Petition in support of Judge Roy Moore

[jimpeel]

An Open Letter in Support of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's
Defense of the Most Important Religious Liberty and States'
Rights Test Case in Decades

(Please forward this important message to friends, family members,
and fellow American Patriots)

A monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the rotunda of
Alabama's Supreme Court building by Chief Justice Roy Moore, is
the front line of the war over the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendment
restrictions on the central government by our Constitution's Bill
of Rights. Ordered by a federal court to remove the monument
by August 20, Justice Moore has been warned by U.S. District
and Appellate Courts that his states' rights argument will not
be tolerated.

Judge Moore, of course, is rightly defending the original intent
of the Founders, who drafted and approved the Bill of Rights,
against erroneous interpretation by an activist Leftjudiciary,
even as he prepares his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This case is a major test case for states' rights and the so-called
church-state "separation clause," and ultimately will determine the
fundamental nature of government and the Constitution. To assess
the importance of this case, consider this evaluation from 11th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Ed Carnes, who ruled against
Chief Justice Moore: "If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten
Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a
massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First
Amendment for years." Indeed, it would.

Join fellow Patriots signing this Open Letter in support of
Justice Moore, First Amendment rights, limited government and
the sovereignty of the several states as guaranteed by our
Constitution.

Link to -- http://patriotpetitions.us/openletter

If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to:
<[email protected]>
Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature
for the petition.

 

[Graystar]

You're out of your mind. This judge is clearly violating the first amendment, and also believes himself to be above the law. The monument should be removed, and so should this judge.

 

[2dogs]

Signed.

Judge Moore was on O'Reilly last night- very impressive in defense of his position.

Seems to me the southern states are the last bastion of hope for this country. Keep fighting- too many in the north have given up.

 

[jimpeel]

It has obviously become time to clarify the First Amendment through a subsequent Amendment. I propose the following:

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.

Feel free to amend my amendment but the more convoluted it gets the worse it gets. I had considered the following:

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 nor shall any head of government also head any religious establishment; 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.

That would place an unfair onus upon anyone who is an American citizen who also is the head of a religious institution. That would be in conflict with Article II, Section 1, Paragraph five which states:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

[2dogs]

From an interview with Judge Moore by Larry Klayman (Judicial Watch):

Klayman: Thanks for joining us. One of the things that I was saying off camera was that I never understood the debate over the Ten Commandments because quite apart from it being religious and it obviously came to us through the ancient Hebrews and it was later adopted by Napoleon when he created his Napoleonic code. It finds its way into the common law system and even for those people who are not religious it is clearly a part of our legal system. So what¹s the big deal here? Why is everyone giving you such a hard time?

Moore: Well it’s not about the Ten Commandments at all. It’s about the source of the Ten Commandments that is the issue in controversy. Whether or not the state in general, the state of Alabama, or the US government can acknowledge the God of the Holy Scriptures, the Judeo-Christian God on which this nation was founded and with which our laws are based. It’s not about the Ten Commandments because the Judge said that the Ten Commandments are a basic source of our moral foundation and our forefathers looked to them for guidance. But he said we crossed the line when we acknowledged the Judeo-Christian God.

Klayman: You went into this controversy a number of years ago by hanging the Ten Commandments in your courtroom. You didn’t acknowledge the source then. You just simply hung it.

Moore: We have always acknowledged the source of the Ten Commandments. It’s God. Klayman: Was that written on what you hung on your wall?

Moore: Yes. The problem is that people across our country have been taught that it is wrong to acknowledge God under the First Amendment and indeed they misunderstand the definition of religion in the First Amendment. Religion is not synonymous with God. It is the duties in which we owe to the creator and the matter of discharging those duties. That is what Congress was forbidden to get involved with and establish. It was not to forbid the acknowledgement of God.

Klayman: Any God you want?

Moore: The First Amendment addressed the Greater God. The First Amendment gives freedom of conscience. The government does not have control over what you think or what you worship. By the display of the Ten Commandments we are not telling people what they must believe, or what they must worship. We are simply acknowledging the God who gave us freedom of conscience and gave us laws upon which our laws are based.

Klayman: What I meant by saying that you could worship different gods is that the establishment clause of the First Amendment authorizes people of different religions to come here and worship as they see fit. It is not preventing anyone, it is facilitating it. And the very fact that our legal system is based on the Judeo-Christian God, is a reality that cannot be dismissed from history. People who prevent you from hanging these kinds of things in courtrooms and public monuments are in fact not recognizing the basis of our legal system.

Moore: Right, exactly.

 

[jimpeel]

Graystar

You're out of your mind.

Thank you Dr. Graystar but I believe that the Phd. in your case means "Piled higher and deeper".

The "establishment clause" decision of the USSC was based upon a single letter written by Thomas Jefferson during the debates. The decision flew in the face of the historical evidence that the "establishment"clause" was meant to disallow the federal government from establishing a state sponsored and operated religion such as the Anglican Church od England from which they had just separated. The head of the church in England was the King re: The King James Bible. Sound familiar?

The founders rejected the idea of a King for their new nation just as they rejected the idea that the head of the nation, regardless of title, should also be the head of the state run church.

 

[braindead0]

Interpreting the 'seperation clause' in the same way as it was when conceived, is probably not valid. That's like interpreting the 2nd to only cover muskets or weapons of the day. Because when it was written, I'm sure 99% of the people adhered to some form of Judeo-Christian belief system.

Today that is not the case, do we discount the beliefs of everybody else because when it was written "all we had" were Judeo-Christian beliefs?

If we do that, then the 2nd just applies to muskets. Putting any religion before any other in a government building is just plain promotion of a religious viewpoint.

 

[Cosmoline]

Irregardless of the merits of the judge's case, judges are not allowed to refuse to enforce lawful orders. I suspect he'll be out on his ear very shortly. When you put on the black robes, many of your rights are gone.

We cannot have judges engaging in acts of civil disobedience. They simply have too much power through their office, and an act of civil disobedience by a judge will lead to a breakdown of the judicial system on the highest level. It's even worse than allowing civil disobedience among front line soldiers.

 

[CZ 75 BD]

Signed

A great editorial from www.federalist.com


In February of this year, The Federalist noted that the SARS outbreak tested the limitations of our nation's ability to respond to a potential biological attack. Yesterday, East Coast power outages tested our ability to respond to a potential terrorist attack on our nation's critical power grids serving major urban centers. The serious consequences of yesterday's blackouts notwithstanding, there is another serious threat facing our nation, the resolution of which will have far-reaching implications for the survival of our Constitutional republic.

For the last decade, The Federalist has followed the judicial tenure of Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who was sued by the ACLU in 1995 -- to no avail -- because he displayed the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and opened his court with prayer. Two years ago, when this outstanding Patriot was sworn in as Alabama's Chief Justice, he declared, "God's law will be publicly acknowledged in our court. [It is my duty] not only to maintain the honor and integrity of the court system and the judicial branch, but to restore and preserve the moral foundation of our law."

Chief Justice Moore not only keeps the Decalogue in his courtroom, but in 2001 he installed a monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Justice Building featuring a relief of the Ten Commandments, engraved with quotes from our Founders. At the dedication of that monument, Justice Moore declared, "To restore morality we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs. From our earliest history in 1776 when we were declared to be the United States of America, our forefathers recognized the sovereignty of God."

That, of course, prompted a federal lawsuit by the ACLU claiming violation of the First Amendment's so-called "separation clause" (based on the erroneous assertion that Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists proclaimed that the Constitution ensured all manner of "separation of church and state").

Despite the fact this case has received only marginal media attention, we believe it is the most important test of federalism in decades, not only of federalism as detailed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but also of the First Amendment's restriction that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which has been stretched by Leftjudicial activists beyond recognition. This case should be of utmost interest to any American who is a Christian and/or a constitutional constructionist.

Defending the protection of the state from federal jurisdiction in this case, Justice Moore testified, "The basic issue is whether we will still be able to acknowledge God under the First Amendment, or whether we will not be able to acknowledge God." But U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson would have none of that and ordered the monument removed.

Justice Moore took his case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, protesting that "...Federal district courts have no jurisdiction or authority to prohibit the acknowledgment of God that is specifically recognized in the Constitution of Alabama," but Judge Ed Carnes upheld Thompson's ruling. Carnes wrote: "Any notion of high government officials' being above the law did not save [states' rights proponents] from having to obey federal court orders, and it will not save [Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore] from having to comply with the court order in this case. ... If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail."

Apparently, Judge Carnes relied on the same adulterated version of our Constitution used by Thompson. Our copy still says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which applies to, well, Congress, not Chief Justice Moore, who was elected to state office by the people of the state of Alabama. The only parties in this case involved in "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion are the ACLU and their Leftjudiciary minions.

Chief Justice Moore has appealed the 11th Circuit Court ruling to the Supreme Court, declaring: "We must defend our rights and preserve our Constitution. ... To prohibit the acknowledgment of God upon Whom our justice system is established is to undermine our entire judicial system. We will defend this display in the judicial building vigorously. It is an acknowledgment of a sovereign, holy God Whose laws superintend those of man. We will not retreat from that position, because it is true."

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has noted previously, "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights."

Ironically, in the Supreme Court, the Ten Commandments are etched in a marble relief above the Justices' bench, for indeed they are the moral foundation of American law.

Thompson, meanwhile, renewed his demand that Chief Justice Moore remove the monument by August 20 and threatened "substantial fines against Chief Justice Moore in his official capacity, and thus against the state of Alabama itself, until the monument is removed."

Stepping into the fight in late July, Congress voted 260-161 for an amendment to defund any effort by U.S. Marshals to remove the monument. "None of the funds appropriated in this [bill] may be used to enforce the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit," said Rep. John Hostettler.

The foundational question all constitutional constructionists should be asking: On what legitimate constitutional grounds can a federal judge lodge demands, punishments and fines against chief judicial officers in the several states -- or does the federal bench now assume that the states are nothing more than administrative agencies of the central government -- rather than federally separated governments subject to their own constitutional sovereignty?

To assess the importance of this case, consider this evaluation from 11th Circuit Judge Carnes in his ruling against Chief Justice Moore: "If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years."

We encourage every American Patriot, who believes as our Founders did that our Constitution should not be subject to the vagaries of an activist Leftjudiciary, to sign an open letter in support of Chief Justice Roy Moore's defense of religious liberty and states' rights.


Link to -- http://patriotpetitions.us/openletter

(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to: <[email protected]> Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the petition.)

Additionally, there will be a show of support for Chief Justice Moore's case tomorrow morning (Saturday at 1000), as thousands are expected to gather on the steps of the Capitol in Montgomery.

Footnote: Last week, The Federalist noted the parallel between bishops in the Episcopal church who "interpret" Scripture to comport with their culturally relativist agendas in violation of their ordinal vows and politicians who "interpret" the Constitution to comport with their political and social agendas despite their oath to uphold the Constitution. Of course, federal judges take the same oath to uphold the Constitution. As the venerable Senator Sam Ervin said a generation ago when judicial activism reared its head, "A judicial activist is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."


The SPLC is in on this as well.

Graystar, how is the judge violating the 1A?

 

[Gray Peterson]

Justice Roy Moore is wrong in this regard. I am not a Christian, or Jewish, therefor the 10 commandments in a public judicial building is an affront to the beliefs of myself and other members of minority religions or non-religions, as it where.

This is also the same chief justice of the state Supreme Court who ruled that a mother who was a lesbian was a criminal by default and immoral, and therefor, didn't deserve to raise her kids solely on that basis. He's a homophobe.

He has no sympathy from me. Nor do any of these "States rights" folks. You wanna support states rights? Repeal the drug laws on the federal level that interfere with medical marijuana laws passed by the states.

 

[jimpeel]

Interpreting the 'seperation clause' in the same way as it was when conceived, is probably not valid. That's like interpreting the 2nd to only cover muskets or weapons of the day.

Your argument is specious. What the 2nd was written against was the powers of the government, not the type of weapons allowable for possession. If what you say was true, all of the restrictive laws against certain types of weapons would be Constitutional on their face.

Today that is not the case, do we discount the beliefs of everybody else because when it was written "all we had" were Judeo-Christian beliefs?

Again, your argument is specious and ill crafted. There is nothing in the First Amendment that restricts religion to one entity -- Judeo-Christian -- even though this nation, and the laws therefore, were founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

The first official governmental document ever penned in this nation was the Mayflower Compact which reads:

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

The judge which, for those of you who think he will “be out on his ear†shortly, is not just a judge but the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court -- a lifetime position. He has sworn an oath to the State Constituion and to the Constitution of the United States. Is anyone here willing to place the State Constitution subserviant to the United States Constitution? That would hold invalid every State Constitution in the United States -- including those that declare the right to firearms is an individual right.

His contention is that the Constitution of the State of Alabama states that the Constitution of the state and the laws written thereunder are pursuant to the recognition of the Laws of God. This means that the USSC would have to declare the Constitution of the State of Alabama unconstitutional which would have the effect of holding every law ever written thereunder also declared unconstituional.

Until a new Constitution could be ratified and all of the laws thereunder redefined and recodified, there would be no law in Alabama and all of those who had ever been convicted under those laws or who are in prison would be relieved of all encumberances.

And that’s the big picture.

 

[Dorrin79]

this judge is a crazed religious nut.

He should be removed from office.

While the Ten Commandments could debatably be considered secular these days, he was directly ordered to remove them and refused.

I expect state officials to act within the law, not flagrantly violate it.

 

[Graystar]

Graystar, how is the judge violating the 1A?

To answer that question we have to first agree on what we mean when we say “First Amendment.†The First Amendment starts “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;†But even though the First Amendment is clearly a restriction on Congress, we understand that, as a fundamental freedom, all of our legislative bodies are bound by this restriction. And even though the words of the First Amendment comprise a restriction against laws that establish religion, we understand that it also applies to laws that have religious roots, such as laws against selling alcohol or operating a business on Sunday. This is because our religious freedom is a fundamental freedom.

Although Judge Moore scripted no law, it is the fact that this right is fundamental and exists regardless of the Constitution, which brings me to say that this judge’s action violates our freedom of religion; a freedom that, of course, includes a freedom to be free from religion.

And therein lies the heart of the matter. The Rotunda of Alabama’s Supreme Court building is NOT Judge Moore’s backyard! It is a building owned by all the citizens of the State of Alabama, and it is a place where all go for justice that is based on the laws of Alabama and the United States, not on the Ten Commandments. It is intimidating to people of other religions, and of no religion, to see such an open support for one religion as they enter halls of justice of, what is supposed to be, a system where religion has no bearing. It is intimidating to people to think that the judge hearing their cases is so influenced by his religion that he would push his personal view on public property.

And another thing; this argument that the Ten Commandments are the basis of law is garbage. The first 4 commandments have nothing to do with law and everything to do with religion. Only three of the commandments translate to law, but those laws are so basic that is it laughable to think the Ten Commandments as their source.

 

[jimpeel]

Lonnie Wilson

Justice Roy Moore is wrong in this regard. I am not a Christian, or Jewish, therefor the 10 commandments in a public judicial building is an affront to the beliefs of myself and other members of minority religions or non-religions, as it where.

Then you must also find repugnant the affrontry of the laws codified under those tenets.

This is also the same chief justice of the state Supreme Court who ruled that a mother who was a lesbian was a criminal by default and immoral, and therefor, didn't deserve to raise her kids solely on that basis. He's a homophobe.

Ie: He gored your ox.

“Homophobeâ€; one of my favorite words that fully illustrates the bastardization of the English language for the purposes of political correctness.

While it sounds good, the word is taken from the word “homosexual†but does so outside of linguistic norms. The word “homosexual†is derived from the Greek “homo†meaning “sameâ€. It is not derived from the Roman “homo†meaning “manâ€. If someone were truly “homophobicâ€, it would mean that they suffered from an inane fear of anything that is the same, ie: they couldn’t put their socks on in the morning.

Websters and others, however, decided that political correctness far outstrips linguistics and lexicography and decided to include the words "homophobe" and “homophobic†in their dictionaries even though they violate the tenets of lexicography.

He has no sympathy from me. Nor do any of these "States rights" folks. You wanna support states rights? Repeal the drug laws on the federal level that interfere with medical marijuana laws passed by the states.

This is exactly what this judge is attempting to do but you don’t recognize that fact even when it is glaringly clear and apparent. Standing up for “states ‘rights’†-- which in reality is states' powers -- is what will accomplish exactly what you have written a desire for someone to do; while lambasting those who would do exactly that.

You are a conundrum in terms.

 

[2dogs]

It is intimidating to people

Oh no- once again that constitutional provision which states that people have the right not to be intimidated or offended has been overlooked.

A Million (or a handful) Moms feel intimidated by guns- lets get rid of those.

Lots of people are offended by politically incorrect speech- lets ban that too.

Why there is no end to what we can get rid of to prevent intimidation and hurt feelings.

As Bruce Willis said in Tears of the Sun: "cowboy the #@&* up!".

 

[2dogs]

The Myth of
the Separation of Church and State

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

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

 

[2dogs]

P.S.

I was raised a Catholic, considered myself agnostic from age 14 on.




It's been a while.




I'm rethinking things.

 

[2dogs]

Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State


The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation

wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.



Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we

embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your

Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the

United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what

many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.



Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times

and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person,

or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government

extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution

of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident

therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such

had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of

Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we

enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the

expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is

not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of

government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief

Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the

prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.



Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and

also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes

are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect

already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all

the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your

past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more

than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair

of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God

strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to

sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those

who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.



And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.



Signed in behalf of the Association.



Nehh Dodge

Ephram Robbins The Committee

Stephen S. Nelson





Ed. Note: Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the

Congregationalist establishment in that state.









On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association,

Thomas Jefferson wrote:



Gentlemen:



The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards

me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties

dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they

are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more

pleasing.



Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he

owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the

government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. (Emphasis added)



I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and

Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect

and esteem.



Thomas Jefferson





Sources: Robert S. Alley, Professor of Humanites, Emeritus, University of Richmond, from his

article, "Public Education and the Public Good," published in William & Mary Bill of Rights

Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995.

And Lipscomb, Andrew and Bergh, Albert, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 16, pp.

281-282.



http://www.tech.com.au:8080/flagship/servlet/story.servlet.ShowStory?categoryId=12&storyId=1330


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

Seems clear to me what he was getting at- as clear as the 2nd Amendment is.

 

[MeekandMild]

You're out of your mind.

Gaystar, how does it happen that you're the arbiter of sanity here? That sounds like a really good way to impress people of your wit and wisdom.

this judge is a crazed religious nut.

Really Dorrin? Crazed by whose definition? How is asking the Supreme Court to settle an issue of law insane? Isn't this the same thing the RKBA folks have been asking for many years? Even the most radical liberal must agree that most of the basic legal changes that have been made over the last 50 years followed this exact mechanism.

 

[Graystar]

Gaystar, how does it happen that you're the arbiter of sanity here? That sounds like a really good way to impress people of your wit and wisdom.

I'm entitled to my opinion, just as you are.

 

[jimpeel]

Does anyone have any thoughts on a Constitutional Amendment to clarify what is obviously, given the number of rulings and suits on the subject, one of the most misunderstood and divisive amendments in the BoR?

 

[jimpeel]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030814-110407-3224r.htm

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore yesterday defied a court order to remove a large granite monument emblazoned with the Ten Commandments from a state judicial building on the grounds that God's law supercedes state and even federal law.

"I have no intention of removing the monument," he said at a press conference in Montgomery. "This I cannot and will not do."

He will ask the U.S. Supreme Court today to strike down the order that would remove his 5,280-pound, 4-foot-high granite monument from its roped-off corner of the rotunda of the state judiciary building.

"The issue in this case is the state of Alabama can acknowledge God," Chief Justice Moore told Fox News. The state constitution "invokes the favoring guidance of Almighty God and no federal court has declared [Alabama´s] constitution unconstitutional."

"It's very important that, as the chief administrative officer of the justice system, that I uphold my oath to the Alabama Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution. Neither the First Amendment nor the Alabama Constitution forbid an acknowledgment of God."

The Supreme Court will see things his way, he predicted, "because we are following U.S. Supreme Court law as to its definition of religion, which recognizes a Creator in higher law. So we have every right as a state to acknowledge God."

Called "Roy's rock" by some and likened in size to a washing machine by others, the monument has raised hackles ever since it was secretly installed late on the night of July 31, 2001.

Chief Justice Moore defended the way in which the monument was brought into the building, saying it had been paid for with private funds and that the appropriate state officials knew of its installation.

But on Oct. 30, 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union, in conjunction with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, filed suit against Chief Justice Moore, saying his display of the Ten Commandments was an unconstitutional establishment of religion in a government building.

A U.S. district court under Judge Myron Thompson ruled against Chief Justice Moore on Nov. 18, 2002. On July 1, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Chief Justice Moore, saying displays on government property cannot promote or be affiliated with a religion.

Judge Thompson gave the state until Aug. 20 to remove the monument, threatening $5,000 a day in fines if Chief Justice Moore did not comply.

Opponents compared the chief justice to 1960s-era segregationists who also opposed federal court orders.

"Justice Moore is repeating the shameful legacy of Alabama Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door in opposition to a federal court order to desegregate all-white schools," said Olivia Turner, executive director of the Alabama ACLU.

"If Chief Justice Moore can decide which federal court opinions he wants to comply with, then nobody's rights are safe from any state officials who disagree with the law."

Bruce Fein, a specialist in constitutional law in the District, said the case "doesn't have a ghost of a chance" of going to the nation's highest court.

"Someone coming into that court seeking remedy must have clean hands," Mr. Fein said. "Where has he pledged that, if the U.S. Supreme Court affirms [the circuit court ruling], he will obey it?

"He is leaving open the prospect that even if the court rules against him 9-0, he will disobey it. What are we going to have to do, call out the National Guard?"

Chief Justice Moore's mentality, Mr. Fein added, "epitomizes the lawlessness of massive resistance in the South to desegregation decrees. It epitomizes a disrespect for the rule of law totally incompatible with the office of judging. He is inviting anarchy."

But the justice, a Baptist, is used to conflict over his insistence that God should be recognized in the public square.

He has been in the public eye since 1995, when the ACLU sued him for posting a plaque of the Ten Commandments on the walls of his courtroom in the Etowah County Courthouse, where he was a circuit judge. Although the case was eventually thrown out on a technicality, both sides agreed the merits of the case were never ruled on.

Chief Justice Moore became nationally famous over the 1995 case and huge crowds turned out in rallies supporting his cause. In 2000, he easily defeated a Democratic opponent to become the state's chief justice.

Yesterday, he hinted that demonstrators may seek to block any effort to move the monument.

"As long as it's peaceful," he told Fox News, "I don't have any opposition to civil disobedience."

 

[Graystar]

Called "Roy's rock" by some and likened in size to a washing machine by others, the monument has raised hackles ever since it was secretly installed late on the night of July 31, 2001.

Need any more proof that even the judge himself knows that what he did is wrong?

 

[CZ 75 BD]

Graystar

Need any more proof that even the judge himself knows that what he did is wrong?

The monument was scheduled for delivery after working hours so as not to interfere with business in the building. Justice Moore explains that the trucking company was delayed, hence the installation in the late hours of the evening. Nothing sinister here.

 

[MeekandMild]

I'm entitled to my opinion, just as you are.

When I defame people the moderators usually shut me down. So what makes you so special you can make such statements without getting warnings from TPTB?

Back to the original question, what makes you the arbiter of sanity? You don't even have the DSM to rely upon. It sounds like you just decided to throw in an ad hominum insult because you don't like the guy's politics. Perhaps you'd like to answer the question and not dissemble.

Not to mention the utter stupidity of accusing an armed citizen of being out of their mind.