Posted on 08/22/2003 2:22:56 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
"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
Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore is a national hero.
He became one in 1995 when, as a circuit-court judge in the state, he placed a hand-carved wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall.
That act set off legal challenges that led to him becoming known as "The Ten Commandments Judge" and eventually his election by the people of the state to the top judicial position in Alabama.
It should have surprised no one when, upon assuming his new position as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he installed a two-ton, washing-machine-sized granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed suits against Moore, charging his action violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Last month, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Moore and ordered him to remove the monument. Moore vowed once again to fight the ruling.
Is there any validity to the charge that positioning the Ten Commandments in a state courthouse violates the First Amendment?
The First Amendment states: "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."
For starters, Congress never entered the equation when Moore made his decision to erect the monument. Secondly, and most importantly, which religion is established by the posting of the Ten Commandments?
The Ten Commandments are not only revered by all believing Christians and Jews, they are the very basis of Western civilization and, more specifically, the cornerstone of American self-government.
Just ask James Madison, the author of the U.S. Constitution. He said the founders staked their entire experiment – and it remains an experiment more than 200 years later – of self-government. The only alternative to a free society of individuals governing themselves under the simple yet profound precepts of the Ten Commandments, he understood, was a society coerced to behave by the power of government.
That's what the debate is all about in Alabama today. Do we wish to live in a society of self-governing individuals who behave themselves because of a consensus around some eternal truths, an absolute morality, a simple code of right and wrong uniting people of many faiths? Or, do we prefer to live under the rule of men and a system of ever-changing, always-evolving morality and subject to the whims of unaccountable judges and the fads and fashions of democracy?
That's the choice. We can argue whether Judge Moore made the right tactical or strategic legal choices, as one Southern Baptist leader has done. But this fight and this choice is much more important than that. There's a much bigger issue at stake – that issue is what kind of a country we want.
I want the kind of a country James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and our founders envisioned for us. That's what Judge Roy Moore wants, too.
It's time for Americans to rally around this man, his cause and tell the ACLU to take its meddling to some other country.
America was founded on the principle of self-government. We can't have self-government without the Ten Commandments, without biblical principles of right and wrong, without a basic code of morality.
This is not a question of separation of church and state. No church is being established in Alabama or the U.S. when we acknowledge the power and principality of the Ten Commandments in our lives and in the life of our country.
Yep... I've always liked Hurcules.(sp?)
And just what happened to those guys on Mt. Olympus? *Grins*
And will Judge Moore post the 'version that I like' in the Supreme Court building? Or will he, as Madison warned, hold up one sect of Christianity as better than others?
As a Catholic there really is no big difference between the versions of the ten Commandments.
Thou shalt not kill still means thou shall not kill!
Neither Judge Moore, nor anyone else is obligated to post the "version" you like - that's up to you as an individual. But, if you feel strongly enough about it to stand up for your right to do so, then you'd better hurry because you're about to loose that right under the lie of "separation of church and state".
What a pompous ass. When did you get elected the arbiter of conservative thinking, and did you check with TLBSHOW before stealing "the gift"?
I need to remind you that observing "the legal aspects" of a legal situation and acting on those legalities rather than raw emotional content is much more in line with conservative thinking than acting on your "feelings" about an issue...that's usually liberal territory.
"I say that line-up deserves Freeper respect and support."
Since someone else already brought this up, which side of the lined-up FReeper did you "respect and support" during the Elian Gonzalez controversy? Either side you pick will have some FReepers telling you that you did not take the "conservative" stance.
"On the other side we have the ACLU, militant gays, secular leftists, and a handful of senior Freepers"
In other words, belittle and demean anyone who doesn't think as you do...that's the American way...according to the Clintons anyway.
"Now I am asking you guys to suppress your concerns, to go with the collective view"
That's right, who needs independent thinkers anyway, they don't make for good "conservatives" as far as you're concerned.
OK, so you're charged with coming up with the language for the Omnibus Parental Respect Law of 2004, the Adultery Eradication Amendment or the Covetous of Thy Neighbor's Goods Act of 2005. What, exactly, are you going to put into these laws? How are they any of the Government's business?
You finish drafting those laws, and I'm sure we'll find a place for burqas in there somewhere...
It's bigger than the pros and cons of this issue. What we have here is a bunch of people who are passionately concerned about the way America is heading, and their response is to jump in the car and head on over to the courthouse to let their feelings be known. Meantime you've got a handful of dilittantes and intellectuals back here undercutting their efforts in an elitist, almost sneering way. Forget posting excerpts from Madison's writings, Luis. This is about action, not debate. About rolling up your sleeves. Ask yourself not what interpretation should be placed on some Founder's tangential writings on the subject- rather, what would the Founders themselves have done?
You know they'd all be in Moore's corner, don't you?
I checked my thesaurus, and "endorse" in not a synonym of "establish". Furthermore, Judge Moore is not "congress". If you don’t agree with the wording of the First Amendment, and wish to amend it, replacing "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" with "no government official shall take action endorsing a religion", you are free to propose that. Check Article V of the U.S. Constitution for instructions.
PS you are stifling your potential to affect change, by adopting those restraints. I think a day in the devil suit would do you a heap of good. Cheers, By
I am a Catholic as well and I take absolutely no offense at Judge Moore posting a version of the Ten Commandments that is not the Catholic version.
What does offend me is Catholics and Conservatives who continue to assist the ACLU and the judicial activists in the construction of the mythical "WALL" whistling the tune to the Bridge Over the River Kwai all the way.
But I have to acknowledge that I am not invoking my Constitutional RIGHT not to be offended since that is almost as abused as the omnipotent 14th Amendment.
America will head the way the American people wish her to head, that's what a government by the people, of the people, and for the people is about.
This means that in spite of whatever adjective you wish to attach to my opinion, it is still the opinion of an American citizen, and it carries with the the full rights and guarantees that any other opinion from any other American citizen carries.
"Forget posting excerpts from Madison's writings, Luis.----Ask yourself not what interpretation should be placed on some Founder's tangential writings on the subject- rather, what would the Founders themselves have done?"
You're not even making any sense anymore...I have been telling you EXACTLY what the Founders would have done.
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.