a religious text that includes a commandment to worship a particular g-d. Sounds close enough to establishing a state religion to me, to at least be very worrysome.

If you start with the premise that his office empowered him with the authority to select something "thought provoking" to be displayed, the issue would seem to be related to whether a state establishment of religion has occurred. (BTW, at the time of Jefferson's letter, the Congregational Church had been established as the official religion of both Massachusetts and Connecticut without SCOTUS interference, which prompted the original correspondence from the Danbury Baptists).

If Connecticut and Massachusetts selecting a state religion did not violate the 1st (based on the lack of any successful legal challenge that I'm aware of), certainly a state judge selecting the Ten Commandments as appropriate text to display in a state court rotunda based on its historical influence on Western justice (Levitical law also played a part), it stretches reason to determine that a Congressional Law has been passed Establishing a "Church of England equivalency" which is what the prohibition on establishment had in mind.

Yeah, I have a problem with that.

That is irrelevant as to whether a legitimate claim to Establishment as is actually written into the 1st is present in this case.

It is the people of Alabama who elected this individual and the Constitution of that state which is applicable.

Regards,

CZ52'

[johnpmahler]

hmmm....

couple of thoughts, please point out the flaws if you see them.

From say around the year 300 or so, on up until this century the core of a lawyers schooling would have been Roman Civil Law. The only major break from that tradition would have been the Napolionic code, written in the 1800's by you know who, and retained pretty much only in France and a few of her old colonies.

So the Lawyers (who wrote the new laws) learned how to do it from the Romans, not the Clergy.

It was called a classical education, because that's what you learned, the Classics. In the original latin or greek if you had the skill. If you where studying the bible, it's because you where in divinity school.

The ten commandments where part of a larger whole (613 by last count), that the west decided to pick and choose a dozen or so to hang on to. Please remember that in the Torah, sodomy and smoking on the sabbath are both sins, carrying equivelent punishments.

As has been pointed out before by others, the following commandments have no place in civil law, unless you are establishing a religion:

That there is a particular G-d who must be worshiped and acknowledged
That the Sabbath must be observed
That you may not worship idols

Prohibitions against murder and theft are so basic to any legal code going back to Babylon (sp?) (not to mention China, Greece, Rome, the Mongols, etc.) that I cannot accept that the originate soley from this source.

Whats left? Immoral sex and respecting yer elders? hmmm seems that these have been part of human culture for as long as anyone can tell.

So, while I can certainly accept that the biblical commandments have formed part of the textual mosaic that has brought us to the current overabbundance of lawyers in our midst, it's just one small part.

My objection to the 10 commandments being so enshrined has nothing to do with it's relevence to the origin of civil law. It has everything to do with the fact that the judge has taken a particular religious text, and enshrined it as the sole source. Once again, had he placed into a larger context of quotes and/or references to other sources it would have been cool. Heck, that could have been thought provoking and educational.


As far as Mass/Conn state religions, once again these activities predated the 14th amendment, which the people of this country and the states decided to accept. That acceptance imposed the bill of rights on the states for the first time. Up until then, of course, any constitutional restriction on the Federal government would not apply to the States....now they do. Same reason that the 2nd applies to the states today as well.

[CZ52GUY]

From say around the year 300 or so, on up until this century the core of a lawyers schooling would have been Roman Civil Law. The only major break from that tradition would have been the Napolionic code, written in the 1800's by you know who, and retained pretty much only in France and a few of her old colonies.

Actually, the OT pre-dates the Romans.

From the time of Constantine to the Reformation, civil and Clergy law were virtually indistinguishable in much of Western civilization.

So the Lawyers (who wrote the new laws) learned how to do it from the Romans, not the Clergy.

You provide no conclusive refutation of the influence of Judism and Christianity on Western Civilization and the US specifically...which is irrellevant as to whether a Federal religion has been established per the standards established in the 1st as written.

The ten commandments where part of a larger whole (613 by last count), that the west decided to pick and choose a dozen or so to hang on to. Please remember that in the Torah, sodomy and smoking on the sabbath are both sins, carrying equivelent punishments.

Levitical law contained the detailed code of which the Ten pre-dated and summarized. By what objective evidence do you find that the West "decided to pick and choose"...and I do not see where that has bearing on whether the judge in question had the right to select "thought provoking" content, and whether a federal religion was established, only a difference in taste which the people of Alabama should decide, not a federal judge.


Prohibitions against murder and theft are so basic to any legal code going back to Babylon (sp?) (not to mention China, Greece, Rome, the Mongols, etc.) that I cannot accept that the originate soley from this source.

Actually, the Exodus and the conveyance of the Ten Commandments and Levitical law pre-dates Babylon, which conquered the Israeli kingdom around 586 BC. Again, the opportunity for alternative sources of influence does not nullify the reality that the Ten Commandments and Levitical law had and continues to have on Western civilization. Alternative reference points do not make the judges selection of this content unconstitutional...I'd be curious which of the Chinese tenants that the FF incorporated into the Constitution and the BOR?;)

Whats left? Immoral sex and respecting yer elders? hmmm seems that these have been part of human culture for as long as anyone can tell.

That other reference points (many of which post-date the Ten Commandment conveyance) reference similar content is validation of their worth, not a refutation...however...again, it does not provide any merit to the argument that a constitutional violation has occurred? If 20 years from now someone decides to quote an ancient Chinese proverb on a monument in a court, will that require federal intervention? I think not. This is silliness raised by those who object to religion in general, and Christianity specifically.

Provide a SCOTUS decision or Federal law at the time of the BOR or within 50 years of passage which supports your claim that a public display of a religious quotation on public property was prohibited. There is no historical basis within that time period for the modern interpretation by some that any mention of a deity in a publicly owned facility constitutes a violation of the 1st as written. It is imagined by those with an agenda, not with any historical context to support any original intent by the FF.

My objection to the 10 commandments being so enshrined has nothing to do with it's relevence to the origin of civil law. It has everything to do with the fact that the judge has taken a particular religious text, and enshrined it as the sole source. Once again, had he placed into a larger context of quotes and/or references to other sources it would have been cool. Heck, that could have been thought provoking and educational.

The Constitution does not require the people of Alabama elect a judge who selects "thought provoking content" that is universally appreciated. No religion has been established by placing this text (which undeniably contains religious content) on public property. What church benefits from the taxes that are collected by Alabama that this monument has established? What role does that church have in their lives? NONE, because no official religion has been established. There is no violation of the 1st because no official religion has been established. Again, if there was no successful legal challenge to the Congregational church established in Massachusetts and Connecticut, there is little room for such a broad view of establishment and narrow view of free exercise.

As far as Mass/Conn state religions, once again these activities predated the 14th amendment, which the people of this country and the states decided to accept (that's why it's called. That acceptance imposed the bill of rights on the states for the first time. Up until then, of course, any constitutional restriction on the Federal government would not apply to the States....now they do. Same reason that the 2nd applies to the states today as well.

I've read the 14th many times but have not seen where emancipation for slaves translates into allocation of tyrannical powers to the federal judiciary. No, that someone somewhere can become offended and expect everyone everywhere to toe his/her line based on available resources convincing an activitist federal judiciary is not consistent with the 14th as written.

Please provide a successful legal challenge to a public display of a "religious artifact" on state owned property within 25 years of the 14th being adopted based on the language of the 14th and you may have a legitimate argument to raise.

Happy hunting. I'm especially interested in hearing how the combination school/church/town halls immediately divested into separate entities because of the 14th :neener:

In the end, the 14th did not expand the prohibition stated in the 1st, or discontinue the free exercise guarantees either.

A judge in Alabama put up a monument that some folks didn't like. There is no reason for a federal case, the people of Alabama can seek a remedy within state law, the tyrants in robes have no standing.

Regards,

CZ52'

[johnpmahler]

let me say that I really appreciate a person who can debate an issue like this without turning it into a stupid rehash of brain dead opinions & mudslinging.

You wouldn't live anywhere near the northeast would you? I'd love to get together & shoot the breeze & put holes in paper for an afternoon.

Also, Mr CZ-52 dude, you should know youse is talking to one of the few custom grip makers on the planet who does custom CZ 50/52/70 grips
:D maybe we could fit you out with something nice?


on to the debate!

Yeah the OT predates the Romans, but they paid no attention to it at all. By the time Constantine turned up, the early christians had dumped the vast majority of jewish law and had started work on their own version of the rules.

I don't buy the Civil/Clergy law being similar without some concrete proof. It doesn't sound right to me (by which I mean that it does not fit well into the mental framework that has built up over 25 years of studying history)

Christianity certainly has had influence over European/American history and law, if only because most of the laws where written by Christians. Please address my point that the foundation of these laws however was inherited from the Romans, who until Constintine showed up didn't care for the Jews or the Christians one bit.

Unless my reading of the OT is pretty off base, the ten commandments where delivered to Moshe at Mt Sinai, which is the same time frame for the Levitical laws. The ten are a subset of the law, not a summary. I come at this from an Orthadox Jewish perspective, so my take on this could easily be different than yours.

It's a side issue, but I can't pass it up! By what evidence can I say that the west 'Picked & Chose'....

Well lets see, The laws of Kashrut, the entire Levitical sacrificial system, Observance of the Sabbath on the right day of the week, all of the commanded Holy days (Sukkot, Yom Kippor, Pesach, ect, etc), the laws concerning treatment of slaves, the sabbatical year, divorce, dress, ....it goes on. What was kept? The ten already mentioned, the ban on sodomy, and in some cases a form of sabbath observance (so what maybe 5%?)

I find myself at a disadvantage as we are in the process of migrating to Vermont & my entire library (except the Terry Pratchetts & some religious texts) is in a storage locker 5 hours north of here....

so, we agree that it is a religious text right?

would you agree that since the judge didn't use the original Hebrew, he picked a particular translation, and that different Christian sects have used different translations of the original?

From what yer saying, sounds like you would follow a strict interpetation of the establishment clause (sounded lawyerish didn't it). In your opinion, what would cross that line? Can a state gov't establish a religion at this time (in your opinion)? Can that religion be whatever the state so chooses (e.g. LDS in Utah)

I'll see what I can track down for case law arguments.

added : just found this in 'Findlaw'

''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'' 41 ''[The] Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments.''

From the Alabama Constitution:
======
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.
======

hmmm.....'no preference' is quit a bit shy establishment. I'm not sure it clearly covers this situation, as no law was passed, but I think it could be argued that it's relevant.
John

[CZ52GUY]

I'm in NH, PM if you want to set something up sometime...

Yeah the OT predates the Romans, but they paid no attention to it at all. By the time Constantine turned up, the early christians had dumped the vast majority of jewish law and had started work on their own version of the rules.

I'd disagree with your assessment that by the 4th century AD, Christians had dispensed with the Old Testament in its entirety. Levitical Law was not practiced as to how many paces on the Sabbath, the period of time of uncleanliness, prohibitions on certain foods (Peter's recounting of his vision had something to do with that), etc., but the influence of due process, objective evidence supporting an accusation, and the punishment fitting the crime are sustained even to this day within Christian circles and the civil justice systems of cultures heavily influenced by that religion. If you review the New Testament, civil law is largely left to civil authorities while retaining ultimate respect for the "laws of God". This statement is abused by those on both side of this argument...my read of it after 7 years of Christian schooling at multiple levels is that the you allocate to the government that which rightly belongs to them...you don't let the government tell you that you must rape, pillage, steal, murder, or deny your faith in God...based on what I've read from Justice Moore, his interpretation is consistent with mine...at least in principle.

Again, this does not conclusively prove or disprove whether anything unconstitutional has occurred in Alabama, rather whether the reasons cited by the judge for selection of the Ten as relevant "thought provoking content" in the case are credible. I'd like to think reasonable people could agree that his assertions of some merit based on cultural significance, whether we concur with his actions in their entirety or not. Cultures largely influenced by Christianity would be influenced by OT writing, which makes the OT "words of wisdom" selected relevant to the cultural history of civil justice in Alabama.

Christianity certainly has had influence over European/American history and law, if only because most of the laws where written by Christians. Please address my point that the foundation of these laws however was inherited from the Romans, who until Constintine showed up didn't care for the Jews or the Christians one bit.

The foundational basis for the laws I contend is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly, in the Colonies, Christianity was a significant force. Whether you trace the evolution of specific code to Levitical law through the path you described or attempt to point back to alternate originating sources is an interesting research project but once again, not relevant as to whether the Ten Commandment passage is consistent with the reasoning put forward by Justice Moore.

Unless my reading of the OT is pretty off base, the ten commandments where delivered to Moshe at Mt Sinai, which is the same time frame for the Levitical laws. The ten are a subset of the law, not a summary. I come at this from an Orthadox Jewish perspective, so my take on this could easily be different than yours.

The OT canon that I read shows the Ten delivered in Exodus which provided the basis for the Levitical law which followed in Leviticus and to some degree, in Deuteronomy. I describe the Ten as summarizing, not as an "Executive Summary", but I think you can reasonably trace the logic of the details found in Levitical law, to one of the Ten. I see a hierarchy I guess, but my interpretation is based somewhat on Protestant influence from my youth. The only real relevance to the case being...that I think a reasonable case can be made for selecting the Ten as being especially relevant to the culture from which our Founding Fathers sprang, especially considering their influence on the system of justice and the belief that all individuals were created equal in the eyes of the Deity that is referenced within so many of the speeches and documents which gave birth to our nation. Equal before a Creator, and endowed with inalienable rights...powerful stuff and contrary to just about every culture that preceded them...true "out of the box" thinking.

Well lets see, The laws of Kashrut, the entire Levitical sacrificial system, Observance of the Sabbath on the right day of the week, all of the commanded Holy days (Sukkot, Yom Kippor, Pesach, ect, etc), the laws concerning treatment of slaves, the sabbatical year, divorce, dress, ....it goes on. What was kept? The ten already mentioned, the ban on sodomy, and in some cases a form of sabbath observance (so what maybe 5%?)

I think it is more correct to say that the religion of Christianity and the cultures it influenced evolved to pursue a legal system that differed from the Levitical law whose text is retained in the Christian Bible. Again, reading from the KJV or similar version of OT, the enforcement of Levitical laws was sometimes tempered with mercy by the Law Giver (e.g. David's sin with Bathsheba and murder of her husband)...I wouldn't allocate to the West that which Judaism itself and Christianity have evolved away from over the last 3500 years or so in terms of specific adherence to the original codes, method of punishment, etc.. The relevance to this case being, that Justice Moore is not "out of school" with the cultural historical influences he cites as motivating his selection of the Ten vs. the full text "a much bigger monument or much smaller print being required should he have considered that option".;)

I find myself at a disadvantage as we are in the process of migrating to Vermont & my entire library (except the Terry Pratchetts & some religious texts) is in a storage locker 5 hours north of here....

Not a problem...wouldn't help you anyway :neener:

so, we agree that it is a religious text right?

Yup! But it does not establish a religion that anyone in Alabama or anywhere else must pledge their allegience to, tithe their money to, or become a card carrying member of...

would you agree that since the judge didn't use the original Hebrew, he picked a particular translation, and that different Christian sects have used different translations of the original?

I think he chose an English translation so the English speaking people of Alabama could actually read it. From a historical accuracy perspective, I concur that there may be translations into English that better convey the true meaning of the text that was quoted...I don't think you can seriously read too much into the choice of English translation...if you object to the religious nature of the content, the choice of translator would not mitigate the choice of content. Either an establishment has occurred consistent with the 1st (forgot the 14th in this instance...it's a red herring argument) or it has not, I don't see it...


From what yer saying, sounds like you would follow a strict interpetation of the establishment clause (sounded lawyerish didn't it). In your opinion, what would cross that line? Can a state gov't establish a religion at this time (in your opinion)? Can that religion be whatever the state so chooses (e.g. LDS in Utah)

I don't see Constitutional grounds to stop the LDS from becoming an "established religion" (similar to a "state flower" or "state bird") as long as there is no interference with the Free Exercise clause so that Utah residents who are Jewish, or Buddists, or Hindus, Muslim, Baptists, or atheists are not compelled to pledge allegience to LDS or contribute their funds to the church with the State acting as an advocate.

Do I think that it would be a good idea for a state to follow the historical example of Massachusetts and Connecticut in 21st Century USA? HECK NO!!! Even at the community level, which I see objective historical evidence not five minutes from my home (combined school house/church/town hall) and you'll see it too in Vermont, I don't see modern communities following the steps that my ancestors took to integrate those institutions, but I see no Constitutional prohibition which would prevent it should they choose to. Extremists who take a very broad view of "establishment" and a very narrow view of Free Exercise have made such integration too costly to consider in terms of legal fees...which is no way to live in a "Free" society...the tyranny of fundamentalist atheists who seek to establish their religion is to be feared far more than the simple but clear words of the Ten...

Do I think residents of most states would take kindly to the establishment of a state religion? Unlikely!! But they would raise their objections within the remedies provided in their individual states as called for by their state constitutions. It's become way too easy to get a willing suit to find a sympathetic judge to elasticize the Constitution into saying something that i-s n-o-t t-h-e-r-e. That is a very bad thing!!

We need to separate our desire to advocate or oppose a specific topic from what the Constitution actually says. Those who manipulate it for their own purposes risk seeing it happen in reverse.

I happen to think the monument in 21st Century USA is not a Constitutional violation but Justice Moore probably could have handled this situation much better...recognizing the realities of where we are in the USA today. I do admire his willingness to stand firm to his convictions and we'll see where it goes.

I'll see what I can track down for case law arguments.

Good luck, you'll need it. :D

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[Quartus]

let me say that I really appreciate a person who can debate an issue like this without turning it into a stupid rehash of brain dead opinions & mudslinging.

Agreed! Nice discussion, gentlemen. But though interesting, I'm not sure it's getting to the core of the matter. The FF wrote plenty on this subject - more than enough to establish (to any reasonable mind) their intent when crafting the 1A. (And more than enough to justify Moore's position.) Their INTENT is pretty clear in their words, and bears NO relation to the "separation of church and state" position of our current courts.


If the plain language of a law (guided by original intent where there is some question) is not the final arbiter of what a law means, then we do not have a rule of law, we do not have a Constitution in any meaningful sense.

We have a tyranny of opinion, backed by force of arms.


That is NOT what our forbears fought and died for.

[CZ52GUY]

If the plain language of a law (guided by original intent where there is some question) is not the final arbiter of what a law means, then we do not have a rule of law, we do not have a Constitution in any meaningful sense.

Agreed, which is why the fraudelent endorsement of extreme views contrary to wording of the Constitution as written and amended by use of manipulation and complicit judicial activism is dangerous to all of us, regardless of our stance on whether we believe there is a value proposition to the public display of the Ten Commandments, or whether we think Justice Moore is a "good guy" or not.

Either the Constitution has meaning based on original intent or it does not. If it is subject to the whims of anyone with enough money to hire a good suit, and a willing Judge to "revise" the Constitution outside of the parameters of lawful amendment, then why should anyone take any of it seriously?

If we can't take the Constitution seriously based on the words that are contained therein, what do we have as a nation to guarantee our freedoms?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Well said Quartus!

CZ52'

[Quartus]

This is clearly wrong. If what he says is so, then what does "separation of church and state" mean??

Well, for starters, it's not in the Constitution. Read it, Graystar - there is no such phrase in the Constitution. Not anywhere. So it really doesn't matter what it means since it is not part of our laws, except by judicial fiat.


It appears in ONE letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. In that letter, Jefferon makes very clear what his meaning is. It is a ONE WAY WALL that separates the Church form the State, meaning (according to JEfferson) that it protects the Church from any intereference by the State (meaning the Federal gummit) and IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT THE CHURCH CANNOT SEEK TO INFLUENCE THE STATE.


Let me propose a radical idea to those of you who think Judge Moore is wrong:


Read the First Amendment. I mean READ it, don't read INTO it your current understanding. Read what the text actually says.

Read Jefferson's letter. See what HE meant.

Then read some of the FF's writings wherein they express their fears of a judciary that would take it upon themselves to begin INTERPRETING the Consititution instead of enforcing it.

[Graystar]

Well, for starters, it's not in the Constitution. Read it, Graystar - there is no such phrase in the Constitution. Not anywhere. So it really doesn't matter what it means since it is not part of our laws, except by judicial fiat. The Constitution has very little to do with our rights. Our rights are neither created, defined, limited, nor expanded by the Constitution. The Constitution simply recognizes certain rights, and expresses certain specific restrictions on the federal government. But just as the naming of certain rights doesn't mean we don't have others, the naming of certain restrictions upon government doesn't mean there aren't others.

If we were to follow your interpretation, then women, not being part of the militia, would have no right to carry firearms.

Oh but wait, that opening clause doesn't limit our right to keep and bear arms, right?

You can't interprete the Constitution differently as it suits your needs. It has to be one way or the other all the time. So which is it? No such thing as separation of church and state and women can't carry firearms? Or can rights exist even though the Constitution doesn't mention them?

[CZ52GUY]

The militia reference in the 2nd does not impose a prerequisite that one join the milia to enjoy the guarantee of RKBA. It describes the value proposition of RKBA based on the necessity of a free society having the militia as an asset for self-defense.

If you read the Milita Act of 1792 which codified who the militia was, White men from 18-45 were identified as being REQUIRED to make theselves available to the militia, own their own weapon, "tactical gear" and have obtained a level of proficiency by age 18. Discrete exclusions for militia participation were codified.

That act DID NOT nullify the right of non-whites, women, or 46+ individuals to KBA. The Constitution guaranteed the individual right to KBA for all persons (the sad reality being that a significant portion of the population was identified as 3/5 of a person, only for legislative apportionment...something that the 13th-15th remedied).

Your willingness to allocate to the Federal judiciary the right to manipulate the plain language of the 1st has dangerous implications. There may come a day when the makeup of the SCOTUS is very different...and their willingness to stretch and twist the Constitution will threaten something you hold dear.

The 1st contains a prohibition on the Federal legislature from creating a Church of America. It also guarantees that Free Exercise will be guaranteed to individuals within all of the United States. Ratification of the BOR allocated that responsibility to the states, nothing in the 14th alters that.

The question on the table is whether the public display of the Ten in a State Court by an elected Judge is consistent with the laws and Constitution of the state of Alabama.

No Church of America is created by this display. No Church of Alabama is created either. No Free Exercise infringement has occurred. There is no compulsary attendance, requirement to pledge allegience to it as a condition of citizenship, nor does the government of Alabama act as a fiscal agent on behalf of any "established" religion.

Where is the standing for the Federal judiciary to rule that there is a Constitutional violation? Only by imagining a prohibition on "religious promotion" which the 1st D-O-E-S N-O-T C-O-N-T-A-I-N.

There is no Wall of Separation written into the Constitution which guarantees athiests a God-Free public square...it is being written on their behalf in contradiction to what the 1st actually contains based on resources available to support than notion and a despicable activist Federal judiciary acting on their behalf.

The Constitution says what it says...the manipulation of it damages us all.

The same type of manipulation that "militia membership" is a requirement for an individual right guaranteed in the 2nd is necessary to draw the conclusion that an interpretation of convenience can be applied to twist the establishment clause beyond recognition.

The RKBA is threatened by this type of activity, the original post is correct in presenting the risk.

Regards,

CZ52'

[johnpmahler]

been doing some research...found a Madison reference that seems to fit the bill/hit the nail on the head/hit the spot/whathaveyou..


"In 1833, just three years before his death, Madison observed in a letter to the Rev. Jasper Adams, “[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against the trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not sure it answers anything though....

can we agree on a point here: is the judge acting as an individual citizen, or as a representative of the state? In my opinion he is acting as a representative of the state.

Clearly, he can put the monument in his front yard (acting as a private citizen), equally clearly he cannot demand that everyone working in his courthouse do the same or lose their job. Where is the line?

Another question for you : many states allocate a home to the govenor (some city's do the same for the mayor). Can the govenor place a patently religious symbol in the front yard?

[CZ52GUY]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95313,00.html

Assuming the associate justices acted within the governance boundaries of the State Supreme Court of Alabama, this was the body that should make the decision, not the Federal judiciary...that they may have done so based on intimidation imposed upon them by the Federal government is regretable, but I would be respectful of the decision this body made...assuming it is in compliance with Alabama state law.

CZ52'

[Graystar]

Your willingness to allocate to the Federal judiciary the right to manipulate the plain language of the 1st has dangerous implications. I am doing no such thing. What I am saying is that our freedom of religion cannot be violated by the government in any manner, not just the manner outlined in the Constitution.

It is your view that has extremely dangerous implications, as such a view reduces our rights, and the governments handling of them, to what is written on paper and nothing more.

What if there was no 1st Amendment? Are you saying that we would not have any religious freedom? Are you saying that it would then be okay for the federal court to rule as it did?

[CZ52GUY]

I am doing no such thing. What I am saying is that our freedom of religion cannot be violated by the government in any manner, not just the manner outlined in the Constitution.

Perhaps I misunderstood you...I'm still having difficulty with your assertions based on the fact that the FF felt so strongly that they felt they were compelled to articulate individual rights discretely.

I concur with their decision to articulate discrete individual rights as are captured within the BOR. I've heard some say..."the rights are inalienable, therefore the BOR is irrelevant one way or another". What I'm saying, is that the Constitution cannot be used as a trojan horse weapon to refute inalienable rights, especially by twisting plain language wording and imagining that which it D-O-E-S N-O-T S-A-Y.

It is your view that has extremely dangerous implications, as such a view reduces our rights, and the governments handling of them, to what is written on paper and nothing more

I obviously disagree that it is dangerous to expect that the Federal judiciary comply with the Constitution that created it, and to arbitrate disputes regarding Constitutional matters based on the language of the document and the historical context that gave birth to it.

What if there was no 1st Amendment? Are you saying that we would not have any religious freedom? Are you saying that it would then be okay for the federal court to rule as it did?

I'm saying once again that I concur with the FF decision to discretely articulate those individual rights that were so very precious within the BOR, not as a ruling entity granting a privilege, but as an elected body acting upon the insistence of the governed.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

been doing some research...found a Madison reference that seems to fit the bill/hit the nail on the head/hit the spot/whathaveyou..


"In 1833, just three years before his death, Madison observed in a letter to the Rev. Jasper Adams, “[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against the trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not sure it answers anything though....

I had not read that quote...considering that Madison is credited with authorship of the BOR, I believe his observations are very relevant.


can we agree on a point here: is the judge acting as an individual citizen, or as a representative of the state? In my opinion he is acting as a representative of the state.

I believe he is acting within his office as Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court. As a private citizen, he has no authority to appropriate funds, commission the creation of the artifact, and direct its placement within the rotunda.

Clearly, he can put the monument in his front yard (acting as a private citizen), equally clearly he cannot demand that everyone working in his courthouse do the same or lose their job. Where is the line?

I concur he cannot expect Court employees to purchase ~3 ton monuments to be placed in their yards at his direction...their private property is beyond his jurisdiction as to "lawn ornaments".

I don't see the relevance of your point...government officials are often allocated the authority to appropriate funds for display of objects that the public will see. The relevant question is whether the content selected violates Constitutional prohibitions...I contend the 1st contains no such prohibition on public display of that content on public property because no religion is established, and no free exercise rights have been violated.


Another question for you : many states allocate a home to the govenor (some city's do the same for the mayor). Can the govenor place a patently religious symbol in the front yard?

I don't believe the Constitution prohibits it.

To take it a step further, should Joseph Lieberman be elected President, and choose to avoid lighting the National Christmas Tree, and celebrate Hannakuh without shame within the White House (or to invite young people to observe Jewish traditions on the grounds) I see no Constitutional violation. Judaism will not have been established as the Church of America, my taxes will not be collected for the benefit of that church, conversion to Judaism will not be a prerequisite for citizenship, and my freedom to exercise my right to practice a different religion will not be threatened.

The BOR was and still should be about guaranteeing freedoms, not imposing restrictions to them.

Could I ask the reference source where you found the Madison letter?

Thanks in advance,

CZ52'

[Graystar]

especially by twisting plain language wording and imagining that which it D-O-E-S N-O-T S-A-Y. I'm sorry, I'm still unclear on your position. Are you asserting that the *only* limitation on government is that it cannot pass a law establishing a religion? That a government can recognize a religion in any other way it wants?

So if it so happens that all the elected officials of a state are Islamic fundamentalist, are you okay with a monument to the Qur'an? Adultery is still a crime in some states...what if the legislature sets a death sentence for adultery? What if the judges just happen to impose harsher sentences on those who are of the Islamic faith?

None of these actions constitute a law establishing religion. However, all these actions violate the religious rights of non-islamic people. The actions of these judges and legislatures have, in essence, established a religious state.

Our freedoms are broad and cannot be legislated away, even if 100% of a state's population desires to do so. Our governments are governments of delegated powers, and nowhere do I see the power to recognize a god delegate to any government within this country.

[Quartus]

to what is written on paper and nothing more.


You have a very different view of that value of writing things on paper than did the Founding Fathers. The entire point of having a written constitution is lost if we do not hold our government to the bounds of what is written.

This the FF understood and wrote about copiously. See the Ferderalist and anti-Federalsit papers for many examples. BOTH sides wanted WRITTEN GUARANTEES against the Federal government doing things they didn't want it doing. They disagreed on what some of those things should be, and they disagreed on what safeguards were sufficient, but the BOTH agreed on the necessity (and therefore, obviously, the usefulness) of a written document to CONSTRAIN THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT. Or as Jefferson put it, to "bind them with the chains of the Constitution".

And they expressed their fear of, and the damage to liberty that would follow, a judiciary that would take upon itself the "task" of interpreting the Constitution instead of enforcing it.

That's what has been done with the 1A, in reading into it a "separation of church and State" that the FF never intended.

As CZ has well pointed out, your argument about the militia suffers the same flaw as your argument about the 1A - it assumes an interpretation of that is not in the text, and which cannot be supported from the writings of the FF. It is a straw man.

[Graystar]

You have a very different view of that value of writing things on paper than did the Founding Fathers. The entire point of having a written constitution is lost if we do not hold our government to the bounds of what is written. I am all for holding our government to the bounds of what is written. Where I think we differ is that you believe those to be the *only* bounds, where as I believe that there are additional bounds. As the Constitution did not create our rights, I can't see how it can define the bounds of government infringement upon our rights.

It is well established that a bill of rights is not law. It is simply an expression of what already exist. As such, a bill of rights, in of itself, has no power. Everything written in the Bill Of Rights would be so even if the document never existed. To limit restriction on government actions, based on the Bill Of Rights, is to give government a power it does not have.

Justice Moore never had the power to install a religious monument in a public building. The Federal ruling corrects this abuse of power. The ruling protects citizens against abuse of power by the State, as is the duty of the Federal government.

[Quartus]

Are you asserting that the *only* limitation on government is that it cannot pass a law establishing a religion? That a government can recognize a religion in any other way it wants?

You need to learn something about how America is set up. We have a Federal government, and the Constitution was designed to define and to limit that government. We also have State governments which have their OWN Constitutions. These are separate institutions.

We can't have a sensible conversation about what the U.S. Constitution says about "a government". Actually, THAT phrase could be include the government of South Africa. So let's be clear that we are talking about the Federal government of the United States.

And the answer to your question is YES. The text is perfectly clear. "CONGRESS shall make no law". The idea that there is somehow an "establishment of religion" taking place when a government official or employee prays, or reads a religious document at a public gathering, or even sets up a monument, is an invention of the Twentieth Century. It has no historical support before that. Quite the opposite. And even since the invention of that ridiculous doctrine, SCOTUS has had no problem with obviously Christian artwork, prayers, and even quotations from the Bible in Federal government buildings. So this judge's ruling goes far beyond what SCOTUS has ruled in the past.

Nor did the FF intend to tell any state that THEY could not have a State religion. It would be no violation of the U.S. Constitution for Delaware to declare Christadlephianism as the State Church, and require all officers of the state to swear allegiance to its tenets. They could even ban non-members from their state.



So if it so happens that all the elected officials of a state are Islamic fundamentalist, are you okay with a monument to the Qur'an?
Adultery is still a crime in some states...what if the legislature sets a death sentence for adultery? What if the judges just happen to impose harsher sentences on those who are of the Islamic faith?


None of that would be addressed by the U.S. Constitution as it was written. It simply did not tell the States what to do in such matters. However, I think you'll find that all of the individual State Constitutions have freedom of religion clauses in them that would prohibit that kind of legislation. But NOT because it would violate the U.S. Constitution, but because the citizens of those States wanted it that way. I like it that way myself. But it is no business of the Federal Government.

[Graystar]

Nor did the FF intend to tell any state that THEY could not have a State religion. It would be no violation of the U.S. Constitution for Delaware to declare Christadlephianism as the State Church, and require all officers of the state to swear allegiance to its tenets. They could even ban non-members from their state. Okay, I understand your position.

[Quartus]

When you realize that some of the states came into existence AS A FUNCTION OF RELIGIOUS DISTINCTIVES, it's not hard to see where the FF were coming from. That history was not too far behind them.


Of course, we haven't really gotten into the ramifications of the 14th Amendment on all this, though someone mentioned it earlier.


Shall we have a go at it? :D


Here's an interesting piece that I just ran across:

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=282

Legal scholar Gene Healy has made a powerful argument in favor of abolishing the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the US Constitution. When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the War for Southern Independence, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule.

The purpose of this, according to one Republican congressman, was to coerce Southern legislators to vote for the amendment "at the point of a bayonet." President Andrew Johnson called this tactic "absolute despotism," the likes of which had not been exercised by any British monarch "for more than 500 years." For his outspokenness Johnson was impeached by the Republican Congress.



BTW, I like your handle, Graystar. Has a nice ring to it.

[CZ52GUY]

Out of courtesy to the original poster to this thread, I would suggest that a discussion on that item is off topic here and would be better discussed in a separate thread...as I understand the "etiquette" employed here at The High Road...

Take it somewhere else and I'd be interested in participating...

My 2 cents...

CZ52'

P.S. BTW, your response to Graystar was well stated and measured in its tone, very well presented!

[Quartus]

Agreed. It's relevant, but would be better addressed in another thread. Especially since it has broader implications than this issue.


Of course, there's the question of its legitimacy, and then there's the question of its proper application if we assume its legitimacy.

I've actually got to do some work now :what:, so I'm off for now...



(Well, yes, I know there are those who would say I'm just OFF, but that's yet another discussion! :D )

[Quartus]

I should add one thing to chew on:

When the FF wrote about "religion", they usually meant the various denominations of the Christian faith. (Nominally Christian, anyway. They used the term broadly. Certainly Jefferson and Franklin could not be called "Christian" by any orthodox standard.)

Had they foreseen the rise of the various non-Christian religions (eastern religions, Islam, etc.) they just might have written a ban on them into the Constitution. Certainly a broad reading of their writings would make it clear that such a sentiment would have been possible, if not likely.


But they didn't, so they didn't. Nor am I suggesting that WE should! I mention it only as an aid in understanding their mindset.

[Gordon Fink]

Let me suggest … the Theocratic State Project! :D

~G. Fink

[2dogs]

As you mentioned, religious freedom also includes the right to not be religious as well.

I've got a Beretta M9 pistol to give away.

I'm going to give it to anyone on this board who can prove that the statue in the courthouse has interfered with someone's "right not to be religious".

Any takers?

[2dogs]

What, no takers?

How can people who talk about fighting to the death when the gummint comes to take their guns be so thin skinned that their sensibilities are irreparably damaged by the sight of something religious?

I'm sick of cry babies who can't handle the American flag, the Confederate flag, a manger on Christmas, a Star of David, the Koran, the sight of SOMEONE ELSE smoking, the sight of SOMEONE else driving an SUV, or any of the other horrible things that cause these PATHETIC WHINERS iddy biddy feelings to be hurt.

Man, what it's come to- this country is close to over.:rolleyes:

[Intune]

No Church of America is created by this display. No Church of Alabama is created either. No Free Exercise infringement has occurred. There is no compulsary attendance, requirement to pledge allegience to it as a condition of citizenship, nor does the government of Alabama act as a fiscal agent on behalf of any "established" religion.

Ahh, but there IS compulsory attendance to this bldg. Unless one wants ye olde judge to send his minions after ye with a bench warrant. Should a nonbeliever have to avert his eyes?

From the Alabama Constitution:
"…and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Judge Moore loses. The federal judge is upholding the law.

Why, guilt of course 2dogs. Everyone knows there is only one "TRUE" religion and those who don't adhere to it are damned to Hell. Ask judge Moore. I'll pm you with the address for the pistol. ;)

[jimpeel]

I posted this at the original thread that got shut down.

I posted this at the second thread I attempted to start that got shut down.

I posted this at this thread.Amendment XXVIII: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a government sponsored or government operated religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof by any individual, group, or entity -- private or public; 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.

Is there not even one person on this board that has anything to say on the subject of clarifying the First Amendment through the codified, Constitutional means of simply amending the Constitution pursuant to Article Five of the Constitution?Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Graystar]

What, no takers? Only 7 minutes went by...cut us some slack! We have jobs! We even work sometimes! :p

The monument represents a belief of Justice Moore that the Ten Commandments is the foundation of our law. Hence, as long as Justice Moore's belief is validated by the existence of this monument, the people in Alabama would be living under a law by religion, not a law by the people.

Justice Moore is defying a federal court order. In doing that he is placing his belief that he is right over his oath to uphold the laws of the United States. The law is the will of the people. When any official makes decisions that defy the law, he is defying the people and guilty of contempt. And when those decisions are motivated by religious ideology, that official is also guilty of violating the religious freedom of the people.

[Quartus]

Whoa, Jim. I answered you on that.

Correctly, of course. :D


"…and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Judge Moore loses. The federal judge is upholding the law.


:confused: HUH?!?!?! How does a monument in the building affect the "civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen "?


And since when is it the business of a Federal judge to uphold State law?


Should a nonbeliever have to avert his eyes?


Well, he sure can if he WANTS to. But if the sight of the Ten Commandments offends him so much that he feels a need to not even SEE them, he'd better not visit a lot of buildings in our nation's capitol. They are adorned with Judeo-Christian art and mottos and even -GASP!- quotations from the Bible, which SCOTUS has said are perfectly fine.


So why is it a problem in Alabama?

[Graystar]

Is there not even one person on this board that has anything to say on the subject of clarifying the First Amendment through the codified, Constitutional means of simply amending the Constitution pursuant to Article Five of the Constitution? What do you mean by "clarifying"?

The first amendment is a restriction on the Federal Government. Nothing more. It explicitly places a specific restriction on the government. That restriction is very clear and needs no further clarification.

However, to say that it is the only restriction on the government, when it comes to religious freedom, is simply not true. Our rights are absolute and boundless, and so are restrictions on infringements of our rights. By their very nature, we cannot clearly define our rights, because to do so is to limit them. By the same token, we cannot clearly define what constitutes infringements of our rights, as that too would limit the type of activities that qualify as infringements.

[CZ52GUY]

Ahh, but there IS compulsory attendance to this bldg. Unless one wants ye olde judge to send his minions after ye with a bench warrant. Should a nonbeliever have to avert his eyes?

The usual athiest drivel that exposure = compulsory worship.

I have some news for you, walking by a statue that contains text on it does not constitute participation in a religious ritual, even if you choose to stop and read it. The Hebrews did not universally adopt the faith with visible evidence of their Creator on a daily basis (mannah from Heaven, pillar of fire, etc.). If exposure to Yahwe daily didn't turn the Hebrews into believers I think an athiest with a court date can safely walk past a monument without fear that he/she is participating in a compulsory religious ritual...

From the Alabama Constitution: "…and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.


So...what civil rights, privileges, and capacaties are affected by walking by a big rock with writing on it?

Judge Moore loses. The federal judge is upholding the law.

What law? The law of judicial manipulation in direct contradiction of the 1st as written and the context provided in the Madison letter? That's the law of tyranny which is worthy of defying. You want real danger...continue down this path and see where it leads...there are many that would take a far more extreme approach than Justice Moore...which is an unpleasant collateral impact to consider.

The 1st does not apply, the federal judge is abusing his/her power, we all lose when that occurs...and that's the real tragedy of the efforts of the fundamentalist atheists because they believe their end justifies any means. The Constitution is not theirs to toy with...the final gun has not sounded, the game is not over...the Constitution as written is worth defending...there are many who will be mobilized to carry on the fight to defend it, which is a very good thing.

CZ52'

[Quartus]

By their very nature, we cannot clearly define our rights, because to do so is to limit them.

AGREED! And a very important point. And it is enshrined in our Constitution in the 9th:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "



Graystar, I need some clarifications on parts of this, if you please:

However, to say that it is the only restriction on the government, when it comes to religious freedom, is simply not true.

What other restrictions are there, and what is their authority?


Our rights are absolute and boundless,

I certainly don't agree with this. Perhaps you need to clarify it. For example, a right to life may legitimately be abrogated for various crimes, such as treason, murder, etc. So it is not an ABSOLUTE right. And the same can be said for other rights. And "boundless" doesn't fly, because our right to freedom of the press is properly limited by laws against libel, incitement to violence, etc. (Though the case for weakening this right is a good deal weaker, IMO.)


and so are restrictions on infringements of our rights.


See above. I'd don't really think this sentence makes much sense as you've written it.


By their very nature, we cannot clearly define our rights, because to do so is to limit them. By the same token, we cannot clearly define what constitutes infringements of our rights, as that too would limit the type of activities that qualify as infringements.


If we do not clearly define what powers the government has (whether State or Federal) what is to prevent them from simply expanding their power as they wish? In fact, that is exactly what is happening. It is exactly why we are having this debate. The Federal government has stepped beyond the bounds of the Constitution and created a doctrine that is NOT found in that document and is, in fact, CONTRARY to it, and contrary to its intent. And if they can do that with the 1A, they can do that with ALL of them.

[Intune]

"The usual athiest drivel that exposure = compulsory worship"

Why is it "drivel" whenever someone other than a Christian says something? What atheist? Me? I'm about as atheistic as you are Satanist. None of you would be defending a Pentagram and sacrificial alter in this lobby. Or in you child's public school. Say you would. That monument would not be there if ALL Ten Commands were incorporated into our laws (graven image all you want, no law) UNLESS Judge Moore (is he Baptist by any chance? Buddhist?) wanted to give passerby's a taste of good ol religion. Say you would support a five ton golden Koran in your public school. Say it now if you are that much behind the rule of law. If you can't you are just as wrong as this judge. Need more churches? Build them.

Did the SCOTUS ruling of the DC facades have anything to do with the fact that one wasn't forced to attend these buildings? Hmm? If you guys won't support the most vile satanic emblem to be prominently displayed in YOUR state courthouse, you are being two-faced. Has nothing to do with majority or how many laws satanic credos have given us.

You guys feel you are correct in your assumptions. See what happens in the next few weeks. If you can defend this judge better than the legal council he has now, get to volunteering. Or, there's always prayer.

[LawDog]

Somebody needs to start gathering donations.

When you get enough money, commission a statue of the Lady - pentacle, wand, moons and all - standing next to the Green Man - antlers sprouting out of his forehead, chalice, spear, all the goodies - on a big marble pedestal. Across the bottom of the pedestal, in fancy rune-inspired letters:
AN IT HARM NONE, DO AS YE WILL.

Plonk it right down in that Alabama courthouse, snuggled up next to the Ten Commandments.

Then sit back and see if the people who defend the right of this judge to have his display in a building owned by the public, will defend this display with the same fervor and passion.

LawDog

[Quartus]

Why is it "drivel" whenever someone other than a Christian says something?

I don't think anyone said that. In fact, I'm sure noone said that. Nor anything LIKE that.

As to why it is drivel, well, because it is. Walking past a Satanist/Buddhist/Christian/Jewish/Muslim statue/altar/whatever does not force me to become a a member of that religion, nor in any way involve me in it. I may find it offensive, but it's not anything LIKE compulsory worship. No, not even if it's in a government building.


None of you would be defending a Pentagram and sacrificial alter in this lobby.

No, because they would have no relevance to the history of this nation's laws. None. The 10 Commandments DO, and we don't have to show a specific CAUSE-EFFECT relation to ANY of them, much less ALL of them, to know that. It's historical fact as much as who signed the Declaration of Independence. There's no legitimate debate about it. I'll say it again - it doesn't matter in the least whether or not you like the fact that this country's laws and even its very ideas of liberty were founded on Judeo-Christian values. The fact remains, they were.


Or in you child's public school.


No, but I wouldn't fight it in Federal Court. It isn't their business.

[CZ52GUY]

Why is it "drivel" whenever someone other than a Christian says something? What atheist? Me? I'm about as atheistic as you are Satanist. None of you would be defending a Pentagram and sacrificial alter in this lobby. Or in you child's public school. Say you would. That monument would not be there if ALL Ten Commands were incorporated into our laws (graven image all you want, no law) UNLESS Judge Moore (is he Baptist by any chance? Buddhist?) wanted to give passerby's a taste of good ol religion. Say you would support a five ton golden Koran in your public school. Say it now if you are that much behind the rule of law. If you can't you are just as wrong as this judge. Need more churches? Build them.

It is not drivel when someone who does not practice or profess the faith of Christianity communicates their opinion. It is drivel to imagine exposure to something = compulsory participation in it. If that were the case, I would be able to "convert myself" to shooting like Rob Leatham just by watching him on TV. ;)

I apologize that the tone of my remarks did not clarify a distinction between my opinion of your remarks, which I stand by, and an allocation to you of a specific religious preference (which I have no idea and it's really none of my business unless you choose to disclose it).

Actually, human sacrifice is not protected Free Exercise...few of us would claim that it is.

Please clarify why you believe conclusively that no Judge in Alabama (or anyone else for that matter) would select that text for public display if All Ten commandments were incorporated into our legal system? If All Ten were codified into what would likely be a theocratic system...I'd think the likelyhood of it's presence would increase, not decrease.

You are certainly free to scrutinize Judge Moore's motives, but that does not a 1st Amendment violation prove...The 1st is not a toy, it was written to guarantee Freedom of Exercise without government interference or the imposition of a religion by the Federal Government. In this instance, the Federal Judiciary intervened where it had no standing. No religion was established per the standards of the 1st. No free exercise guarantees were violated. Manipulating the Constitution for convenience is contrary to everything this country has stood for, the rule of law.

I ask you, which is the greater violation of law, to publicly display an artifact of this type consistent with the 1st, or to twist the 1st to pretend that it is illegal, and claim moral authority in so doing?

The more I become familiar with the case, the more Justice Moore's judgment in the execution of his authority is called into question, but there was no Constitutional violation by Moore. There was by the Federal Judiciary by intervening where they had no standing, and handing down a decision that is 100% contradictory to the wording of the 1st. That's the real crime which has occurred, for which I'm sure there will be no consequence to the Judge that did that. Who violated their oath? The Federal Judge, not Moore. The Constitution was abused by this Federal Judge...he should be impeached in my opinion.

I'm not sure I follow your statement "Need more churches? Build them." What point are you trying to make that is relevant to 1st Amendment freedoms that is applicable to the case in question?


Did the SCOTUS ruling of the DC facades have anything to do with the fact that one wasn't forced to attend these buildings? Hmm? If you guys won't support the most vile satanic emblem to be prominently displayed in YOUR state courthouse, you are being two-faced. Has nothing to do with majority or how many laws satanic credos have given us.

Now you are being very silly. No one has an obligation to support the public display of a religous artifact (or any object for public viewing) to which they object. They do have an obligation to pursue a LEGAL remedy consistent with LEGAL remedies that are available to them. The LEGAL remedy was not to say that the 1st contains language that it does not. I submit that the Federal ruling is an illegal abuse of power. Whether through incompetence or malicious intent, this Federal Judge really botched it. I'd love to see him/her get the old heave-ho.

Again, the 1st does not prohibit a public religious display and within their Countermand Order, the associate justices referenced several supporting cases...I invite you to peruse them...http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre82103alsc.pdf


You guys feel you are correct in your assumptions. See what happens in the next few weeks. If you can defend this judge better than the legal council he has now, get to volunteering. Or, there's always prayer.

I am confident in my ability to read the English language as written in the 1st. I am less confident in the ability of the Federal Judiciary to accomplish that feat with any degree of success.

I don't come to this discussion to defend Justice Moore...I stand in defense of the ability to read and arbitrate the Constitution as written. The 2nd is threatened with the same vulgar technique of manipulating that which isn't there as has the 1st in this instance. Again, I concur with the sentiment of the individual who originated this thread. If this decision stands, it doesn't bode well for the 2nd. No the two aren't directly connected, but the willingness of our system of government to accommodate this type of Constitutional abuse is not good news.

Your statement disparaging prayer I would contend is beneath you and inconsistent with the spirit of The High Road as I understand it. I expect it was made in the heat of the debate, as were my remarks which went previously unclarified.

I for one will be praying for Divine intervention in the affairs of this country, that judges will be appointed and confirmed that have a reading comprehension that is not contrained by their political bias.

Best regards,

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

...Then sit back and see if the people who defend the right of this judge to have his display in a building owned by the public, will defend this display with the same fervor and passion.

If the display you described was established within my state, I would certainly join those who opposed its public display with state funds. I'd do so as a taxpayer within my state, and I'd do so vigorously within every legal means at my disposal.

I would not however, have 1st Amendment authority on my side to solicit Federal assistance. I say that based on reading the 1st, and the text that is actually contained therein.

Don't be so quick to project onto others values which they do not hold, and character attributes (or the lack thereof) which do not fit.

In my haste, I left a fellow poster with that opinion of my comments for which I've apologized and attempted to clarify.

Regards,

CZ52'

[brookstexas]

Is America a Christian Nation?
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
What about the Declaration of Independence?
We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?

Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.

Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

What does "separation of church and state" mean?
Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.

What about majority rule?
America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.

Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?
No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.

Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.

The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?
Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.

What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"
The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?
Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.

Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.

Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?
Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

[brookstexas]

"I've got a Beretta M9 pistol to give away.

I'm going to give it to anyone on this board who can prove that the statue in the courthouse has interfered with someone's "right not to be religious"."

I don't think anyone ever said it "interfered with someone's "right not to be religious".

I think the point is it violates state religion prohibitions, seems to exclude non-Christians, since it's the version against "Idol Worship" (There are many versionas BTW and many more than 10 Commandments) it offends some Catholics, it tells the nonreligious that in this courthouse decisions are made on Christian beliefs not the Constitution and civil law.
Spike

[2dogs]

brookstexas

Actually someone did say that which is where I got the bold quote in my reply.:)

[2dogs]

it offends

P.S.

There it is again- that persnickity right not to be offended- and I have yet to find that anywhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or anywhere else. And that "right" seems to be the only basis for taking the statue out as it is clearly not Constitutionally mandated.:)

[Graystar]

What other restrictions are there, and what is their authority? Any action that imposes any religious ideology, by any state official, is a restricted act because it violates freedom of (and from) religion. That is why the Federal court ruled the way it did. The authority to restrict such acts comes from the state's responsibility to protect our rights from violation by other citizens, and from the federal government's responsibility to protect our rights from violation by state governments.

On Absolute Rights...
Our rights cannot be violated. The only time our rights can restricted is for the protection of other's rights. For example, the state will not prosecute the killing of a violent offender if that killing was committed as an act of self-defense. This is a fact of life that we must simply accept...sometimes rights conflict. That is when a judge steps in and decides who's rights are preserved.

But there is never a time when a well known and accepted right is restricted for any reason other than the protection of another's rights. That simply doesn't happen. The courts do not allow such laws to stand.
If we do not clearly define what powers the government has (whether State or Federal) what is to prevent them from simply expanding their power as they wish? You are confusing your parts of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not delegate or define powers. It is the Articles of the Constitution that delegates powers, and those powers *have* been clearly defined. The Bill Of Rights simply recognizes certain rights that already exist, and reiterates restrictions that already exist. These rights and restrictions exist as part of the nature of a Republic.

It is the very nature of a Republic that a power to infringe upon a right of the citizens would *never* be delegated to the government. That is why all such laws, and any such action taken by government officials, are patently unconstitutional. All rights are recognized and protected against all forms of infringement.

[CZ52GUY]

Is America a Christian Nation?
America is a nation whose population is largely Christian

From the CIA World Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People
Religions:
Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

I don't believe this thread is about whether or not we are a Christian nation, but rather whether the 1st Amendment as written supports the determination made in the Alabama Monument case. 84% certainly seems to qualify as a clear majority based on my math.

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Thomas Jefferson

...nor does it establish a religion if stated verbally by a government official or a written equivalent is displayed on public property.
CZ52

The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

What about the Declaration of Independence?

We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.


The Declaration invokes the authority of these self-evident truths...a common Creator, but that is not relevant to whether a Constitutional
violation of the 1st as quoted occurred in Alabama.


The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

While only relevant based on historical context, I invite you to peruse the quotes attributed to Jefferson here...http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/QuotesByCat!ReadForm&Count=1000&RestrictToCategory=God they do not conclusively support the claim that he was an Evangelical (as some claim) or one opposed to Christianity as you assert.


What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?

This thread is not about whether the United States should return to Christian roots, rather whether the 1st Amendment prohibits a public display of the Ten Commandments by an elected Judge in Alabama. 86% of Americans in the data provided by the CIA factbook identify with a religion that values the ethical and moral code of conduct the Ten articulate. That provides some validity to the argument that Justice Moore's selection of the Ten is consistent with content that would be appreciated by the majority of the citizens of Alabama. It did not establish any religion or I suspect, alter the CIA demographic statistic in any way.


Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.

Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.



They did not prevent the Congregational Church from being established in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and the supposed Deist Jefferson did not rush to have the Attorney General file suit on behalf of the Danbury Baptists to alter their circumstances...based on the 1st...did he?

If the Declaration of Independence does not carry the weight of law, certainly you are not arguing that the Danbury Baptist letter does?

To answer your question, Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution? The correct answer is, NO.


What does "separation of church and state" mean?
Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

I'd invite those reading this thread to review both the correspondence from and to the Danbury Baptists to see if they agree with your conclusions, both about whether the letter supports a prohibition on the Alabama Monument in any way (I don't see where the correspondence ever was codified into law...other than bogus case law)....and whether this was written by a man who was truly a Deist. Either he was being disengenous about his religiousl beliefs (which calls into question the character of the man and the remaining content of the response) or a he truly shared some common ground with them...which makes the manipulative interpretation of the 1st by those who cite this letter even more fraudulent.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=82

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602

I invite readers to peruse this decision to see if they concur that it is "defining" on the subject of Church and State separation. The issue of School Vouchers (which results in the same net circumstance...public money available for educational services provided by a religious insitituion) was fairly recently interpreted in a far different manner.

I offer the following as refutation http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/

What about majority rule?
America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.

Individual right to Free Exercise without the Establishment of a Federal Government religion is what the 1st guarantees.

PROMOTION of religion is not prohibited by the 1st, ESTABLISHMENT by Congressional legislation is.

While you are entitled to your opinion as to whether Moore followed the "wisest policy", there is no Constitutional basis for prohibiting it.

Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?
No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.

To answer your question, yes, it is hostile to religion. It in fact establishes a de-facto religion of Athiesm as the preferred belief system...that being contrary to the 1st as it actually reads.

Removing religious symbols from Public places based on the 1st is not supported by any historical context. If the Congregational Church was allowed to retain its status as official religion in Massachusetts and Connecticut after the notification to that "Deist" Jefferson (who should have been motivated to supply a remedy to that "prohibited activity within the 1st"), certainly Moore's public display of the Ten does not qualify if you are able to actually read and comprehend the content of the 1st.

Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.

Thankfully, the U.S.S.R. and its oppressive regime is no more.

I think you mean, one nation under Allah.

America took the course that the Government not intefere with religion, but instead, guarantee the Free Exercise thereof. Now it is interfering in violation of the 1st.

"Neutrality" by illegal prohibition harms everyone, and nullifies the very freedom the 1st should be guaranteeing.


The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?
Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.


Actually, ratifying the BOR obiligated the states to observe the contents thereof. For what the 14th Actually says, as opposed to the paraphrase offered, read here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

The relevant text regarding equal protection is as follows:
"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."

This does not nullify the 1st, it's prohibition on actual Establishment and guarantee of Free Exercise remains. No state constitution was invalidated by these words. Again, the abuse of the English language is required to arrive at the conclusions offered.


What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"
The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

This is not relevant as to whether a Alabama Judge violated the 1st in any way, shape or form...which was the Constitutional grounds the Federal judge cited.

What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"
The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

The truth about One nation under God...

Worried that orations used by "godless communists" sound similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, religious leaders lobby lawmakers to insert the words "under God" into the pledge. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fearing an atomic war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, joins the chorus to put God into the pledge. Congress does what he asks, and the revised pledge reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Source: The Associated Press and Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.

As provided by CNN.COM

...and endorsed by a lawyer and Democrat running for President.
http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0626b-pr.html


Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?
Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.


I don't believe anyone would contest that all American law is traced to the Ten Commandments...it is irrational to suggest that a culture that was formed from a largely Christian population whose residents retain an overwhelming identification with Christian religions (according to the CIA factbook) did so without the Ten and Levitical Law having a relevant influence.

That is the motivation for selection of that content Moore claims...he did not establish a religion for the residents of Alabama (although the 1st would not have prohibited Alabama from pursuing that route), or keep anyone from exercising their Free Exercise rights.


Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.

Actually, Jefferson indicated that a Creator endowed us with inalienable rights.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Thomas Jefferson

As quoted from...
http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/QuotesByCat!ReadForm&Count=1000&RestrictToCategory=God

Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?
Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

There is no objective evidence that either of the "objectionable demographic entities" you reference are pursuing an agenda that imposes a morality that on anyone. As I see it, those demographic elements have as much right to participate in the political process as anyone, and their activities are no more legal or illegal based on their demographic allocation than the other groups you reference.

The question of Constitutionality should be based soley upon whether the Constitution has relevance to the case, either by enforcing a prohibition that it actually contains, or guaranteeing a freedom that it includes. If neither test is met, manipulating it for "the public good" is an illegal act worthy of punishment, not praise.

CZ52'

[TearsOfRage]

Somebody needs to start gathering donations.

When you get enough money, commission a statue of the Lady - pentacle, wand, moons and all - standing next to the Green Man - antlers sprouting out of his forehead, chalice, spear, all the goodies - on a big marble pedestal. Across the bottom of the pedestal, in fancy rune-inspired letters:
AN IT HARM NONE, DO AS YE WILL.

Plonk it right down in that Alabama courthouse, snuggled up next to the Ten Commandments.

Then sit back and see if the people who defend the right of this judge to have his display in a building owned by the public, will defend this display with the same fervor and passion.

LawDog


Wow, LawDog and I agree on something! :what:

Seriously though, raising the money wouldn't be a problem, but an ordinary citizen can't just go and set up a statue in a govt. building without permission. We'd have to find a sympathetic official. Hmmm.

[Intune]

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Alabama's associate Supreme Court justices ordered the Ten Commandments monument removed from the rotunda of the state judicial building Thursday, despite Chief Justice Roy Moore's fiery defense of his 5,300-pound granite marker.

As supporters prayed on the building's steps, Moore criticized his colleagues' decision and said the federal judge who had ordered the monument moved had put himself "above God."

The monument was still in the building's rotunda early Thursday evening, and court officials did not say when or where it would be moved.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, who had ruled the monument's placement violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine, has said it could be moved to a private place still within the building. He had threatened $5,000-a-day fines if Moore left the monument in the public rotunda.

Moore installed the monument two years ago and contends it represents the moral foundation of American law.

"Not only did Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God as well," Moore told his supporters Thursday.

The chief justice had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the removal order, but the court rejected it Wednesday. Moore said Thursday he would file a formal appeal with the high court soon "to defend our constitutional right to acknowledge God."

"I cannot forsake my conscience," he said.

His supporters, meanwhile, promised to block any effort to remove the monument.

"We will kneel at the doors. We will prevent forklifts or trucks from coming in," said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, which is organizing around-the-clock demonstrations.

Moore's eight colleagues on the state Supreme Court intervened after Thompson's midnight deadline for removing the monument passed and the monument remained. In ordering the monument moved, the justices said they were "bound by solemn oath to follow the law."

Justice Gorman Houston said all eight instructed the building manager to "take all steps necessary to comply" with the removal order.

Attorney General Bill Pryor filed a notice with the federal district court after the justices' issued their order and said he believed that would remove any risk of fines.

Taxpayers "should not be punished for the refusal of the chief justice to follow a federal court order," he said.

A partition was put in front of the monument early Thursday but was removed after about three hours. Houston said the building manager may have erected it to comply with the order.

In his speech Thursday, Moore said he was "disappointed with my colleagues" and lashed out at "this so-called rule of law" that they cited. He said such blind obedience would have allowed slavery to continue.

Richard Hahnemann of Huntsville, the monument's sculptor, said he expects voters to remember what the justices did come election day.

"They have their opinion. Justice Moore was elected by the people to do what he did," Hahnemann said.

Richard Cohen, an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center _ which sued along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State _ praised the eight justices.

"Their courageous actions reflect that Justice Moore is a disgrace to the bench and ought to resign or be removed from office," Cohen said.

Still, protesters outside the building said they were willing to stand in the Alabama heat and risk arrest for days or weeks to keep the monument inside. Twenty-one were arrested Wednesday night on trespassing charges for refusing to leave the monument when the building was closing.

Stephen Hopkins, pastor of Burnet Bible Church in Burnet, Texas, was one of those arrested. He said he was willing to be arrested even though he has 10 children.

"This is a great hypocrisy," Hopkins said. "This is an assault on God. They're saying we're going to cover up God."




Intune: There, the STATE court ruled. Does anyone still think Moore did this because of the laws incorped into the system? BAH!

[CZ52GUY]

...when a Federal Judge uses the same technique (adding language that the 2nd does not include) to direct that you bring your firearms to the nearest police station for confiscation...

Think about it...

Moore's alleged motives are irrelevant to whether an appropriate ruling based on the actual language of the 1st has been made.

Be careful what you wish for...Sarah Brady and her gang are wishing for similar decisions...

CZ52'

[Intune]

84% certainly seems to qualify as a clear majority based on my math.

Our Founding Fathers were wise in that they forged documents to protect the 16% minority. Or the 1%. The majority could take care of themselves. They had seen firsthand the tyranny and oppression that state mandated religion brings.

My “there is always prayer” remark was meant that I believe the rule of law would go against Moore and his supporters, prayer was the only recourse. I apologize wholeheartedly to any who were offended. No one should feel lessoned or wrong when entering the halls of justice across this land. If those tablets are “right” anyone who believes differently has got to be “wrong.”

I see where you are coming from as far as the fed judge intervening. He should have left it in the hands of the state.

My apologies again to my board brethren who took offense.

[CZ52GUY]

Our Founding Fathers were wise in that they forged documents to protect the 16% minority. Or the 1%. The majority could take care of themselves. They had seen firsthand the tyranny and oppression that state mandated religion brings.

My 84% statistic was in response to an assertion that America is not a Christian nation. By objective statistical evidence, it is.

I respectfully but vehemently disagree. The FF forged documents that protected 100% equally. I dispute the assertion that the minority is worthy of or is allocated special treatment, regardless of the issue, regardless of the particular demographic that happens to be in the minority for any given topic. Membership in a majority demographic does not nor should it allocate to you lesser rights...that is a myth perpetuated by the political Left. "All men are Created equal was the foundation". I wish the ideal had been applied from the beginning...it seems like we're still working to achieve it...taking backward steps recently...I still have some hope for the future.

They had seen the tyranny that the Church of England acting as a proxy for George III had brought. That is why the 1st contains wording that prohibits Congress from replicating that mistake in the USA. They also guaranteed Free Exercise. They did not guarantee that minority entities for any topic, including religion would enjoy a privileged status where the Federal Judiciary would manipulate the Constitution beyond recognition to ensure that their point of view was imposed upon the majority...which is what occurred in this case.

My “there is always prayer” remark was meant that I believe the rule of law would go against Moore and his supporters, prayer was the only recourse. I apologize wholeheartedly to any who were offended. No one should feel lessoned or wrong when entering the halls of justice across this land. If those tablets are “right” anyone who believes differently has got to be “wrong.”

I suspected that no offense was intended. None was taken.

There is no Constitutional guarantee that you will feel not "lessoned or wronged" when entering the halls of justice. Our prisons are full of individuals who feel like they were "lessoned or wronged" within the halls of justice. More recently, there are victims that feel that way.

We are all "lessoned and wronged" when the Federal Judiciary manipulates the law "for the public good" as opposed to enforcing it as written. Some argue that Moore did so when he placed the statue in the Rotunda. I argue the Federal Judge did so when he/she referenced a non-existent prohibition within the 1st.

I see where you are coming from as far as the fed judge intervening. He should have left it in the hands of the state.

Which really prompts scrutiny of the associate justices more than the Chief Justice. He had the courage to defend his convictions...the associates required prompting based on a bogus Federal decision. If they believed that Moore had exceeded the powers of his office, they had Constitutional authority within the STATE Constitution to act. By leaning on a bogus decision, they provide "legitimacy" to it.

So when a similar Judge is handpicked by Chucky S. to deal the final death blow to the 2nd by pursuing the same course of action, I hope those of you who are excessively issue oriented and personality cult afflicted will look back on this day and see how one more cog in the defenses of the 2nd were weakened.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

BTW, I'm sure that your board brethren gave you the same benefit of the doubt that I did...I think all of us can become careless in our tone in the heat of a worthwhile debate...which I believe this has been.

[grampster]

I've read a lot of the posts and skipped a lot. But I'm with 2dogs on this one, and with whoever it was on another post of similar nature who said quote:"what's the problem with "under God" in the pledge, I'm an atheist and I just didn't say the words." End of quote.

As long as the State does not force me to ascribe to some sect or religious belief in order to seek justice and to expect a modicum of it, what's the problem with ignoring what you can't stomach regarding good advice. Regarding expecting justice, convince me that justice has always been served at all times no matter what the issue.

Regarding Tyme's opinions regarding this particular situation, it seems to me that to follow his reasoning one would have to be an atheist in order to be a judge. But, that of course brings up the same problem from another angle. How could that judge impart a moral or ethical decision in the interest of justice? There can be no ethics or morals that are timeless with an atheist (no offense) because there are no timeless truths to base those kinds of decisions upon as humanists (atheists) have a revolving set of morals or ethics based on whatever is in vogue at the moment. (again, no offense, just my opinion) This is called "situational ethics" and is the darling of the left and those who have no grounding in timeless truth.

IMHO there is no justice unless we have just laws and laws need to be based upon some timeless truth. As long as that truth seems to be good advice, what is the problem? The first two Commandments might be hard for a good atheist to swallow, but the other eight seem to be good advice for a peaceful life for any human being of any stripe. Eight out of ten ain't bad, disregard the first two if you will. what harm is in that?

grampster

[Intune]

There is no Constitutional guarantee that you will feel not "lessoned or wronged" when entering the halls of justice. Our prisons are full of individuals who feel like they were "lessoned or wronged" within the halls of justice. More recently, there are victims that feel that way.

They might have felt that way due to the machinations of justice; they should not be made to feel that way because of a governmentally sanctioned religious monument. If the judge had his great grandpappy’s Klan robe on a rotating dais with stage lighting because he felt the Klan performed a great good during the states formative years would that be ok?

Let’s suppose that Moore defies the State of Alabama Supreme Court. Is he still in the right? If he performed a prayer before proceedings and found a prisoner in contempt for not bowing his head, is he in the right? A three-foot cross on the bench, defendant and prosecutor tables. One on the witness stand and jury box just to let everyone know “God’s will and law abide within these hallowed halls.” Where does it stop?

[Quartus]

CZ, I think you are veering from the point of law here. It's not about a majority or a minority, it's not even about a treaty with an Islamic nation. (Never should have been signed, though.)

In fact, the only connection this has with Christianity is the historical roots of our legal system. Your point about Moore's motivations being irrelevant is right on target.

But the point of LAW is that the 1A has been twisted to mean something that it does not say, and that cannot be shown to have been the intent of the FF. And a Federal judge is using that judicial REVISION of the Constitution to meddle in something over which he has no authority.

Lawdog, this is a long thread, so it's not surprising that you missed that your argument was answered a long time back. Briefly, here it is:

The statue you propose would not be a violation of the 1A. I would object just as strongly to a Federal judge ordering it removed. It would ALSO be inappropriate, as it has no historical connection to our legal system, but I'd keep my objections at the state leve.


For the sake of illustration, let's get it away from the emotional connection with Christianity. Suppose that Massachusetts erected a monument that depicted (translated, of course) some writings from the ancient Indian tribe of the Taxahatchetts. If historical writings of the day showed that the religious writings of the Taxahatchetts were a profound influence on the political philosophy of the framers of the Massachusetts constitution and laws, the display of a portion of those writings (or even all of them) would not violate the 1A and would be perfectly appropriate.


(And I doubt the ACLU would sue over them.)


But if they can twist the 1A this way, they can twist the 2A any way they want, too.

[Intune]

And if those writings happened to be ten in number and that number was ten (oops, sorry, Monty Pythonin’ for a sec) ;)

1. Thou shall have no other gods but the Great Spirit. ALL other gods are false.

2. Kill thy neighbor & rape and pillage his land. Fill his women with seed.

I shan’t go on because it will show my true dark side. :rolleyes: But you get my point. Q, you & CZ may not holler & complain but I guarandarntee ya that the howling in protest would reach a screeching crescendo in record speed. “You took little Chad on a field trip where?? And he read that???”

Religion is a real touchy subject. Nawwwww Yep.

[CZ52GUY]

They might have felt that way due to the machinations of justice; they should not be made to feel that way because of a governmentally sanctioned religious monument. If the judge had his great grandpappy’s Klan robe on a rotating dais with stage lighting because he felt the Klan performed a great good during the states formative years would that be ok?

Many would protest that symbol as have protested the symbol of the Confederate Flag, but what is right in your eyes and mine vs. what the Constitution actually says is the question. To invoke the legal authority of the Constitution one must of a rational basis within the Constitution for doing so. This was not met by the Federal judge, nor do I see how it would be applied in your hypothetical.

Let’s suppose that Moore defies the State of Alabama Supreme Court. Is he still in the right? If he performed a prayer before proceedings and found a prisoner in contempt for not bowing his head, is he in the right? A three-foot cross on the bench, defendant and prosecutor tables. One on the witness stand and jury box just to let everyone know “God’s will and law abide within these hallowed halls.” Where does it stop?

You put forward hypotheticals that are not germane to the merits of the case in question.

However, since the United States Senate is led in a prayer each day, I would allocate the same right to any jurist anywhere who would choose to do so whether his prayer be directed to Jesus, Yahwe, Budda, or Allah, or any other deity or grouping of deities or even Satan if he/she so chose. There is no Constitutional prohibition against it.

Whether it be Cross or Crescent or Star of David or statue of Budda, or Pentagram there is no Constitutional prohibition that applies based on the actual wording of the 1st.

As to Judicial abuses related to "finding in contempt", I think you will find failure to respectfully bow ones head in prayer would likely be outside the reasonable bounds of Judicial conduct with recourse found through that governance model as opposed to invoking non-existent language within the 1st...you could argue the 8th perhaps with a clever enough suit doing the talking
;)

Where does it stop? Where the 1st says it does, with the actual ESTABLISHMENT of a religion or an infringement on Free Exercise...because that's where the 1st says so.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

I stand wrongfully accused of "veering" :neener:

Actually, I submit that out of courtesy, I pursued courses of discussion which are not central to the original topic of the post...I'd say "sue me", but you'd probably win, and I have no assets to pay the settlement ;) .

"But if they can twist the 1A this way, they can twist the 2A any way they want, too."
Quartus

That is the essential point to be made, without question. Hatred of religion is no excuse for the supposed defenders of the 2nd to become complicit with those who would use the very same technique to obliterate our Constiutional rights.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

I shan’t go on because it will show my true dark side. But you get my point. Q, you & CZ may not holler & complain but I guarandarntee ya that the howling in protest would reach a screeching crescendo in record speed. “You took little Chad on a field trip where?? And he read that???”

Religion is a real touchy subject. Nawwwww Yep.


There is nothing wrong with howling in protest. I recall that several colonists howled quite a bit and then, dare I say it, defied the "rule of law" based on...what was that, a "higher law"...being that a CREATOR endowed men with inalienable rights that a tyrant sought to suppress and that it was legitimate to oppose that tyranny to the point of rebellion.

The "rule of law" is only valuable to a society when the rules are made according to the laws as written.

In this case it wasn't, and take some cover, cause the same ordinance is being directed at the 2nd.

Good night gentleman...and any ladies who may also be participating.

CZ52'

[Intune]

But they are germane my friend.
To wit:

Legislative prayer
The Supreme Court in its 1983 decision Marsh v. Chambers again abandoned modern establishment-clause tests when it found the practice of legislative prayer constitutional based on historical usage. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that as early as 1774 the Continental Congress opened its sessions with prayer by a paid chaplain. He also noted, “Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clause did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.”

Although the Supreme Court declined to review a 1991 case involving a North Carolina judge’s practice of beginning court sessions with a prayer, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the practice unconstitutional in North Carolina Civil Liberties Union Legal Foundation v. Constangy. Finding that ceremonial deism did not apply to the judge’s prayer, which began, “O Lord, our God, our Father in Heaven, we pray this morning that you will place your divine guiding hand on this courtroom,” the 4th Circuit distinguished this practice from legislative prayer in Marsh, saying, “The opinion in Marsh clearly focuses on legislative prayer and its ‘unique history'" and that “there is no similar long-standing tradition of opening courts with prayer.” The Supreme Court declined to review the decision.


The Supreme Court repeatedly has used ceremonial deism to uphold certain practices challenged under the establishment clause (e.g., our national motto “In God We Trust,” legislative prayer, and the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance), but some legal scholars like Steven Epstein question whether mere historical usage can truly continue to validate these practices. “The year is 2096,” Epstein writes. “Muslims now comprise seventy percent of the American population, while Christians and Jews comprise only twenty-five percent collectively. Elementary school students in most public school systems begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance in which they dutifully recite that America is one nation ‘under Allah;’ our national currency — both coins and paper — contains the inscription codified as our national motto, ‘In Allah We Trust’… .” Epstein queries, “Would the average Christian or Jew seriously contend that this America of 2096 would not make them feel like outsiders in their own country? How then can Christians and Jews reconcile this feeling of exclusion with approval of a state of affairs … in which non-Christians, non-Jews, and non-religionists have no constitutional basis for attacking ‘ceremonial’ Christian or Judeo-Christian forms of government expression? More to the point, how can the Supreme Court continue to countenance these practices?” Whatever the answer, it does not appear the Supreme Court will abandon the concept of ceremonial deism anytime soon, as discussed above.


The FFs were a mostly religious bunch. Do any of you here think it was an accident that the words Creator, Supreme Being or God are used but not the words Jesus Christ? Oversight? I think not. ALL the PEOPLE

[Fair 'n Square]

A few years ago my wife and I went the Washington D.C. area. I remember standing in the Jefferson Memorial and looking at the pillars (or whatever they're called-I'm having a senior moment) surrounding his statue with some of his writings inscribed thereon. I remember being astonished as I read one after the other. I can't remember any that didn't make reference to a Supreme Being (call him what you will). Jefferson certainly did not hesitate to recognize where rights and blessings originate. I think Jefferson himself would be appalled at the use some are making of his "separation of Church and State" phrase.

We don't need a new amentment to the Constitution. We just need people in government who can read the Constitution, and who do not twist it into a meaningless nothingness.

[Fair 'n Square]

Pardon the words I left out of my first sentence... Another senior moment!

[jimpeel]

“O Lord, our God, our Father in Heaven, we pray this morning that you will place your divine guiding hand on this courtroom,” the 4th Circuit distinguished this practice from legislative prayer in Marsh, saying, “The opinion in Marsh clearly focuses on legislative prayer and its ‘unique history'" and that “there is no similar long-standing tradition of opening courts with prayer.” The Supreme Court declined to review the decision.
And we're not about to let that tradition start, either. Even the legislative prayer had a starting point upon which to base its "‘unique history" and "long-standing tradition". Every tradition has its starting point as reflected by the "First Annual <insert event name>" implies there will be a "Second Annual <insert event name>".

[2dogs]

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments."

– James Madison

[2dogs]

I hesitated to post the following, mainly because I didn't want anyone here thinking that I am ENDORSING this man's opinion. The fellow however is making an interesting point (albeit from the safety of his keyboard in Kalifornia- and I don't see him volunteering to lead the charge). I think it is interesting because I've wondered at what point the destruction of the Bill of Rights will be a spark. We always talk about the 2nd amendment and how if they come for the guns, that's it- well who says it will be the 2nd Amendment that brings this on? As has been seen in this thread religion is probably at least as much of a hot button as guns.

What do you think?

----------------------------------






PATRIOTS, GRAB YOUR HOSES
IN ALABAMA, TREE OF LIBERTY NEEDS WATERING

By: Rich Smith

The good but tragically naive Americans gathered this very moment at the Alabama Supreme Court building in Montgomery to prevent authorities from seizing Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments monument are going about this all wrong.




Their plan – articulated by the Alabama chapter of the Christian Coalition – is to engage in peaceful civil disobedience should police or National Guardsmen show up to enforce the order of a federal judge who’d given the defiant Moore until late Wednesday afternoon to voluntarily remove the stonework, which occupies a very public place in the courthouse and is therefore horrifically offensive to the "enlightened" minds of leftists. (Moore courageously said he has no intention of complying with the federal court order, not even after his attempts to quash it were rejected by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a lone liberal justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.)

The brand of civil disobedience contemplated by the Christian Coalition entails having a knot of First Amendment defenders interfere with removal efforts by kneeling around the monument and bowing their heads in prayer.

This is essentially the same strategy employed years back by pro-lifers on the sidewalks in front of abortion mills in the hope of disrupting the grisly machinery of the baby-killing industry. But you’ll recall the abortion mills pretty much continued to operate as always, their "output" unimpeded by the assembled petitioners to the Almighty. That’s because, when pro-lifers attempted to blockade access to the abortion mills in that peaceful, non-violent manner, the cops simply swooped in, cuffed the protesters and dragged them away to nearby waiting paddy wagons.

The very same thing will occur in Montgomery when the anti-Constitutionalists tell their guys with badges to go grab the Ten Commandments monument.

And, consequently, the monument – a harmless little tribute to the ultimate source of American law – will be removed (if it hasn’t been already by the time you read this).

The First Amendment faithful might as well be driving the forklift themselves, for all the good their save-the-monument strategy will do.

Were I the one in charge of organizing a defense, I wouldn’t have started by asking what the Sierra Club would do. I would have asked what the Founding Fathers would do, they having taken the step of asking what Jesus would do. Remember Him? Jesus – the peace-promoting guy who violently overturned the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple courtyard and beat the living daylights out of the government goons running that obnoxious little racket.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and nearly all the others were men who knew the Holy Scriptures as thoroughly as a lot of people today know this week’s Lotto and Powerball jackpot odds. And one of the conclusions those deeply religious 18th Century fellows drew from their intensive, life-long study of the Bible was that opposition to tyranny required not just prayer but physical resistance in the form of countervailing force.

Think about it. Had the Founding Fathers sought to attain freedom by doing nothing more than kneeling outside the tax collector’s door, we’d still be subjects of the British crown and using pound-sterling to buy stuff at the mall.

I don’t need to tell you what the Founding Fathers did to secure the rights that flow to us from God and God alone. You know exactly what they did. It’s what the patriots marshaled in Alabama today now must do if they truly desire to stop tyranny-by-judicial-fiat dead in its tracks.

To borrow from the immortal words of Jefferson, the tree of liberty is right now very, very thirsty. The defenders of the Ten Commandments monument should be brandishing hoses of the sort capable of furnishing for that tree the peculiar liquid nutrient it so desperately craves.




http://www.etherzone.com/2003/rsmit082203.shtml

[CZ52GUY]

Legislative prayer
The Supreme Court in its 1983 decision Marsh v. Chambers again abandoned modern establishment-clause tests when it found the practice of legislative prayer constitutional based on historical usage. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that as early as 1774 the Continental Congress opened its sessions with prayer by a paid chaplain. He also noted, “Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clause did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.”

Either the 1st prohibits it or it does not. The citing of tradition is bogus, even by Burger.


Although the Supreme Court declined to review a 1991 case involving a North Carolina judge’s practice of beginning court sessions with a prayer, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the practice unconstitutional in North Carolina Civil Liberties Union Legal Foundation v. Constangy. Finding that ceremonial deism did not apply to the judge’s prayer, which began, “O Lord, our God, our Father in Heaven, we pray this morning that you will place your divine guiding hand on this courtroom,” the 4th Circuit distinguished this practice from legislative prayer in Marsh, saying, “The opinion in Marsh clearly focuses on legislative prayer and its ‘unique history'" and that “there is no similar long-standing tradition of opening courts with prayer.” The Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

Either the 1st prohibits it or it does not. Either the limits on Feder Judiciary power grabbing to make themselves an appointed legislative body without the intended balances of the separations of power between those branches are real, or they are not. Either the Federal Government is limited to discrete powers, or they are limitless.

This isn't about advocation of religion vs. seeking to squelch it. The Soviets couldn't squelch religion, and they tried mightily. Communist China has tried their best, yet religion continues to thrive...perhaps more so because of the persecution. Religious belief is something that is internally held with no opportunity for Government interference. Religious practice, free exercise, is something that occurs publicly and for those that practice a religion with devotion (regardless of the brand name), it is a 24/7/365 until their physical existence ends. Many believe that it continues its existence in a spiritual realm thereafter.

The 1st guarantees Free Exercise. Free Exercise is not something that the 1st, or any other part of the Constitution, grants the Federal Government, INCLUDING THE JUDICIARY, the write to freely infringe upon at the whim of anyone.

This is a discussion about the correct application of the rule of law as written. When the rule of law is manipulated, THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.

That manipulation is what drove the FF to rebel. Over time we'll see how many Patriots are around in the 21st century to beat back the tyrannical threats that are upon us. Not just on this topic, but against the broader premise of the Federal Judiciary allocating to itself extra-Constitutional powers.

The Supreme Court repeatedly has used ceremonial deism to uphold certain practices challenged under the establishment clause (e.g., our national motto “In God We Trust,” legislative prayer, and the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance), but some legal scholars like Steven Epstein question whether mere historical usage can truly continue to validate these practices. “The year is 2096,” Epstein writes. “Muslims now comprise seventy percent of the American population, while Christians and Jews comprise only twenty-five percent collectively. Elementary school students in most public school systems begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance in which they dutifully recite that America is one nation ‘under Allah;’ our national currency — both coins and paper — contains the inscription codified as our national motto, ‘In Allah We Trust’… .” Epstein queries, “Would the average Christian or Jew seriously contend that this America of 2096 would not make them feel like outsiders in their own country? How then can Christians and Jews reconcile this feeling of exclusion with approval of a state of affairs … in which non-Christians, non-Jews, and non-religionists have no constitutional basis for attacking ‘ceremonial’ Christian or Judeo-Christian forms of government expression? More to the point, how can the Supreme Court continue to countenance these practices?” Whatever the answer, it does not appear the Supreme Court will abandon the concept of ceremonial deism anytime soon, as discussed above.

I have news for you, if in the year 2096, the majority population of the USA is 70% Muslim, you will likely see a true Theocracy. For those who have an overwhelming hatred of the specific religion of Christianity, and believe any mention of it in the public square creates a Theocratic system, I invite you to scrutinize Iran, Saudi Arabia, the rule of the Church of Rome during the inquisition...there you will find the difference between truly authoritarian Theocratic rule, and what we've experienced in the United States.

Patriots have a choice to make, either support the rule of law or support the manipulation thereof. If you take the shortcut route of supporting manipulation for its near term benefits because you hate religion, more specifically...the Judeo-Christian heritage that has long been part of the public landscape in the United States since its founding, then you risk the integrity of the system that was designed to provide a vehicle to keep us all free and equal before the Creator who endowed us our inalienable rights.

The FFs were a mostly religious bunch. Do any of you here think it was an accident that the words Creator, Supreme Being or God are used but not the words Jesus Christ? Oversight? I think not. ALL the PEOPLE

The FF writings and speeches are filled with references to a supreme being who is indistinguishable from the deity described within the Christian religion, regardless of flavor of Christianity.

The CIA Factbook says that in 1989, 86% of Americans identified themselves as either Protestant, Catholic, or Jew.

Can you seriously suggest that at the time of the FF, a much more homogeneous society, that the demographics were AT LEAST as high for the Judeo-Christian combination referenced, if not MUCH HIGHER?

To deny the context of the belief system practiced by our FF is to deny reality. One does not have to embrace it for their personal belief system, but when seeking historical context to give credibility to any "interpretation" of the 1st, one has to be daft not to recognize that the political-social-religious priorities of the day would be inconsistent with the modern manipulation of the plain English wording of the 1st.

This is about integrity.

This is about the rule of law as actually written.

This is about acknowledging reality.

This is not about advocacy.

The Judiciary has no business playing in that field.

Again, the 2nd and all of the remainder of our freedoms is threatened when hatred of religion or one religion blinds one from the collateral impact it will have.

I direct this not to Intune directly, but communicate as a general assertion:

The anti's use THIS SAME METHOD to manipulate the 2nd. You become what you despise if you advocate that method in this instance...and you embolden the anti's and their tyrants in robes allies when you take the path of convenience as opposed to principle.

CZ52'

[Intune]

Hatred of religion is no excuse for the supposed defenders of the 2nd to become complicit with those who would use the very same technique to obliterate our Constiutional rights

Right up there with the atheist=drivel crack. Visene helps with those eye-logs! ;) Beware that broad brush, it often splatters the wielders shoulders with chips.

One must ask self if they would AS VOLUBLY support a Druid’s right to do the exact same thing in a court or public school without any caveats (history, majority, etc.) and not feel a tiny niggling twinge of hesitancy, which possibly indicates an agenda. Not a negative, just something to be aware of.

One of my brothers is a preacher for the Church of the Nazarene. We’ve discussed religion once or twice. :rolleyes: He’s also an attorney. :evil: He somehow balances the two. :uhoh:

[CZ52GUY]

Again,

In my haste I fail to as carefully as I would like distinguish between your comments in general, and to assert the dangers of a demographic pursuing a course of action. I edited my post before reading your comments.

What I'm saying, is that if 2nd Amendment supporters who are concurrently considering the merits of the Alabama, must consider ALL the ramifications.

Those that hate religion brought this suit. Those that are likeminded who claim advocacy for the 2nd have a choice to make. Either their hatred of religion or their love of freedom.

For those that are on the fence as to the Alabama case who claim to support the 2nd, I assert that your personal belief system regarding religion or it's place in public life in the USA is immaterial to your evaluation of the substantive aspects of the case.

Non-existent prohibitions within the 1st were cited.

The Rule of Law was violated by the Federal Judiciary.

That same method is embraced by the anti's to usurp the 2nd.

If one supports extra-Constitutional intervention by the Federal Judiciary as a tool of convenience, one invites its use by others.

That's what I was attempting to say.

I stand by the substance of my earlier post. I apologize if you took it as a personal attack, that was not my intent.

If anyone identifies with a Rule of Law by convenience rather than by actual contents of statute, than I have a quarrel with them, regardless of the topic, and regardless of how my personal circumstances may or may not benefit. I see beyond that, and challenge my board brethren to do the same.

Regards,

CZ52'

[Intune]

I have news for you, if in the year 2096, the majority population of the USA is 70% Muslim, you will likely see a true Theocracy. For those who have an overwhelming hatred of the specific religion of Christianity, and believe any mention of it in the public square creates a Theocratic system, I invite you to scrutinize Iran, Saudi Arabia, the rule of the Church of Rome during the inquisition...there you will find the difference between truly authoritarian Theocratic rule, and what we've experienced in the United States.

NO! Because we won’t have opened the door for it with cases like Moore’s. This is EXACTLY the point I’m trying to make! One of the FFs said something akin to the fact that the churches actually do themselves a disservice by aligning with government because if the majority ever shifts they could find themselves on the short end of the stick! I’ll find it if you want.

“… overwhelming hatred of the specific religion of Christianity…” Please don’t say stuff like this, it’s so far off base and insulting.

[CZ52GUY]

We may not be there yet, but the day may come...


If you look at the FF, physical resistance was used as a last resort.

As I recall, a level of organization occurred to provide some opportunity to make the physical resistance successful (while isolated incidents of early physical resistance occurred...effective resistance was executed based on solid preparation...beyond just willingness and dedication).

I would not advocate that the Alabama allies of Moore pursue physical resistance at this time. They are not organized to do that, they show little sign of being capable of putting up an effective showing.

Some day it may come to that. I pray it does not.

CZ52'

[RangerHAAF]

This is not really a question about separating church and state. I don't think that even liberals are offended by the display in the courthouse. The main rub is that someone or a group is standing up to the federal government's authority.

The letter of the constitution says that where there is no constitutional question or concern, state law prevails. This concept has generally been undermined and pushed to the side because of the perceived power and prestige of the Feds and because of their stick and carrot approach to inducing state governments to comply with federal law by withholding federal money.

For example, a lot of people don't know it but the FBI is not the begin all and end all for law enforcement in this country. Each state's elected sheriffs are the top law enforcement officials within their respective counties and parishes. The FBI is supposed to get permission to operate within each sheriffs territory. I don't know if this rule is adhered to but because there is a lot of drug money to confiscate, I really doubt it.

This just another example of the encroachment by federal authorities presuming they know what is in the best interest of the state plebeians.

[CZ52GUY]

NO! Because we won’t have opened the door for it with cases like Moore’s. This is EXACTLY the point I’m trying to make! One of the FFs said something akin to the fact that the churches actually do themselves a disservice by aligning with government because if the majority ever shifts they could find themselves on the short end of the stick! I’ll find it if you want.

Your point is irrelevant to whether the means justifies your goals.

Respectfully, but without apology, if you advocate the extra-Constitutional method employed in Alabama, you legitimize its use to obliterate the 2nd.

You continue to pursue a course of discussion based on the merits of the net result of Alabama based on the dangers of Theocratic rule. Those dangers are irrellevant to the wording of the 1st and its appropriate application in this case.


“… overwhelming hatred of the specific religion of Christianity…” Please don’t say stuff like this, it’s so far off base and insulting.

I assert that it is not off base, because within the community of supposed defenders of the 2nd, are those who are blinded by their hatred of religion, and most specifically Christianity.

It has been my experience that when push comes to shove, they are unable to put aside that hatred and will advocate a religious/Christian hostile approach, regardless of the implications to the 2nd.

I call them as I've seen them. I'm sorry you feel insulted, but that is the truth I've observed.

I challenge those with views like that to re-examine them, in a similar manner as you challenge those who are religious apologists to examine theirs.

Where I hope we can find common ground is on two points:

1) That passionate advocacy for one's point of view is admirable
2) That ones methods when pursuing that advocacy should be scrutinized carefully to see if the means involves collateral impact that is intolerable.

I submit that regardless of one's position on the appropriateness of public displays of religion, that debate should be conducted within the Rule of Law as actually written.

Some day, there may be a super majority of religious activists on the bench, I would decry that day equally as our present circumstances.

Rule of law by actual statute content is something we all benefit from.

Rule of law by manipulative political activism harms us all.

There is no "greater good" at play here.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[Intune]

I assert that it is not off base, because within the community of supposed defenders of the 2nd, are those who are blinded by their hatred of religion, and most specifically Christianity.
I trust you don't feel that way per our discussion.

Where I hope we can find common ground is on two points:
1) That passionate advocacy for one's point of view is admirable
2) That ones methods when pursuing that advocacy should be scrutinized carefully to see if the means involves collateral impact that is intolerable.
Yes! Agreed! With the caveat that such scrutiny may result in two diametrically opposed perspectives unable to concur on that which is intolerable. Such as, we agree that the feds were way off intervening on this one. However, I believe the state court has made the right decision. I think you have a somewhat different perspective.

[CZ52GUY]

I trust you don't feel that way per our discussion.

No sir, not in the full context of our discussion. However, individual statements you've made are indistinguishable from those I've encountered from those who do fit the parameters of the label. Those individual statements do not allocate to you the label you found insulting, but my responses to those individual statements from me may have made you believe I felt that way (e.g. the "drivel" comments).

Yes! Agreed! With the caveat that such scrutiny may result in two diametrically opposed perspectives unable to concur on that which is intolerable. Such as, we agree that the feds were way off intervening on this one. However, I believe the state court has made the right decision. I think you have a somewhat different perspective.

Glad to hear it.

Technically, I believe the State Court has every right to make the decision that they did. I disagree with the decision being forced under duress by the Federal Judiciary. I disagree with the merits of the objections to the "big rock" in the Federal suit.

Should the State Court have heard the arguments and arrived at an unfavorable outcome for Justice Moore based on Alabama Law, I would have been saddened, but respected the rule of law as written and equally applied.

The misapplication of the Constitution in in this instance within an abuse by the Federal Judiciary makes the "State Court decision" suspect in my mind...fruit of the poisoned federal intervention.

I support those who are defying that illegal intervention. I would not support continued obstruction of a lawful order based on legitimate legal grounds.

The Smith comments are just one of many unfortunate collateral impacts of unlawful rulings such as this one and do not bode well for the integrity of the 2nd.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[Intune]

JAMES MADISON'S MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE
AGAINST RELIGIOUS ASSESSMENTS (1785)

To the Honorable the General Assembly
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
A Memorial and Remonstrance.
We, the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian Religion," (1) and conceiving that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State, to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

5. Because the bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: The second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.




DRAFTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1)
Amendments Proposed by Rep. James Madison of Virginia (June 8, 1789)


Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clause 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

Conscience-
Date: 13th century
1 a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts


I daresay that the Ten Commandments DIRECTLY infringe on the "conscience" of ANY who follow a religion or lack thereof other than Christianity.





Amendments Reported by the House Select Committee (July 28, 1789)
In the introductory paragraph before the words, "We the people," add, "Government being intended for the benefit of the people, and the rightful establishment thereof being derived from their authority alone."
Art. 1, Sec. 2, Par. 3--Strike out all between the words, "direct" and "and until such," and instead thereof insert, "After the first enumeration there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that the number of Representatives shall never be less than one hundred, nor more than one hundred and seventy-five, but each State shall always have at least one Representative."
Art. 1, Sec. 6--Between the words "United States," and "shall in all cases," strike out "they," and insert, "But no law varying the compensation shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. The members."

Art. 1, Sec. 9--Between Par. 2 and 3 insert, "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

"The freedom of speech, and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."


Amendments Passed by the House of Representatives (Aug. 24, 1789)

ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Amendments Passed by Congress (Sept. 25, 1789)
Article the third . . . Congress 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.
Article the fourth . . . A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The Bill of Rights, as Ratified (3)
Amendment I
Congress 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.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, the way it was ratified I can see your point CZ. Hopefully, though, I've shed a little light toward intent. I never went back tthrough drafts before. Very interesting. My best to you and yours.

[CZ52GUY]

Be careful how you phrase...

I daresay that the Ten Commandments DIRECTLY infringe on the "conscience" of ANY who follow a religion or lack thereof other than Christianity.

Consumption of the words of the Ten Commandments DO NOT directly infringe on anyone's consience. We are creatures of Free Will.

Forced recitation and a requirement to communicate an allegience is coercion. Exposure to them is not.

Let me try another example on you that you may be aware of...

The State of California within its public school curriculum has chosen to include Exposure to the religion of Islam. They believe it is a useful part of exposing children as part of "multiculturalism" efforts.

I would differentiate between public school children being required to read passages from the Holy Quoran from the part of the course that required them to participate in actual Islamic rituals.

I would contend that religion SHOULD be taught in schools from an academic perspective. Ignorance about religions of various types is a missing component in many students awareness of the world around them.

That exposure is useful and not Constitutionally prohibited.

Coerced participation in the Islamic sacrements in my mind violates the Free Exercise aspects of the 1st.

I contend however, that the presence of the course within the curriculum, and academic study of Islam is not Unconstitutional. The requirement for participation does not an Established religion create, so I don't contend that a Protestant would have 1st Amendment support for claiming the prohibition clause.

What the Alabama case represents is exposure, not coercion which violates Free Exercise (which involves freedom of choice). It did not establish any religion.

I challenge you to be faithful to the actual wording of the Constitution and its plain English meaning.

If Exposure = Establishment, than anyone who practices any religion could be subject to a Soviet style requirement to worship in secret.

T-h-a-t i-s n-o-t f-r-e-e e-x-e-r-c-i-s-e. Freedom to believe is internal, freedom to practice is external/public.

There is no greater good argument that can be made Constitutionally from your arguments so far, because you fail to meet the Establishment test.

Give respect to the FF for intentionally choosing that word, E-s-t-a-b-l-i-s-h, and the criteria that the establishment be in the form of Congressional legislation which would impose a specific national religion.

Respectfully,

CZ52'

p.s. Rant warning, rant warning, rant warning.....

I've been exposed to the wording of many faiths as well as to the teachings of athiesm...I like to read. Their public display does not intimidate me and I'd never allocate to their display any importance beyond the content itself. I guess I'm too independent to see your point in that regard and lack empathy for those who do feel intimidated or offended. I have evolved a level of worth based on my own evaluation of my performance, character and values...in part based on the confidence I have that my faith gives me...I don't feel like I'm "in the fight" by myself. Because I set the bar pretty high for myself, I tend to have similar expectations of others...In my reading of the FF words, I get the sense they set fairly high expectations of those they representated, because they pledged themselves to them, to eachother...risked all for what they believed was a noble idea. I feel their noble ideas are cheapened by decisions of this type because the manipulation insults their sacrifice. We owe them something...we owe ourselves and our children more...

[Intune]

I feel their noble ideas are cheapened by decisions of this type because the manipulation insults their sacrifice. We owe them something...we owe ourselves and our children more...

And I feel that their noble ideas are cheapened by those who blatantly ignore the intent of our FF, quite clearly laid out in multiple drafts, thereby misleading ourselves, our children and others.


"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'



"nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

Our Buddhist friends in Alabama especially those REQUIRED to attend Judge Moore's court appreciate the higher Courts understanding.


On a directly related note, did anyone notice the drafts of the 2nd? Is this where the legal groundwork for being a conscientious objector originated? Interesting.

[CZ52GUY]

"nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

What part of the ratified Constitution including its Amendments contains that text?

Regardless of the fact that no infringement of conscience occurs when one is merely exposed to the tenants of a belief system which differs from ones own. Is this why books get burned? Because people fear the mere exposure to them will somehow infect their thinking? How very sad.

I've always found that exposure to alternate points of view has either:
1) Caused me to reconsider my position and perhaps modify it
2) Carefully scrutinize my position, and confirm its merits

In either instance, I've benefitted from the experience.


Where you insist on trying to take the debate where it doesn't belong, a debate about the relative merits of religion in the public square based on one's opinions rather than the merits of the case in question and the relevant 2nd Amendment tie in the original poster provided, I must bid you farewell.

I contend that you are wrong regarding the legal merits within this case...or that you may in some manner acknowledge the wrong as a mere technicality, and being satisfied with the net result, are willing to accept the means because you believe the end justifies it. That is my understanding of your position based on your posts, and your points of emphasis.

I disagree with your positions on:
1) That exposure = injury = Establishment (by 1st Amendment standards)2) That the founders intended a society which would be hostile to religious expression in the Public square
3) That public displays of religious materials (regardless of "flavor") risk the creation of a Theocratic state. Certainly the nearly 200 years of history that preceded the ban on School prayer did not create a Theocracy...a single monument in Alabama including the full contents of the Ten Commandments is unlikely to have greater effect.
4) I believe you largely ignore the dangers of the methods employed in the case which was the essential element of the original post. Extra-Constitutional activitism by the Federal Judiciary here is the true danger, not only to the 1st, and the 2nd, but to the Constitution as a whole.
5) I think that you believe that as a Protestant, I am incapable of separating the rule of law from my chosen faith. That is not true. I believe in the rule of law as written, not as imagined. My faith is not threatened by the rule of law, my free exercise thereof is threatened by the manipulation of it...similarly my RKBA is as well.

I've enjoyed participating in this thread and congratulate the original poster on his astute observations regarding the threat of Extra-Constitutional Judicial activism.

I pray that this danger can be stopped. I believe it will...regardless of the ultimate disposition of the Alabama case.

Finally, since you quoted Madison, I'd re-direct you to the letter original posted by Mr. Mahler. It is clear that Madison understood the risk and very accurately predicted the potential "collision of forces" that would occur. I have bolded the definitive context that he states having lived 42 years after the adoption of the BOR...that context being consistent with the phrasing of the 1st which was ultimately adopted.

"In 1833, just three years before his death, Madison observed in a letter to the Rev. Jasper Adams, “[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against the trespasses on its legal rights by others.”

Have a good weekend,

CZ52'

[Quartus]

Our Buddhist friends in Alabama especially those REQUIRED to attend Judge Moore's court appreciate the higher Courts understanding.


Irrelevant.

[Intune]

Irrelevant.
Sure it is. Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Atheists, Pagans… ALL including Christians outta be thanking the high court for its proper ruling.

The federal judge should not have jumped in.

Some are so secure in their beliefs that winged chariots streaking from the heavens wouldn’t faze them. Wheel a five-ton statue of Buddha through the crowd on the courthouse steps to replace the current icon & observe the pleasant reaction. If my wife went to go before a judge at the Nashville courthouse and some atheistic group had put up a statue saying “GOD IS DEAD” or “THERE IS NO GOD” she would be on the phone to me in three seconds and every Southern Baptist organization, missionary group and anyone else who would listen would be getting an earful. Also our attorney and the dreaded ACLU! The Ten Commandments are NO different. Well, it is but you know what I mean. If we don’t want atheistic symbols there we MUST forgo others.

One law, five laws, ten laws. Doesn’t matter. It’s a religious symbol. Perhaps the churches should guild monuments celebrating their incorporation into our law? Some would argue that civilizations who never came into contact with the story of the tablets had laws against murder, theft, etc. The first four Commandments are primarily Judeo-Christian tenets but the clan of the Cave Bear had to observe some of the societal confines found in a few of the other six Commandments.

CZ, in quoting Madison you have done nothing but strengthen my belief that the high court in Alabama made the right decision- …”The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever…”

Enter judge Moore and his governmentally sanctioned religious icon.

How in the world would I know that you’re a Protestant? Now that you mention it, perhaps you can’t separate the two. You don’t seem like a very happy camper regarding this ruling.

I see the dangers quite well, thank you. You are as dangerous as Moore, to me and the Constitution. No doubt. I don’t want to live under the auspices of theocratic rule just because they hold the carrot of an unfettered Second Amendment before me. No thanks.

If one is going to strap on the chaps of righteousness, please see to one small detail. Be right.

I detect a feeling of loss. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all won.

Thanks for the lively debate, keep the faith & may God bless you and yours. Be careful out there.

[Intune]

Alabama's Justice Suspended Over Monument

5 hours ago

By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Alabama's chief justice has been suspended for refusing to obey a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state judicial building.

Roy Moore was automatically suspended with pay Friday when the nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission referred an ethics complaint against him to the Court of the Judiciary, which holds trial-like proceedings and can discipline and remove judges.

Moore had no immediate comment. His spokesman, Tom Parker, said Moore's attorneys would respond to the complaint Monday. A Moore spokesman said Friday that the justice intends to formally appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ruby Crowe, an assistant clerk working with the court, said Moore will have 30 days to respond.

Moore met with the commission earlier Friday as about 100 of his supporters, several blocks away at the federal courthouse, ripped and burned a copy of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order for the monument's removal.

Moore said he told the commission that he upheld his oath of office by acknowledging God. Moore has said Thompson has no authority to tell the state's chief justice to remove the monument.

Although Moore's supporters have said they will try to prevent court officials from moving the monument, Moore's attorneys offered assurances that their client will not interfere with the removal during a conference call Friday with Thompson, two plaintiffs' attorneys who also took part in the call said.

Attorney General Bill Pryor said the public corruption and white collar crime unit in his office will handle the prosecution of Moore, who cannot perform any judicial duties while disqualified. Pryor said senior Associate Justice Gorman Houston will perform the chief justice's duties.

"I'm not happy we have to deal with these matters, but it is part of our duties and we will continue to do so," Pryor said.

Thompson ruled last year that the monument, installed by Moore in a highly visible public spot in the Alabama Judicial Building, violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine.

Thompson had ordered the monument removed by Wednesday _ the same day the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Moore's appeal for an emergency stay.

The state Supreme Court's eight associate justices, meanwhile, overruled Moore and ordered the monument out of the rotunda.

Joe Conn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which sued to remove the monument, said Moore brought the suspension on himself.

"He knew all along that state court judges cannot defy the federal courts and yet he went ahead with this anyway," Conn said.

A Moore supporter, Alabama Christian Coalition president John Giles, said the commission was "trying to take down one of America's finest."

The monument remained in the rotunda Friday as court officials discussed where in the building the 5,300-pound granite marker could be moved and given proper security.

The ethics complaint, filed by Montgomery lawyer Stephen Glassroth, now goes to the Court of the Judiciary, a panel made up of four judges, three lawyers and two non-lawyers.

Attorneys who sued to get the monument out of the rotunda, meanwhile, put their contempt filing against Moore on hold, now that state Supreme Court associate justices have agreed to move the marker.

Moore supporters have held an around-the-clock vigil since Wednesday, and said they planned to continue to prevent the monument from being moved.

On Friday, about 100 protesters moved from the steps of the judicial building to a sidewalk in front of the federal courthouse, where Thompson works. Demonstrators held a mock trial, in which Thompson was charged with breaking the law of God.

"We hold you, Judge Thompson, and the United States Supreme Court in contempt of God's law," said Flip Benham, director of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.

Ayesha Khan, an attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Thompson said he would schedule another conference call for late next week. She said plaintiffs would drop their request to hold Moore in contempt, or fine the state, if the monument is moved by then.

One of the demonstrators, retired Birmingham school teacher Murray Phillips, said she knows the monument will probably be gone from the rotunda soon.

"I'm upset, but I'm not surprised. At least I am going to be able to say to my grandchildren that at least I tried to do something," Phillips said.


Sigh...

[Quartus]

Sure it is. Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Atheists, Pagans… ALL including Christians outta be thanking the high court for its proper ruling.

What proper ruling? Inserting a twisted interpretetion of a private letter of Jefferson into the Constitution?



When the plainly written law of the land can be simply dismissed with a court decision, no liberty is safe.

[Graystar]

Alabama's Justice Suspended Over Monument WOOHOO! The rule of law has prevailed!

[TearsOfRage]

Yay!

Still, I wish I had a job where I got a paid vacation when I did something wrong.

[Intune]

What proper ruling? Inserting a twisted interpretetion of a private letter of Jefferson into the Constitution?

Twisted? From what perspective? Are the drafts daft? Query a constitutional scholar. Should I translate in French or Latin for a more precise understanding? Or, better yet pray tell the assembled your take on the communiqué. The counterargument was fodder for the point. Sorry, not my bad. Be careful what you wish for or align yourself with. When in doubt... Go with the rule of law. And in this case, spot on.

If the ability to separate one’s self from the purity of law interferes with one’s perspective perhaps such would be the time to step back and reconsider one’s objectives. If noble or heartfelt, then please, by all means, carry on.
Yours in Truth & Justice
Intune


Post 333 not 666, just to avoid any confusion. :evil: Man, I hate when it gets like this, just not a good feeling. Brothers that I would break bread with, quaff a few cold ones… It absolutely pains me. The rule of law is stark. My purpose is not to alienate. Those who know me personally realize a different character. I mean no offence and trust none is felt.

[jimpeel]

The court took a single letter from one of the founders as concrete evidence, of the intent of the entire body, to make one of the most important decisions in American history.

Does anyone here believe that the court will be as accepting of the tens of letters, by numerous founders, as evidence of the intent of the entire body that the Second Amendment is an individual right?

This is the primary argument that should be made before the court and those letters, along with the Danbury letter, should be presented into evidence. The argument to them should be that if they were willing to base an important, far reaching decision on a single letter; then, as precedent, they should make the same effort when presented with tens of letters.

[Intune]

I'm with Jim on this. They would have no choice but to rule in favor of the people.

[Intune]

I hesitate to resurrect a dead horse but…
Intune quote:

"The FFs were a mostly religious bunch. Do any of you here think it was an accident that the words Creator, Supreme Being or God are used but not the words Jesus Christ? Oversight? I think not. ALL the PEOPLE"



CZ retort: The FF writings and speeches are filled with references to a supreme being who is indistinguishable from the deity described within the Christian religion, regardless of flavor of Christianity.

The CIA Factbook says that in 1989, 86% of Americans identified themselves as either Protestant, Catholic, or Jew.

Can you seriously suggest that at the time of the FF, a much more homogeneous society, that the demographics were AT LEAST as high for the Judeo-Christian combination referenced, if not MUCH HIGHER?

To deny the context of the belief system practiced by our FF is to deny reality. One does not have to embrace it for their personal belief system, but when seeking historical context to give credibility to any "interpretation" of the 1st, one has to be daft not to recognize that the political-social-religious priorities of the day would be inconsistent with the modern manipulation of the plain English wording of the 1st.

This is about integrity.

This is about the rule of law as actually written.

This is about acknowledging reality.

This is not about advocacy.
Their wording was NO accident. Now, by whom is reality being denied?

"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing His religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of against." (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

God bless you and yours.

[Graystar]

As Intune posted elsewhere...
it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." (John Adams, 1787) This idea did not end with the creation of the Constitution. In the early days of our country we did indeed follow, what we believed to be, the wishes of the FF. This led to decisions such as Dred Scott. However, the courts no longer do this. Today, we do proceed based on reason. And it is reason and law that has prevailed in this case.

[Quartus]

What law has prevailed, Graystar? Where is the law, and what is the text of it, that prohibits such a display, or gives the Federal judiciary authority over the Alabama courthouse? Please quote it for us, and cite the source.


And if you cite the 1A, you are admitting that what has prevailed is not the LAW (for it contains no such text), but some judge's opinion of what the law SHOULD have said.

And that is not the rule of law, but what the FF feared - the tyranny of judges.

[braindead0]

The Feds simply forced this judge to uphold his oath to the Alabama State Constituion, where it is very clear in Section 3: That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

It could easily be argued that placing this 'monument' has established a place or worship (note: all the worshipers), not only that but the taxpayers money is being used to maintain this place of worship.

Good riddence. And they should disbar that judge.

[Intune]

Here you go Quartus, read what the ALABAMA Supremes had to say & their cites. Every step of this case is found if one will peruse.
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/archive_m.html#tmoore
Scroll waaay down past Mcvey and Microsoft for the case law. Man, Micro sure has been busy. See where a team of lawyers gets ya?


I just LOVE the reason given for request of stay!

"His emergency request Wednesday was filed with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who can handle the matter himself or refer it to the full court. Kennedy oversees cases from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Moore's attorney, Herbert Titus, wrote that a stay would "permit the Chief Justice to fulfill the campaign promise that he made to the citizens of Alabama to restore the moral foundation of law."

[jimpeel]

"The FFs were a mostly religious bunch. Do any of you here think it was an accident that the words Creator, Supreme Being or God are used but not the words Jesus Christ?There are three errors in your statement above:

1. Jesus Christ is not our Creator.

2. Jesus Christ is not the Supreme Being.

3. Jesus Christ is not God.

It is always convenient to "forget" the first founding document ever written in this country and place it on the back burner in favor of those documents that most favor our position. Yes, the later founding documents did not mention Jesus Christ. The earliest one, however, did -- The Mayflower Compact.

IN THE name of God, Amen.
We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620

http://www.project21.org/MayflowerCompact.html

[Quartus]

It could easily be argued that placing this 'monument' has established a place or worship

Only by an idiot, someone who's been brainwashed by our current judicial mess, or someone with an anti-Christian agenda.


Hmmm, that would include almost all of our current media, teachers, and judges. And most school kids, too.


Intune, I'm still looking for the LAW that was violated, not a bunch of opinions of judges who long ago gave up the idea of ENFORCING law in favor of REINVENTING law.

If you support this kind of revisionism of the 1A, you have no grounds to object to it when they do it to the other 9.

[Graystar]

What law has prevailed, Graystar? Where is the law, and what is the text of it, that prohibits such a display, or gives the Federal judiciary authority over the Alabama courthouse? Please quote it for us, and cite the source. I said "reason and law"... in this case reason is the primary influence.

You ask where does it say that they can't? I ask where does it say that they can?

When discussing the acts of citizens, it is correct to ask your question. As the 10th Amendment reminds us, all powers not delegated are reserved by the people.

But when it comes to the acts of government and government officials, you are definitely asking the wrong question. Ours is a government of delegated powers. If the people haven't explicitly said that the government can do it...then it means that they *can't* do it.

So the answer to your question is that government can't do anything that we haven't told them to do.

[Intune]

There are three errors in your statement above:

1. Jesus Christ is not our Creator.

2. Jesus Christ is not the Supreme Being.

3. Jesus Christ is not God.

It is always convenient to "forget" the first founding document ever written in this country and place it on the back burner in favor of those documents that most favor our position. Yes, the later founding documents did not mention Jesus Christ. The earliest one, however, did -- The Mayflower Compact.
Oh, so they ARE separate entities? Well, I believe a Baptist would find that supposition erroneous while a Catholic would concur.
One can’t help marveling at the mysterious oneness of the Father, Son, and Spirit, especially as manifested by the Lord Jesus in His human living. Yet the Lord prayed before His impending crucifixion, “That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me” (John 17:21). This prayer clearly conveys the Triune God’s desire that man share and enter into the coinhering oneness of the Divine Trinity. Through Christ’s death and resurrection, the Triune God now dwells in His believers (Eph. 4:6) to be their oneness with Him and with one another (John 14:20; 17:21). Ultimately, God desires that all His believers be built up into the one Body of Christ as the house of God to express the oneness of the Triune God.

I find it interesting that in discussing politics at church the consensus is usually that Jesus is “understood” to be one and the same. Both ways, eh? Flexibility, I like that! I shall direct those who get it “wrong” to you! ;)



Well, if you WANT to live in a theocratic society and divvy up a crown or two to your King don’t stop with the Mayflower, there’s a bunch of others such as:

Fundamental Orders of Connecticut
Forasmuch as it hath pleased the All-mighty God by the wise disposition of his divyne pruvidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and uppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selves to be as one Publike State or Commonwelth; and doe, for our selves and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to us att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearve the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus which we now professe, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst us; As also in our Civell Affaires to be guided and governed according to such Lawes, Rules, Orders and decrees as shall be made, ordered & decreed, as followeth:
A bunch of decrees ;)

I'll even dig up a religious test or two for public office if you would like me to.

These early pacts & “constitutions” RENFORCE my contention that the FFs, who were a generally staunch Christian bunch, went out of their way to be mutually INCLUSIVE of ALL religions. Their fathers prob thought that they were paving the way for the heathens to rule! Am I the only one seeing this? Am I seeing it wrong? Enlighten me, please.






BACKGROUNDER ON THE VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
In Virginia, the American Revolution led to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church, which had been tied closely to the royal government. Then the question arose as to whether the new state should continue to impose taxes to be used for the support of all recognized churches. The proposal had a number of supporters who, even if they no longer accepted an established church, still believed that religion should be supported by the public purse.
For some Virginians, however, imposing religion on people smacked of tyranny. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom would later be president of the United States, argued that religious beliefs should be solely matters of individual conscience and completely immune from any interference by the state. Moreover, religious activity of any sort should be wholly voluntary. Not only did they oppose taxing people to support an established church, but they also objected to forcing people to pay taxes even for their own church. To Jefferson, a high wall of separation should always keep church and state apart.
Jefferson drafted the following measure, but it was Madison who skillfully secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both men considered this bill one of the great achievements of their lives, and Jefferson directed that on his tombstone he should not be remembered as president of the United States or for any of the other high offices he held, but as the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and as the founder of the University of Virginia.
For further reading: William Lee Miller, The First Liberty: Religion and the American Republic (1985); Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause and the First Amendment (1986); Merrill D. Peterson and Robert C. Vaughn, eds., The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Its Evolution and Consequences in American History (1988).

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
Source: W.W. Hening, ed., Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. 12 (1823): 84-86.

I don't know how I can show it any plainer????

:confused:

[jimpeel]

At the risk of having this thread suddenly declared "religious" and closed, I respond to Intune's response to me.

1. Jesus Christ is not our Creator. He is the Son of our Creator.

2. Jesus Christ is not the Supreme Being. He is the Son of the Supreme Being.

3. Jesus Christ is not God. He is the Son of God.

Vis-a-vis Jesus Christ is a Second Stringer.

He is One with God as you are one with your parents.

Of course they are separate. As it is said in churches all over the globe "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Three separate entities.

You apparently have no concept of being one in spirit. One does not have to be physically joined as some sort of Siamese twin. If that were true and we were all "joined" it would make it awfully hard for one guy to drive a bus and another to operate a machine and another to fly a plane, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

We don't all have to be bretheren in the flesh to be Bretheren in Spirit.

The question on the issue at hand is whether the Federal Government is once again stepping on State's Powers ala the Tenth Amendment? The answer is "Yes" and "Hell, yes!"

There is no "law" that has been written that directs the g0overnment to establish a church entity regardless of what that entity might be called. There has been no law written that establishes a National Pope; or a National Priest; or a National Reverend; or a National Cardinal; or a National Minister of Religion. THERE IS NO LAW THAT ESTABLISHES ANYTHING LIKE A NATIONAL RELIGION!:fire:

The placement of the tablets of the Ten Commandments in a public building has nothing to do with establishing ANYTHING. Then First Amendment states that the CONGRESS shall make no law as such. The limitation is on CONGRESS.

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is what in the Hell is it about goodness that just scares the Hell out of certain Americans? what are they so fearful of? They took prayer out of schools and then they took corporal punisment out of schools. We now have kids who fear not God nor man. They grow up secure in the knowledge that there is no retribution for any act of aberrance.

The same people who will claim that Marijuana is a "gateway" to stronger drugs are the same ones that will deny that lack of punishment for abberance is a "gateway" to greater crimes. "Hey, Dude, they didn't do s--- to me for breaking into lockers at school. Ya wanna go out and cop some cars tonight? Hey, if they catch us they won't do s--- to us anyway."

So what is it that makes people want the removal of good from our society? Why do they claim to be against others "pushing their beliefs" on them while they "push their disbelief" on us?

As nature abhors a vacuum, evil will rush to fill the void left by the removal of goodness. What the Hell. What have we got to lose? Just the youth of the nation. That's all.

[jimpeel]

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
--Marx, Karl. "Communist Manifesto,” 1848

[Mike Irwin]

"We all know that our entire constitution and foundation of law is based on the premise that MAN is not who gives freedom to ourselves, but our higher power, our creator...God."

Sorry, but right out of the box I don't agree with your premise.

Our Constitution and entire foundation of law is based in English Common Law, much of which has its roots in Roman law, and both of which predate the widespread introduction of Christianity into the British Isles.

God isn't even mentioned in the Constitution, nor is there any attempt to invoke even an inspecific diety. The only mention is in the date, "The Year of Our Lord," which is hardly a convincing argument. That phrase was as commonly used in formal documents then as A.D or B.C are now.

Louisiana does follow tenets of Napoleonic Law, though.

Very interesting website dealing with this issue...

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/joestor4.htm


As for the Supreme Court, care to know what other legal texts/lawgivers are also part of the decorations?

Hammurabi's Code, The Koran, Napoleon and the Napoleonic Code, William Blackstone (wasn't he an Apostle?), King John....

From a Washington Post article on the decorations...

"The 18 lawgivers looking down on the justices are divided into two friezes of ivory-colored, Spanish marble. On the south wall, to the right of incoming visitors, are figures from the pre-Christian era -- Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (Caesar Augustus). On the north wall to the left are lawmakers of the Christian era -- Napoleon Bonaparte, Marshall, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Muhammad and Justinian."

A quote from Justice Stevens on the issue...

"John Paul Stevens, a justice since 1975, once reflected on the friezes' mingling of the religious and secular. "[A] carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, if that is the only adornment on a courtroom wall, conveys an equivocal message, perhaps of respect for Judaism, for religion in general or for law," Stevens wrote in a 1989 case involving the First Amendment's prohibition on some religious symbols in government buildings.

"The addition of carvings depicting Confucius and Muhammad may honor religion, or particular religions, to an extent that the First Amendment does not tolerate. Placement of secular figures such as Caesar Augustus, William Blackstone, Napoleon Bonaparte and John Mar-hall alongside these three religious leaders, however, signals respect not for great proselytizers but for great lawgivers."



Here's a link to a very interesting website that disputes the claims that Moses and the 10 commandments are prominently featured in the Supreme Court building...

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8.htm

Opening paragraphs...

One of the strangest arguments we've encountered in our conversations with accommodationists has to do with the several depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments contained in the artistic embellishment of the Supreme Court building. Briefly, some accommodationists argue that these depictions prove that (1) no one believed in separation before 1935 (when the Supreme Court building was completed), and/or (2) that American law is based on the 10 Commandments. We beg to disagree. Not only are these depictions irrelevant to the separation debate, many of the claims made by accommodationists about these depictions are either misleading or inaccurate.

We begin by observing that this is not a mainstream accommodationist argument. We've never seen this argument made, for example, in books and articles by professional accommodationist scholars. Rather, we've encountered this argument only in debates with non-academic, religious, accommodationists. We note this because we want to emphasize that not all accommodationists think alike. In contrast to professional scholars, non-academic accommodationism tend to gravitate toward the more extreme forms of accommodationism, and often take positions that academic accommodationists wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. This argument happens to be one of them. Keep that in mind as we respond to this argument.

Our first response is to note that the primary factual premise of the argument is untrue: Moses and the 10 Commandments are not prominently featured in the Supreme Court building. Rather, most of the artistic embellishment in the building involves symbolic and allegorical representations of such legal themes as justice, authority, fairness and the like. Most of these representations involve human figures representing the civilizations of Greece and Rome (the building itself was designed to invoke the feeling of the classical Greek temple). If quantity is the measure of importance, the architecture of the Supreme Court favors the classical over the Mosaic tradition of law. Moreover, where Moses and the 10 Commandments are depicted, they are never given positions of exclusive prominence, as we would expect if the intention of the architecture was to establish a connection between the Bible and American law. Rather, the architecture depicts Moses as one of many important lawgivers, and the 10 Commandments as one of many important events in legal history (click here for a more detailed discussion of the subordinate placement of Moses and the 10 Commandments in the architectural fabric of the Supreme Court building).

[Intune]

Wow, one of the rudest posts I have ever seen on this board and I get the pleasure of having it directed at me. Okay, maybe not one of the rudest but I MUST learn to pray correctly! ;)

Read the thread
Don't fear God.
Don't insinuate that good = Christianity or vice versa.
Churches all over the world pray "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
Churches all over the world also don't. What's your point? I don't have a Rosary either, Hellbound?
Kids all over this country pray in school every day.
Read the thread.

Perhaps your personal slights were unintentional.

Upgraded to THR standards.

[jimpeel]

Churches all over the world pray "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
Churches all over the world also don't. What's your point? I don't have a Rosary either, Hellbound?
You take things far too personally.

I did not say ALL churches all over the world pray "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Would it be rude of me to ask that you read my posts for comprehension and do not misquote me?

Here is the Benediction, for your edification, that is sung "In most, but not all, churches over the known, but not all, portions of the world which have churches; but not in those places that do not have churches because they don't have churches unlike the places that do have churches." Hope that was clear.

Here's the music (http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/mid/old100th.mid)

Here are the lyrics. Sorry I don't have the "bouncing ball" version.

Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
praise him, all creatures here below;
praise him above, ye heavenly host;
praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

The Benediction is sung not in just Catholic churches but other religious denominations as well. The belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit in some cases) is not confined to the Catholic church as your post would imply.

[jimpeel]

Wow, one of the rudest posts I have ever seen on this board and I get the pleasure of having it directed at me.

My post as written by me:

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is what in the Hell is it about goodness that just scares the Hell out of certain Americans? what are they so fearful of? They took prayer out of schools and then they took corporal punisment out of schools. We now have kids who fear not God nor man. They grow up secure in the knowledge that there is no retribution for any act of aberrance.

The same people who will claim that Marijuana is a "gateway" to stronger drugs are the same ones that will deny that lack of punishment for abberance is a "gateway" to greater crimes. "Hey, Dude, they didn't do s--- to me for breaking into lockers at school. Ya wanna go out and cop some cars tonight? Hey, if they catch us they won't do s--- to us anyway."

So what is it that makes people want the removal of good from our society? Why do they claim to be against others "pushing their beliefs" on them while they "push their disbelief" on us?

My post as read by Intune:

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is what in the Hell is it about goodness that just scares the Hell out of Intune? what (is) Intune so fearful of? Intune took prayer out of schools and then Intune took corporal punisment out of schools. We now have kids who fear not God nor man. They grow up secure in the knowledge that there is no retribution for any act of aberrance.

Intune will claim that Marijuana is a "gateway" to stronger drugs (but) Intune will deny that lack of punishment for abberance is a "gateway" to greater crimes. "Hey, Dude, they didn't do s--- to me for breaking into lockers at school. Ya wanna go out and cop some cars tonight? Hey, if they catch us they won't do s--- to us anyway."

So what is it that makes Intune want the removal of good from our society? Why do(es) Intune claim to be against others "pushing their beliefs" on them while Intune "push(es) (his) disbelief" on us?

Try not to read any more into my posts than I place there. That, Sir, would be rude of you to do; or is it rude of me to ask?

[Intune]

Only when rudely directed at me, then I take it personally.
You were NOT misquoted. If you mean to write something different from what was printed, please do so with you initial effort. Show the misquote if one exists.
No, it would be rude of you to direct words such as comprehension and edification in an effort to belittle.

I don't need the "bouncing-ball" version. Another shot. I was raised Methodist. Sang it once or twice. ;) Gain an understanding of the Baptist perspective to see where I'm coming from. Until then, I consider the religious aspect of this discussion closed.

Don't deign to tell me how I read or comprehend a passage. You maintain your rudeness and can keep it to yourself. This WAS an interesting thread.
Your initial response to me was flawed.

"The FFs were a mostly religious bunch. Do any of you here think it was an accident that the words Creator, Supreme Being or God are used but not the words Jesus Christ?"

Jim replied:
There are three errors in your statement above:

1. Jesus Christ is not our Creator.

2. Jesus Christ is not the Supreme Being.

3. Jesus Christ is not God.

I never said that Christ was any of these entities. I implied that he was PURPOSLY omitted. DONE!

[Mike Irwin]

"Wow, one of the rudest posts I have ever seen on this board and I get the pleasure of having it directed at me."

Intune,

Is that in reference to my post?

Please let me know how my post was "rude."

If my disagreeing with your premise, and then laying out a structured argument to back my contentions is rude, then be prepared for a lot of rudeness from a lot of people who know how to put together an good rebuttals.

[Intune]

No Mike, not you at all. Sorry if you thought so. I enjoy a good rebuttal. Careful!!! ;)

[Mike Irwin]

Ah, OK. My apologies then.

[jimpeel]

So you took it as an affront that I would point out to you that God, Creator, and Supreme Being are apples and Jesus Christ is an orange.

I openly admitted that you were correct when I stated "Yes, the later founding documents did not mention Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ with specificity was NOT mentioned yet, by your own admission, Creator, God, and Supreme Being are.

The fact that Jesus Christ is not mentioned with specificity does not negate the fact that the FF believed in a God, or a Supreme Being, or a Creator.

My effort at that point was to point out that there are documents, which are considered founding documents, which do mention the fact that Christianity was the basis of the founding of this country. To deny or ignore these documents is futile.

Basically, I have a thick skin so I imagine everyone else does also. I am a firm devotee of the school of "sticks and stones. You can badmouth me, my family, my dog, my cat, my car, my education, my beliefs, my religion, my clothes, my mama, my daddy, my shoes, my race, my hair color or anything else you wish and you can't hurt my feelings. Sorry if you were offended.

[Intune]

JP, I'll live, just got a little huffy. This whole Ten Comms thing is just going in circles. I would NEVER say anything bad about your Momma. That car though… ;)

Yes, it was apples and oranges. Intentionally omitted by our FFs to be more inclusive to those that don't have the Orange in their religion. They (FF) thought that the 10 were extremely important but not as LAWS that EVERYONE had to live by. They knew them well enough to put them in there if they so chose. What this judge did alludes that the "state" embraces them and we should too. Hey, wait a sec… you sucked me back into this!!!

No harm done, back to the fray…

[jimpeel]

Hey, wait a sec… you sucked me back into this!!! Gotcha!

The problem I have with the fray is this: If the court finds that the Constitution of Alabama is unconstitutional, doesn't that place in jeopardy every Constitution in the nation? Apparently, the Constitution of Alabama states that the laws thereunder are codified by the laws of, and the auspices of, God. If the Constitution is unconstitutional (:confused: juxtaposition :confused: ) then all of the laws of the state ever codified must, also, be unconstitutional. This also means that every person ever charged or convicted under those laws has standing for the expungment of those charges or convictions. This also means that every cell door in the state of Alabama would swing open and every cell would be emptied of its contents regardless of the crime committed.

Scary thoughts. What say you?

By the by, I drive an F-350, one-ton, crew-cab, twenty-two-foot long, eight foot wide, 6,300 pound, dually and am ia card carrying member in the official Arianna Huffington army of terrorist sympathizers; because it only gets nine miles to the gallon.:what:

[Intune]

I don't believe they found the AL const unconstitutional. They found ol' Roy unconstitutional when he used an official decree to order a 5,000lb monument to religious laws enshrined in an Alabama house of law and that suggests such religious laws are sanctioned by the "state."

Ah, so you're the cause of this $1.65 a gal biz. Man, that's the butts they should be on, the oil companies. What a rip!

[jimpeel]

I don't believe they found the AL const unconstitutional.You believe correctly. The problem occurs when the judge states in his decision that the State cannot recognize God. If the State cannot recognize God and God is enshrined into the State's Constitution, that Constitution is unconstitutional. That is what Moore has been stating all along. He says that if the court has not found the State's constitution unconstitutional the decision cannot disallow the Sttate from recognizing God. Its kind of a Catch-22 sorta, kinda, thing.

[Intune]

But neither the Alabama Supreme Court nor the U.S. 11th District ruled against a states right to recognize "God." See the exact ruling here- http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre80503jdgmt.pdf

[LawDog]

I am hereby resurrecting the LawDog Off-Limits Topic List from TFL.

Religion. Off limits.

LawDog