Why the Left Hates the Ten Commandments

conservativetruth.org ^ | Doug Patton

[webber]

Why the Left Hates the Ten Commandments

September 1, 2003

by Doug Patton

Do not expect Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to surrender in his fight to display the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state's Supreme Court building. Moore, a principled man whose judicial temperament is guided and molded by his belief that there is a God and that He is watching, is not motivated by what may happen to his career as a judge. He is not moved by the whims of other judges whose rulings are based not in law, but rather in the blowing, drifting opinions of contemporary societal mores.

Most Americans have no idea of the gravity of the drama unfolding at the Supreme Court building in Montgomery. Jaded and numbed by fifty years of abuse by an out-of-control judiciary that usurps the will of the people and their elected representatives by making law from the bench, it seems we no longer have any collective memory of what our precious founding documents say, let alone what they mean.

Just what is it that engenders such hatred by liberals toward The Ten Commandments? Which of these laws of nature and of nature's God strikes such fear and loathing in the hearts of the Left?

Is it Commandment number six ("Thou shalt not kill" – or, more accurately translated, "Thou shalt not commit murder")? Perhaps it is number eight ("Thou shalt not steal").

Or maybe they just can't stand number nine, ("Thou shalt not bear false witness). Is there any thinking person who could look at those three rules and say that society would be better off if they were disregarded? How about number ten ("Thou shalt not covet")?

The truth is that it is the first few commandments that cause apoplectic fits on the Left. Number one especially drives them crazy: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This is followed by, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" and the ever-popular "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy."

Add to those the admonition to "Honor thy father and mother" and to hear the Left talk you would think that Ayatollah Roy had set up shop in the Alabama Supreme Court building. John Adams once said that the American Constitution was written for a moral and a religious people, and that it is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other.

Today's liberals would scoff at such a sentiment. They would claim that Adams wanted to limit American citizenship exclusively to Christians. Quite the contrary. Adams understood that free people cannot be coerced into believing anything against their will. But he also understood that a free people can recognize the truth when they see it, and that it was only the self-governing man or woman who can truly be free.

Adams and the other Founders possessed a wisdom that comes only to people who know that their rights are granted by their Creator, not by other men, and that government is instituted among men to acknowledge and defend those rights.

The Founders recognized that lawlessness breeds anarchy, which brings the terrible power of tyranny down upon the people. They knew that those who fled to these shores seeking religious and economic freedom did so not for the right simply to do what they wanted to do, but rather for the right to do what they ought to do.

In a perfect America, where the Constitution was revered and God was exalted, we would all know such freedom. Instead, we have traded our birthright for a society filled with self-indulgence and a debate over whether it is appropriate to acknowledge God in public.

May God give us a million more Roy Moores.

© 2002 by Doug Patton

---

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a speechwriter and policy advisor to federal, state and local candidates and elected officials. His work is published in newspapers across the country and on various web sites, including GOPUSA.com and AmericasVoices.org. You can e-mail him at dpatton@neonramp.com.

---

[daveoverpar]

Why do we continue to call it the 'Left'? Call them what the are 'Marxists, Communists, or Stalinist". But don't call them leftist. Call them late for dinner if you want but don't call them 'Leftists'. They are not the left wing of our government. They don't really believe in our form of government. They only use it as a means to an end. The end is Socialism at best(see France) or Communism at worst(see life under Hillary).

[cody32127]

Read This "1963 communist goals"

http://www.glennbeck.com/hots/printcommunistgoals.htm

[dts32041]

You forgot my all time fanvorite The national scoialist democrat party.

[Hyacinth Bucket]

May God give us a million more Roy Moores.

Ping!

[ConservativeMan55]

Thanks for the Ping!!!!!!!

[hedgetrimmer]

Call them what the are 'Marxists, Communists, or Stalinist".

I wholeheartedly agree. We have a bill in the California state senate that effectively gives property rights over to the indian tribes, SB 18. The bill states the indians have a right to in camera court hearings, just like good old Joe Stalin. That is they can call the property owner to court, take away his property, with no trial and no witnesses. The only information or notice the public will get is a transcript of the hearing. This is exactly how the USSR did things. Someone would disappear and they would be executed or sent off to Siberia. Their families would get a copy of the hearing in the mail at a later date, that was all. We have more communists in our state government than any other state, I'll bet.

Here it is in the bill text:
the court shall conduct its proceedings in camera and shall seal records of the proceeding and papers filed with the court.

[Hugin]

Unfortunately Judge Moore chose a stupid legal argument for defending the Ten Commandments monument. Had he argued that the monument did not constitute establishment of a religion and but simply commemorated a part of western culture and it's influence on the law, he probably could have won. After all, the Supreme Court has justified the display of the Ten Commandments in it's own building on just those grounds. Also he he probably could have gotten a stay until the case was heard.

Instead he deliberately chose to appeal on the grounds that no Federal court has the right to order a state official to violate state law, even if it finds that law counter to the US Constitution. In effect he said the Alabama Constitution outweighs the US Constitution. He totally ignored the 14th Ammednment in his argument as well. Naturally SCOTUS was not about to agree with that line of reasoning. Judge Moore's agenda clearly went beyond the monument itself, and keeping the monument was secondary to that agenda.

[Hyacinth Bucket]

Unfortunately Judge Moore chose a stupid legal argument for defending the Ten Commandments monument. Had he argued that the monument did not constitute establishment of a religion and but simply commemorated a part of western culture and it's influence on the law, he probably could have won.

Winning for the sake of winning does not seem to be Judge Moore's goal. There is a higher principle involved. Judge Moore has stated over and over that the issue has always been about, "Can the state acknowledge (not establish) God?"

77% of Alabamans support the display of the 10 Commandments at the courthouse. Keeping/removing the monument is entirely a states rights matter and FEDERAL Judge Myron Thompson overstepped his authority on this matter. Congress is forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution to touch this issue and this federal judge decided to interpret and enforce a law which is strictly forbidden to even be made.

[solitas]

Just what is it that engenders such hatred by liberals toward The Ten Commandments? Which of these laws of nature and of nature's God strikes such fear and loathing in the hearts of the Left?

You're all wrong: displaying the Decalogue in ANY form violates the liberal's first commandment ("...thou shalt not tell Us what to do - We're supposed to tell you...") and their second commandment ("...thou shalt not make Us feel guilty by rubbing Our Noses in the truth...").

As for Moore: of all the postings I've read, Hugin's post in #8 hits the closest to the truth.

[.cnI redruM]

There's one that reads "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery?"

[2nd Amendment]

Off for mosquitos, garlic for vampires, Ten Commandments for leftists!

[floriduh voter]

The left hates the Ten Commandments so they can starve a young woman in Pinellas County Florida who is a disabled woman, not comatose. Please stop by the Terri Schiavo threads for action phone numbers and emails. If you are short on time, here's AG JOHN ASHCROFT'S EMAIL ADDRESS: ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov

The Judge in Pinellas is setting the date for Terri's "exit protocol" on September 11, 2003.

FYI: Terri's is feeling better today.

Webber, please ping your friends to help out. This is about everyone, not just Floridians.

[Hugin]

Congress is forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution to touch this issue and this federal judge decided to interpret and enforce a law which is strictly forbidden to even be made.

You, like Judge Moore, are ignoring the 14th Ammendment, which extends the restrictions on the Federal government in the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Being a later Ammendment, it also supercedes the the 9th and 10th Ammendments when they conflict. That's the basis of Judge Thompson's decision. While I think he is wrong in deciding that the monument constitutes the establishment of a religion, I think Judge Moore was also wrong in his legal argument.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

....the Supreme Court has justified the display of the Ten Commandments in it's own building on just those grounds....

When and where has that been tested?

[steplock]

http://www.gohotsprings.com/focus/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=434

Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937

In 1919 an Italian socialist named Antonio Gramsci began to publish a newspaper in Milan called, L'Ordine Nuovo, or "The New Order." Loosely rendered, he concluded that the average person would never voluntarily reject the faith and culture of the West. He concluded that the best way to implement a collectivist government was to use an intellectual elite to destroy traditional values by attacking fundamental Jewish and Christian beliefs.

Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937

...A. The New Order (L'Ordine Nuovo)
......1. Italian Communist newspaper, founded 1919
......2. Co-founder of Italian Communist Party, 1921
......3. Pre-Prison Writings, ed. Richard Bellamy (Cambridge, 1994)
......4. Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Intl. Publishers, 1971)

...B. Lenin was wrong, and the Leninist revolution will fail
......1. The workers will see the revolutionary government as a new boss
......2. When the revolution fails, the west will re-import Capitalism

...C. Gradual revolution through infiltration & subversion by revolutionaries
......1. Infiltrate the State: elective & appointed office; judgeships
......2. Infiltrate the military: enlist & subvert from within
......3. Infiltrate justice: undermine and discredit state constitutions
......4. Infiltrate education: professors & administrators
......5. Infiltrate & discredit religion: scoundrels as clergymen
......6. Register, then license, then confiscate all privately held weapons

...D. Form or infiltrate international organizations to promote goals such as "global understanding," "economic development," "transfer of resources"

...E. Both Capitalism and Judaeo-Christian culture must be destroyed before a Communist revolution can succeed
......1. Religious sentiment cannot be destroyed through legislation, as Lenin believed, but must be redirected from the divine to the state
.........a. Terror will only drive Religion underground
.........b. Religion will then reemerge when Leninism fails
.........c. So Religion must be destroyed in the minds of men
......2. Infiltrate religious academies and become priests and clergymen
.........a. Subtly promote heresy within religious organizations
.........b. Infiltrators must act so as to discredit the church
............(1) Cause financial and sexual scandals
............(2) See that this is given a high profile in the news
............(3) Like-minded infiltrators in the media will cooperate
......3. Once religion is discredited from within, continuously promote the idea that only the state can solve the problems that have been traditionally brought before the church
...F. When propagating revolutionary ideas, cloak them in polite terms
......1. National Consensus
......2. Popular Mandate
......3. National Pacification
......4. Pluralism
......5. Global Community
......6. Economic Justice
......7. Economic Democracy
......8. Liberation Theology
......9. Direct Action
...G. Marxists "must enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity in every nation, leavening them as yeast leavens bread."

[Hugin]

SCOTUS ruled a while back that having "In God We Trust" on the money was not a First Amendment violation, because it was a cultural expression, and not the establishment of a religion. Various SCOTUS justices have stated in interviews when asked about the 10 Commandments displayed in their building, along with Hamurabi's code and the Greek goddess of Justice, that the display is justified on the same grounds.

[Hyacinth Bucket]

Excerpt of the 14th amendment:
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.

So you agree then that Federal Judge Thompson should have practiced judicial restraint and is the one who violated the law by mis-using and abusing the 14th Amendment even when it clearly did not apply in this case. The display of the monument, in no shape or form, impinged on anyone's constitutional rights. The right NOT TO BE OFFENDED is not a constitutional right.

[Roscoe]

You, like Judge Moore, are ignoring the 14th Ammendment, which extends the restrictions on the Federal government in the Bill of Rights to the states as well.

Ask for a jury trial on a traffic ticket.

[Roscoe]

The right NOT TO BE OFFENDED is not a constitutional right.

Didn't ya know? Thompson and crew are free to invent constitutional "rights" at will.