Support the Religious Liberties Restoration Act introduced by Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado

American Family Association ^ | Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman

[webber]

Support the Religious Liberties Restoration Act introduced by Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado

---

Ask your senators to co-sponsor S. 1558.

---

Dear Friend,

Finally, a U.S. Senator has given Americans a method to restore our religious liberties. He has introduced a bill, S. 1558, The "Religious Liberties Restoration Act", which does exactly that.

S. 1558 is not a constitutional amendment, but a legislative statute which would remove from federal court review the displaying of the Ten Commandments, the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. Click here to urge your two senators to co-sponsor this bill!

Using this approach, a constitutional amendment would not be needed. Sen. Allard's bill would become law by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and the signature of the President. No liberal federal judge would have any authority to rule on this law!

Although this approach, under Section III, Article 2, of the Constitution is not widely reported in the media nor understood by the general public, it was used 11 times during the last Congress!

Here's what this bill would do:

Eliminate situations such as that facing Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Allow Americans the freedom to display the National Motto, say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and display the Ten Commandments wherever the local community decides - even on government property!

End conflicting enforcement of U.S. law. For example, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public building to be constitutional, while another federal judge in Alabama ruled such a display unconstitutional.

ACTIONS WE URGE YOU TO TAKE:

E-mail your two U.S. Senators and urge them to co-sponsor S. 1558. Click here to do that right now!

Forward this message to at least one other friend who is concerned about this issue.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman
American Family Association

---

[concerned about politics]

Wow. What timing......The religious right isn't doing too bad here. The polls must really be on our side if democrats are finally bowing down before the Great I Am (politically, anyway)

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove volunteered Thursday to join neighboring Alabama in the fight over the Ten Commandments monument by offering to display it in his state's capitol building for a week starting September 7.

The 2.6-ton granite edifice was moved from the rotunda of the Alabama state judicial building to a back room out of public view Wednesday on order of a federal court that ruled it violated the U.S. Constitution's restriction on government establishment of religion.

Musgrove, a Democrat, urged other governors to allow similar displays in their states "to show support for our common Judeo-Christian heritage."

"Like many Americans, I have watched as Alabama's struggle to display our Christian heritage has unfolded," Musgrove said in a statement.

"I had hoped and prayed that the courts would stand up for our rights, and I am disappointed. It is my sincere hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will override the federal court's decision."

Cnn something

[Dimensio]

Allow Americans the freedom to display the National Motto, say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and display the Ten Commandments wherever the local community decides - even on government property!

This is already legal as per the First Amendment. We don't need another one for this.

(if anyone is going to dispute this, be prepared to cite the exact words from a specific court case that prohibits it)

[concerned about politics]

This is already legal as per the First Amendment. We don't need another one for this.

The liberal dictators on the bench have rewriten the Constitution so badly, we need a bill to clean up the propaganda mess once and for all.
The future anti-Christ dictator isn't welcome here. No marks will be forced onto the foreheads of a free people.

[Dimensio]

The liberal dictators on the bench have rewriten the Constitution so badly, we need a bill to clean up the propaganda mess once and for all.

They've not succeeded in winning any victories to prevent individuals from uttering religious sentements on government property. I say again, this is unnecessary and it makes the supporters look like they're aiming for more than what they claim.

[Reagan Man]

Kudo's to my Senator.

[Russell Scott]

Wow, a Democrat standing up for God. Now that is shocking, but great, news!

[Holden Magroin]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended only to keep the federal government from establishing an official religion - period. Liberal activist judges, however, have blatantly ignored the plain language of the Constitution in order to harass Christians. Conservatives need to quit pretending like these judges have made some innocent mistake and get real about what these anti-Christian bigots are up to.

There is no need for new legislation or constitutional amendments. Rather, we need to impeach federal judges who think they're above the law.

[Russell Scott]

The future anti-Christ dictator isn't welcome here. No marks will be forced onto the foreheads of a free people.

There is a lot of truth in your statement. Many people think the "mark of the beast" is inevitable in America. It is not! Bravo for your insight.

[Alex Murphy]

Bump for later

[webber]

"(if anyone is going to dispute this, be prepared to cite the exact words from a specific court case that prohibits it)"

It just "shows to go ya" what people will write when they dont read ALL an article.

This is being proposed, so that, in the future, the court will NOT be able to do what they just did in Alabama. Just because the Constitution doesn't say that this is illegal, it will not stop "Activist judges" from usurping the Constitution because it is, to them, a "living, breathing" Document, changing at the whim of any and all activist judges. THIS BILL WILL STOP THESE ACTIVIST JUDGES from doing this because it will be SO specific, there will be no way to misconstrue what it says. By the by, did you bother to click on the link that gives the wording of that bill? I didn't think so.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[AnalogReigns]

It's too narrowly drawn, only protecting the 10 Commandments, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and "in God we trust" on the money.

It does nothing to prevent courts from mandating the abolition of: chaplains in congress (or even in the military for that matter), religious holiday displays on pubilc property (creche scenes, menorahs, etc.), fair rentals of schools on Sundays to churches (very common these days), tax exempt status of churches, observance of religous holidays, or other common-sense, reasonable public accomodations.

Any one of those issues has its ACLU (and federal judge) proponents--and are of far more significance than if "in God we trust" is or is not on our federal reserve notes.

I'd support it if it had the more important religious accomodation issues attached, and had broad language at the end, so as not to partially exclude something in the future.

Still, maybe limiting the courts' jurisdiction in anything would be a good move....no matter how symbolic.

[AnalogReigns]

"he subject matter of subsections (a), (b), and (c) are excepted from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court."

From the statute. Sounds like anyone could (and would have to) appeal directly to the Supreme Court to challenge this. In other words, if we had a liberal group of just 5 Supremes, they could choose to render this law mute.

Why is it worded this way...so as to still allow the USSC to review it?

[Celtman]

Many people think the "mark of the beast" is inevitable in America.

      It's inevitable all over the world.  The only unknown is when.

[f.Christian]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972219/posts?q=1&&page=101

To: lugsoul

Jusge Moore is standing up for the rights of all. Religious freedom is for all.
Free speech is for all. The first amendment is for all. The ACLU is trying to
restrict our freedoms to only what they approve (atheism).



129 posted on 08/28/2003 3:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND...
ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)

[reasonseeker]

“Like many Americans, I have watched as Alabama's struggle to display our Christian heritage has unfolded”

“The future anti-Christ dictator isn't welcome here”

“Liberal activist judges, however, have blatantly ignored the plain language of the Constitution in order to harass Christians.”

It's statements like these that reveal the lie that supporters of putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse are not trying to use government to promote a particular establishment of religion.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The law is NOT bound by the court,the court is bound by the law and it is time for the court to be bound!A law can be passed because this is the duty of congress,they DO NOT first have to pass judicial muster.

[Nephi]

This an okay first step, but I like Alan Keyes solution better. Keyes solution

Specifically:

"The text of the Constitution easily allows us to see and understand the federal judiciary's abuse of power and its usurpation of the right of the people in religious matters. It also provides a remedy for this abuse. The Congress must pass legislation that, in order to assure proper respect for the first clause of the First Amendment, excepts from the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts those matters which, by the conjoint effect of the First and 10th Amendments, the Constitution reserves to the states respectively and to the people. (This language avoids a semantic difficulty, since congressional legislation that explicitly mentioned matters pertaining to an establishment of religion would serve the intention but violate the terms of the first clause of the First Amendment.)" A concern that I have with Allard's law.

[Onelifetogive]

Many people think the "mark of the beast" is inevitable in America. It is not! Bravo for your insight.

Americans make up ~6% of the world population. While we think the Bible was written for and about ONLY us...it wasn't. Many things can happen in many parts of the world and fulfill Bible prophecy while not affecting us (if we are faithful to God...)