CSNbbs

I'm sure Judge Roy Moore has known all along in his heart of hearts that there's such thing as judicial review and that he couldn't go around ignoring federal judges' decisions. But Moore brings up a more important question, a much larger question. In 2003, are Ten Commandments monuments in Supreme Court rotundas really the biggest problem facing America? And I've got to tell you, you know what bothers me the most about this?

You have all of these people like ripping their shirts: Oh, it's so awful. They are tearing apart our Constitution by allowing the Ten Commandments to be in government buildings.

Time for a pop quiz, class. Can you tell me what founding document contained the words separation of church and state? Law students, please turn to your parents right now and tell them which founding document by our founding fathers contained the words separation of church and state, because we understand that Moore is destroying the separation of church and state that our founding fathers put in the Constitution! Oh, it makes me want to cry.

The only problem is, its not in the Constitution. It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not in the Declaration of Independence. It's not in the Federalist Papers. In fact, it's not in any founding document. And this great concept, this wonderful concept, this separation of church and state concept that, by God, our very republic was founded upon doesn't even exist in our founding documents.

It was created whole cloth in 1947 by the United States Supreme Court. So before everybody starts getting so upset about the Ten Commandments being placed in the Alabama rotunda, ask yourself a question: Why are they in the U.S. Supreme Court? Why are they in Congress? Why are they in federal buildings all over Washington, D.C.? This is a bunch of hypocrisy, folks.

And if you don't like that, then you don't like the "Real Deal."

What law actually dictates the separation of Church and State?

The fact is the government has never passed a law implementing a "separation of church and state."

The concept is derived from the First Amendment of the The Constitution of the United States of America, which reads as follows:

"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."

The First Amendment is in fact a law. What you've just read is the written law. Yet the observance of this law, is in the hands of people. And what is written, is less relevant than what the people enforcing it claim that it means.

Bottom line, the First Amendment is a critical component of our laws and crucial for maintaining the idea of other rights. All of our other rights flow from it and these rights provide the freedoms we cherish.

The principle of firsts would state that items are listed in order of importance, with the first items mentioned to be considered the most important. If we look at the Ten Commandments, we'll see that the first commandment is:

You shall have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:1, NIV)

We could look at several similar examples, the fact is that freedom of; religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and to petition the Government are all covered in the First Amendment. And the first of the firsts is "...of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This can only mean that when the authors of the Bill of Rights prepared the first ten amendments to the constitution, the first thing on their minds was protecting (or possibly creating) freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.

But what about separation of church and state?

If our founding fathers intended the separation we are now levied with would their earliest documents contain phrases like these:

"...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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

"...that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people shall
not perish from the earth." excerpt from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The Pledge was first published Sept. 8, 1892, but the phrase, "under God", was added by an act of Congress in 1954.

"In God we Trust" This motto was put on all paper currency by an Act of Congress in 1955 and was chosen as our national motto by an Act of Congress in 1956.

There are many other well known examples, and with a little research one will find personal writings, wills, etc., that clearly demonstrate that our founding fathers were God fearing men. A good website for more information on this is Wallbuilders, Inc.

The first of the firsts was religion, why?
Our founding fathers were religious men. Early settlers braved the sea to escape religious persecution. If the concept of Separation of Church and State did exist then, it's intent was to prevent the Government from controlling religion. Keep in mind that the England controlled the Church, and the Church controlled the Bible. Early Protestants were promoting religious freedoms, individual devotions in the Bible, direct communion with God through the Holy Spirit, etc. They could not have come all this way just to let their faith once again become corrupted by Politics.

Robert L. Cord confirms this thought as he describes the true intention of the religion clause in the First Amendment:

"Regarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit."

The goal was to create a nation influenced by Christianity, and to prevent a religion that was mandated and/ or influenced by the nation. They put God first!

So what happened?

Over the years, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have reinterpreted this amendment. These interpretations have become the basis of the "separation of church and state."

In 1925 the Supreme Court's ruling on Gitlow v. New York demonstrates one of the most blatant violations of the Constitution. In this ruling the court began their reinterpretation of the Bill of Rights, by reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. Remember, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." Congress refers to the House and Senate of the Federal Government.

The Fourteenth Amendment states: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

The framers left authority over religious matters to the States in an effort to limit the power of the federal government. The Supreme Court consistently adhered to this constitutional principle basically until this 1925 hearing, where the court ignored the historical record and established a new precedent. In the 1940 ruling of Cantwell v. Connecticut, we see the Court's first reinterpretation of the First Amendment, as it related to religion, and it went downhill from there.

So now the first amendment seems to provide freedom from religion, instead of freedom of religion. But that's not the whole truth either. The result of all this is that we do have a national religion, it's called Secular Humanism.

Secular Humanism has it's roots early in the book of Genesis, when men began setting themselves up as God. In the Bible, the consequences for the country that grants sovereignty to something other than God are always destruction. Through out history, there are many examples of Humanist societies. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans all deified their rulers, and once the state held ultimate authority, government officials began to commit severe atrocities on mankind.

This is the current path of the U.S.A. If we ignore the trends then, one day, we may be asked to make a choice between the flag and the Bible.

http://www.spiritual-answers.com/Laws/ch..._state.htm

When the Founding Fathers made the seperation of 'church and state', what they had meant was that they didn't want what England had and still has, that is, a religion that is run by the government. The Queen of England is announced as 'defender of the faith', as she is the official head of the Anglican Church (aka Church of England, aka Episcopal Church).

Now the ACLU and other groups are really pushing the limit here. This goes back to a post I made in the never-ending gay thread. How can any group say that gays parading and flaunting all over streets in parades is legal and not offensive, but a manger scene in front of a church is illegal and offensive? That's just BS.

Chief Justice Moore was right on one stand...if you can put statues of Greek mythology up, the 10 Commandments should be up too. It's in the oaths of office of just about every US and state official "So help me God." I think that putting up these commandments is in no way offensive... it's even in fact historical...as they were the first rules of law known to mankind.

WPS

calling_the_hogs Wrote:as they were the first rules of law known to mankind.

I'm a Christian and proud of it, but I think that this piece of info is wrong. I believe that Hammurabi's Code came before Judiasm even took a firm footing and before the time period where the book of Exodus takes place. (In other words the Hammurabi Code was written before the Jews left Egypt). I did learn something in AP World!

Looked it up...no time date really with Exodus...but you are right.

However, you could say that the 10 commandments are the oldest set of laws still in use today. The Code of Hammurrabi has some, but not all laws, intact in present times.

WPS

We have evolved into a nation of double standards!

The laws are stretched, twisted and shaped into any
number of ways...depending on the position that one
supports.

What is "acceptable" and "not-acceptable" is in the
eyes of the beholder...or the minority opposition of
a certain law.

EXAMPLE: (Truthful example): In the Lexington, KY
Christmas parade...a Car drives by...On the side is
the placard reading: "Little Miss Black Lexington!"

Y'all want to offer your opinions about what would
have happened if there had been another car with
the placard: "Little Miss WHITE Lexington!"

Too many people...spend too much time...worrying
about nothing.

Until the time comes when the Government forces
their way into a church...there is no problem. The
removing of the Ten Commandments from some
rotunda does not deny Christains their right to worship
as they see fit. Does not prohibit them from believing
in a higher being.

"... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."

-- Article XI, United States treaty with Tripoli, 1797.

"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"

-- President Jefferson, letter to Connecticut Baptists, 1802.

In NO way, shape, or form did the statue of the 10 Commandments "Establish" a religion. ...and it NO way did the Congress pass a LAW establishing a religion.

Shad, what do your 2 quotes have to say on anything?

There is no law establishing Christianity as the national religion... that isn't even the topic here.

The fact is... God plays a role in all federal and state oaths. The 10 Commandments is not 'establishing a religion', as the 10 Commandments is not just in Christianity. Again, read a Torah and a Quaran.

It's a piece of history and shouldn't have any problems sitting in a court rotunda, especially when depictions of the 10 Commandments cover the walls of the US Supreme Court.

You lose this one, like many others Shad.

WPS

O'Reilly sums this one up beautifully
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly

What is really behind the Ten Commandments controversy? That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. It's not about the commandments monument in the Alabama hallway. This is about a significant power in this country that does not want any mention or reminder of spirituality in public, period.

On the radio today, a guy called me, named Sean from Virginia, and he admitted it. He said it offended him to hear the word "God". And he didn't care if it were attached to any religion or not. He just didn't want to hear the word.

So that's what this dispute in Alabama is all about. But if you look deeper, there's another reason why people like Sean want to banish God. The secularists in America have an agenda. They want total personal freedom. That means no judgments about anyone's behavior. They want legalized drugs, gay marriage, soft criminal penalties, and rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment.

The agenda goes on and on, but the message is that the USA should be a place where all non-criminal conduct is permitted and moral judgments about right and wrong should never be made.

If you take the God factor out of the country, that agenda is easier to impose. But that would lead to social chaos. Last night, I told you about a guy who lit up a marijuana cigarette in front of two young boys at a rock concert. Now I made the idiot put it out, but he didn't want to. And if drugs ever become legalized, he'll be able to blow that pot smoke right in your kids' face. Is that the kind of society you want, where any kind of boorish behavior is acceptable?

In my upcoming book, Who's Looking Out for You?, I prove that the Founding Fathers (search) wanted a spiritual presence in the public arena for a very practical reason. They understood the new government did not have the power to control behavior. They rightly figured that a God-fearing people would behave better than people with no moral boundaries.

So in every debate about the Constitution, God was mentioned. I have all the letters written between [James] Madison and [Thomas] Jefferson in my home library. There's no question those two men, who forged the Constitution, wanted God on the minds of Americans.

But now we have powerful judges and politicians who reject the intentions of the framers. And that is what we are seeing in the Ten Commandments debate. Those slabs in Alabama do not establish any religion, nor do they intrude on any sane person's sensibilities. They are simply a reminder that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. And the Alabama debate is a reminder that our freedoms and traditions are under assault by secular forces.

And that's The Memo.

It's written on our money and our Pledge of Allegiance. Congress opens with prayer every morning... When a loony from CA tried to get "under God" taken out of the Pledge, the Senate smacked him around 99-0.

Hell, the judge who ruled in CA who ruled in favor of the loony... what a moron he is. If he wants "under God" taken out of the pledge... he loses his job. It would be impossible for him to be judge without saying the oath of "I hereby swear UNDER GOD..." so therefore his job is gone and his ruling is null.

As a Christian, there is a distinct difference between US law and God's law... there's no doubting that... but from a secular perspectice even... let him hang whatever he wants... it's a free country, right libs?

I know I'm a very small minority in what I am about to say. But I believe I'm right.

The pledge should not include the words "under God" -- and if it does, then America's schoolchildren should not be required to recite it.

Requiring schoolchildren to recite those words amounts to an establishment of religion. This is the government telling kids what to think on a matter of spirituality. I don't care what the U.S. Senate says -- that federal judge had it right.

It isn't like we are even talking about hallowed tradition here, really. The author of the pledge -- a minister from upstate New York -- never included the words "under God" when he wrote it in the late 1800s. They were added during the 1950s in a propoganda move, when our Congress was determined to draw a bright distinction between our way of life and that of godless Communism.

The words "In God We Trust" were made a national motto in that same red-baiting era. It was not universal on U.S. money before then.

(A history:

<a href='http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html)' target='_blank'>http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-shee...-we-trust.html)</a>

Does this mean I think the words "In God We Trust" amount to an establishment of religion?

I do -- primarily because it APPEARS that way.

This predisposition of mine also leads me to grave concerns about the Ten Commandments being placed in a spot of prominence in a civic building.

The argument is tricker. One could argue that the Ten Commandments represent a key point in man's evolving thinking about law and its nature. In that sense, it might be appropriately displayed in a setting that also includes the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution.

One problem we have, of course, is that this setting appears to be besides the point in Alabama. From what I've read, our Alabama chief justice doesn't seem all too concerned with those other documents (or even the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, which seems a bit disturbing).

I would also argue a couple of additional points:

1. The idea that God actually handed down these Ten Commandments from on high to the Israelites is not a matter of fact. It is a belief many Jews hold, a belief that has been integrated into the Christian and Islamic faiths in various ways. Sure, we know the Ten Commandments exist. Their existence is amply recorded. But the story of how they came to be is, to say the least, something less than a hard fact.

2. At the root of the story of the Ten Commandments is the idea of God telling us how to live. It supposes that morality is derived from God. I would argue that people of good conscience can argue that God is not necessary for men and women to come to a fair idea of morality.

I tend to believe that we can have morality without God. And for that reason, placement of the Ten Commandments, religious law, in a building devoted to civic law truly does offend me, especially when one considers the bellicose manner in which our Alabama chief justice has done so.

Religion is important to many if not most Americans, and I respect that. Americans now have the right to pray in schools, and that right should not be abridged. Americans may form afterschool clubs devoted to religion, and that right should not be abridged. I'll go even further and suggest that schools could do more to teach about religion, at least to the extend that it has impacted our culture and world history. There may be times where public schools -- lawyer shy, as they are -- err on the side of caution when it comes to religion in the classroom.

But our government should not IMPOSE religion, either. And forcing kids to recite that our country is "under God" is an imposition.

Printing money that declares a national trust in God is an imposition.

Placing God's law in a building devoted to our civic law is also an imposition. That's my belief.

But I'm not a lawyer, and I'll acknowledge that the law may not be universally on my side on this.

Quote:The pledge should not include the words "under God" -- and if it does, then America's schoolchildren should not be required to recite it.

Requiring schoolchildren to recite those words amounts to an establishment of religion.

Of course if these same people committed acts of treason you would immediately jump to their defense claiming they never declared allegiance to America cause they never said the pledge.

Quote:They were added during the 1950s in a propoganda move, when our Congress was determined to draw a bright distinction between our way of life and that of godless Communism.

Of course from reading your posts we can easily derive that you yourself are a communist supporter.

Quote:red-baiting era

McCarthy was an American hero. "Red-baiting" is just a made-up liberal lie to try and cover their tracks during the Cold War, just like the term "McCarthyism". Liberals try to claim, "So I supported communism! I have that right! What you are doing is trying to remove my rights!" Yeah, whatever.

Quote:I tend to believe that we can have morality without God. And for that reason, placement of the Ten Commandments, religious law, in a building devoted to civic law truly does offend me, especially when one considers the bellicose manner in which our Alabama chief justice has done so.

Conservatives believe in a just and loving God. Liberals think they are god.

I'm a conservative but i don't have a religion, don't believe the bible is fact and have never been to church. All that said, i could care less if they leave up the 10 commandments or not. i don't see why it bother's anyone. if you don't like it, don't look at it. Most of the people who want it taken down, are arguing for argument's sake. i don't like agreeing with Shad, but he's right in saying we can have morality without god.

What does 'believing in a just and loving god' have to do with anything.

While i hate liberals, i don't think people should be belittled because they don't believe in god.

As long as the dollar bill is still worth a dollar, then they can put all hail god on it, for all i care. Even if you don't believe in god, why do you get offended when god-isms are posted?

Thomas... neither you nor RebelKev believe in that just and loving God you speak of. Do you believe in the God of the 10 commandments? The God who wrote the terse, short and concise "Thou shalt not murder."? Do you believe in the Word made flesh, who died so that we may love every human being and not kill each other? Do you believe in that same Christ who died for forgiveness? Do you believe in the God who loves everyone, sinner or righteous, all the same?

If you answered no to any of those questions... you do not believe in the true God. And, as Archbishop William Temple put it, "If you have false ideas of God, the more religious you are, the worse it is for you-- it were better for you to be an atheist." In short... you might as well not believe in God, Thomas.

I believe in ALL that, but just and loving? The Lord is both of those, so long as you accept his son as your Lord and Savior (I.e. the Trinity). Also, it did NOT say "Thou Shalt Not Murder". It stated, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Something that is ALSO up to interpretation. David, a mere boy, was chosen to slay the giant, Goliath of the Phillistines. You say that was in the old testament? Well guess what kid, so were the 10 Commandments. Do I think they still hold a meaning? Yes. But Jesus fullfilled the prophecy and died for our sins. Before Jesus died, God would take matters into his OWN hands, read Sodom and Gommorah. After his son came and died for our sins, it was left to us to determine our own destiny. I get SO ticked off at atheists because they state such BS as, "Well, if God already knows what we are going to do, why should I bother?". To that I say........duh. He knows the path you will lead, but you DON'T know that path you will lead so you should keep trying. Also, laws of the land STILL must be obeyed and judgment, worldly standards, are still right to apply.



Nate, if you keep on "Judging" me, God will have a place for you. Only God knows the heart of a man. Not a 16 year old little "Wet Behind the Ears" punk-****** moron. Get a clue dumb***.

Also Nate, you are coming VERY close to Blasphemy, (I'm sure dad would be proud), by judging a man's heart when in ALL verses in the Bible pertaining to the soul states the soul is NOT judged by ANY mortal man.

Hmm, wonder what God thinks about your blind support for the Palestinians against his "Chosen People"?

Kid, you have a LOT of growing up to do.

Nate, are you questioning my loyalty to Christ? Or is that a list of requirements to be a "pure" Christian? You know me pretty well, so how can you say I don't believe in Our Savior? You know my family and how I was raised, I've been to a Christian camp every summer for the last 6 years, I went to Trail West in '96, and I accepted Christ at something like 9. Christianity is a pact between you and God that can vary from person to person. There is no perfect Christian, but each person is expected to live their life by God's codes and laws and be a "fisher of men" and to spread the Word. Oh, and by the way... I answered yes to all those questions.

T-Monay820 Wrote:Nate, are you questioning my loyalty to Christ? Or is that a list of requirements to be a "pure" Christian? You know me pretty well, so how can you say I don't believe in Our Savior? You know my family and how I was raised, I've been to a Christian camp every summer for the last 6 years, I went to Trail West in '96, and I accepted Christ at something like 9. Christianity is a pact between you and God that can vary from person to person. There is no perfect Christian, but each person is expected to live their life by God's codes and laws and be a "fisher of men" and to spread the Word. Oh, and by the way... I answered yes to all those questions.

Isn't it apparent T? He thinks he speaks for God.

RebelKev Wrote:Also Nate, you are coming VERY close to Blasphemy, (I'm sure dad would be proud), by judging a man's heart when in ALL verses in the Bible pertaining to the soul states the soul is NOT judged by ANY mortal man.

Hmm, wonder what God thinks about your blind support for the Palestinians against his "Chosen People"?

Kid, you have a LOT of growing up to do.

When did I question your heart? I'm questioning your beliefs... there is a distinct difference. Every day judgments go on in the religious world... I know that for a fact. My Dad has to make decisions everyday whether or not someone's theology is sound or not... there is no secret in that.

Modern day Israel is a UN MADE COUNTRY... not a God made country. The UN arbitrarily made that state and gave it the name "Israel". The Israel of the old testament is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR different... it is a select group of people that God chose to demonstrate the type of people he wanted.