you don't have the guts to answer my posts, but you can ping me to one of your articles? What a cheek. PS here's Washington's view on your 'separation of church and state' guff:
Posted on 11/23/2003 3:33:43 PM PST by Kerberos
It is a problem. Check how many tmes the ACLU, or anyone else on the Left, has sued over school or public building displays of Kwanzaa, Ramadan, Hannuka, etc.
Either we allow them all in Now you're getting closer to the First Ammendment.
The question I ask, and is never answered, is; 'since judges only have the power to rule on laws that have been established what law did they rule on in reference to Judge Moore's monument?' Congress, the only body Constitutionally allowed to make law, has made no law prohibiting the display of the Ten Commandments. The 1st Amendment prohibits them from doing so.
No. It is not the equivalent of making a law respecting an establishment of religion which is the only thing the Constitution prohibits.
And if we are going to allow judge Moore ...
We did not allow him to. Alabama State law gives the privilege of choosing decorations for the Rotunda to the Chief Justice. Therefore it is by the rule of law that he chose what he chose.
... to such to achieve equal treatment under the law, or achieve the middle ground does that not mean the with have to also include writings from the Talmud, the Torah, the Koran, and the Sutras? Or do the people who follow those faiths not have the same rights as Christians when it comes to public places?
When the people of Alabama lawfully elect a Chief Justice who wishes to place something from the Talmud, the Torah (the Decalogue?) or the Sutras he/she may do so. What could be fairer?
Freedom of expression for all as protected by the U.S. Constitution, equal representation of the people's will through the elective process where everyone has a vote and a protected privilege of office as proscribed by State law arrived at through the legislature for the dispensation of authority overseeing public properties? This provides the fairest representation of the will of the people through republican principles of democracy. Nothing has been imposed upon anyone. Citizenship in each State and the Union itself is voluntary. All are free to leave any or all States at any time.
There is no right to have one's personal views promoted by the State, or anyone else, just because you have a right to hold any view you wish. There is no right to not be offended because your view is not the most popular view.
... there is no right for any one group to have their religious symbols posted in public places.
I understand that perfectly. Here are my rebuttals to that position.
1. Judge Moore is not a group he is one person who, as Chief Justice, had the lawful sole authority to choose what to display in the JD Building Rotunda. No single or multiple groups or individuals have the right, privilege or legal sanction to intrude on the Chief Justice's decision. Nor does the Federal Court.
His choice couldn't violate an existing law such as decency laws or safety laws but the fact is the monument violated no existing law. That's, not coincidentally, why no law was cited in any of the rulings on the matter.
2. The people of Alabama have a right, by law, to elect their Chief Justice. Judge Moore was well known as the "Ten Commandments Judge" when they elected him because he had been unsuccessfully challenged twice before for displaying the Decalogue in his courtroom. The whole of the people of Alabama made their choice based on this knowledge.
3. The Decalogue is not a symbol of one religion alone if it is a symbol at all. It is a set of temporal laws held in esteem by three major religions; Jewish, Christian and Muslim. More than that they are, as Judge Myron Thompson himself said, undeniably the source of much of western civil law today. He did not rule for their removal on the basis of their religious symbology and himself asserted that there was nothing wrong with publicly displaying the Decalogue on government property. The problem was clearly that the person who ordered their display actually believed in their divine origin and said so. More precisely Roy Moore said that God was the ultimate authority over men. What a radical thought! Is there some other way to view the concept of "our Creator?"
4. Every citizen has a right to assume the authority of any public office or trust that he/she has earned the privilege of holding and met the lawful requirements thereof irregardless of religious views or religious non-views.
Article. VI., Clause 3;The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This clause confirms that no religious test is required but it does require that the officer or trustee be bound by Oath or Affirmation. Who is that Oath or Affirmation given to? God. That is not a contradiction. A test would be to demand proof of one's belief (which cannot really be proven) or to specify what religion or sect of a religion the Oath is given through. None is ever specified.
What is especially significant to Judge Moore in this clause is what the Oath binds one to do. Support the Constitution. What is the Constitution founded upon? The Declaration of Independence. What does the DoI found its authority upon?
The Declaration of Independence:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...
Establishes the source of men's Rights; the authority they are founded upon...
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --
Establishes the source of government's "just power."
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ...
Recalls the source of government authority and the source of man's authority to give it.
For those who are willing to read and understand what Judge Moore has said he has stated clearly that the only thing he is doing is recognizing just what I have pointed out above. God is the authority upon which the authority of the Constitution (and thereby the government through men) is founded. He has called it his duty to do so and since he has sworn an Oath to support the Constitution is seems only appropriate to support it by restating its foundational basis. He cites the Alabama Constitution as basing its authority in God's authority too. Even if it didn't do so specifically (and it does) how could any State be a member of the Union of the United States without being under the authority of the U.S. Constitution which derives its authority from God?
You may choose to read more into what Judge Moore has said and done than this but that does not make it so. He has done nothing more than reaffirm his Oath of Office and nothing different than the court that removed him from office which was to open with a prayer to God. As the lawful chooser of Rotunda decorations he chose his favorite set of laws by his favorite lawmaker and included several Founding Father quotes. This is nothing different than another affirmation of the source of Man's Rights. The basis of Constitutional authority as stated by design, by the Founders, in the DoI.
"I fervently invoke the aid of that Almighty Ruler of the Universe in whose hands are the destinies of nations."
James Knox Polk (1795-1849) eleventh President of the United States, expressed these words in his inaugural address in 1845.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
The extent of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution is no more than those words from the 1st Amendment. Apart from the third clause of Article Six, which requires an Oath of Office and prohibits a religious test to hold office, there is nothing more than that. Nothing at all.
No right of equal religious representation or support. No prohibition of speech or religious expression by government officers or trustees. No prohibition of spoken or monetary support of any established religion. (Any religious group or congregation with an ounce of sense would avoid gov. money like the plague IMNHO)
Just; "no law respecting an establishment of religion."
That phrase is important to understand. Although a law might be made by Congress to fund a particular establishment of religion it would not be a law "respecting an establishment." 'Respecting' means 'concerning.' To meet that criteria the law in question would have to make some demand or alteration on the established order of the religion. Unless the religion in question itself had a proscription against outside help or government help such a law would not effect its establishment.
Yes, so they did. Here is the only statement in the Constitution that covers that "separation."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...That's it and that's all. It says nothing else, it authorizes nothing else, it prohibits nothing else. Anything else that Madison or Jefferson said about it can not expand the power of the Constitution beyond that statement. Whatever else they said about it is just rhetoric.
For over one hundred and fifty years, the Supreme Court has consistently supported their definition.
Could you cite some references? After all the Supreme Court supports the notion that sucking a babies brains out as it's being born doesn't violate its Right to life so it would be helpful to know the context and details of their 'support of Madison and Jefferson's positions on "separation of church and state."'
Therein lies the answer to why this case is about more than a threat to Christianity and more than just a threat to all religion.
... religion is being suppressed by the federal government of the United States in a manner inconsistent with our Constitution and History.
Religion and freedom of speech are being suppressed in this case but the key phrase is "a manner inconsistent with our Constitution and History". The Constitution is what is specifically under attack. Religion will exist whether it is legal or not. The Constitution only exists so long as its principles are understood and upheld. Those principles are consistently being undermined. Once the Constitution is rendered completely impotent and irrelevant it will be replaced.
If Algore had won the election in 2000 the principle of republican elective process would have been overthrown. That would have been severely crippling to the Constitution but not a death blow. The "Roy Moore/Decalogue" case cuts the Constitution off from its root, its initial authority, which was placed in an unamed God, "Our Creator." This was a completely non-sectarian reference to divine authority. Non-sectarian not just in the sense of divisions in Christian theology and not just in the sense of diverse religions but in a whole sense including non-religious and non-deist views. It was a placement of authority above and beyond man's will.
In spite of the fact that Judge Moore is a Christian and in spite of the fact that the Decalogue is the focus of this controversy neither Judge Moore, nor Christianity, nor God, nor the Ten Commandments is in any real peril here. Judge Moore demonstrated this on the personal level by refusing to deny his beliefs for the sake of a job. He lost his job but his core convictions remain untouched. God remains untouched. Christianity is untarnished by this. The Ten Commandments have in no way been altered by this.
The Constitution, however, has been severed from its root. Divine authority. Anything and everything it speaks to and protects is now up for grabs. There is only one replacement for divine authority among men; the rule of men. Those who seek to do this know that and want that.
I for one, a non-Christian, non-Jew, non-deist period do not want that. Without its root in divine authority over man's authority our Constitution is nothing more special than the constitution of the former Soviet Union. No rights at all just privileges of the State. The equality of men has rarely been surpassed as it was there. Religious man and atheist alike were equally subject to the brutality of statist authority. Defy the State on any issue there and the result was the same.
In spite of the imperfections of our Constitution, being instituted by men, and the erosions of its original intent and meaning over time by usurpers it is still the best invention yet created by men to prevent the tyranny of men over men. As long as it exists it offers some protection and has the potential to be perfected. It can only exist as long as it is connected to its ground.
China has millions of Christians. What it doesn't have is law to protect them ... or anyone else.
Hopefully you will understand if I continue to use it when and if it seems useful. ; )
you don't have the guts to answer my posts, but you can ping me to one of your articles? What a cheek. PS here's Washington's view on your 'separation of church and state' guff:
The facts are that many of your fellow Freepers- including Jim Robinson -actively support and admire Judge Moore's stance. The paucity of your opposing view has been shown time and again by your reposting of large blocks of text from atheist sites, in preference to addressing the points made against you. So not only is your position at odds with the overwhelming majority of Freepers, including our host, but you are not able to enunciate that position yourself. Do you still wonder why you're not taken seriously?
Permant displays (like statues) are determined by elected officials - don't like their decisions, elect someone else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.