Welcome to my randomized study & miscellaneous thoughts about the Awesome God of the universe, who He is and what He wants us to be.

---

---

---

---

Verse of the Day

---

Today's Quote

---

 
Judge Roy Moore, the Ten Commandments and the U.S. Constitution


While (or "whilst" for those of you who may be KJV-only) I typically do not comment upon or add my $0.02 into commentary upon politics, daily events and the like...I feel compelled to make mention of the stand that Judge Roy Moore is making in Alabama vis-a-vis the ordered removal of a engraved monument featuring the 10 Commandments from the Alabama judicial complex.

It seems to me, from what I've seen, heard and read, that the vast majority in the media, entertainment and educational industries and those individuals with a liberal political viewpoint, all tend to "gloss over" what the US Constitiution actually states regarding "the separation of church and state"...which is nothing! That's correct, read it again... nowhere in the United States Constitiution will you find the words "separation of church and state" or words to that meaning. It says absolutely nothing regarding this separation! The original intent of our Founding Fathers was to allow the religious freedom that so many had come to America to find, escaping the state-mandated Church of England. The Constitiution intended to avoid having the federal government establish the Church of America or some such entity which would be the "state's" (government's) official religious arm.

For what I believe is a clear and concise read on this issue, I quote the following, in its entirety, from The Mighty Barrister (8/22/03)

(quote)
Like a boxer fighting for vengeance, Judge Roy Moore refuses to drop his gloves, even between rounds. I like his style; I like his hubris. We must all stand up before this secular society - at every level, and before every institution - and stand by our right to call ourselves the followers of Christ, and to follow our sworn oaths.

Don't misunderstand Moore's position. While he did pick this fight, he did it for a good, solid reason - not to shove his religion down anyone's throat, but to stand up to what he perceived (rightly so) as a secular attack (driven by a religious fervor) upon the very roots of our freedom and system of legal jurisprudence. Call him what you will, but he is an honorable and moral man.

In Judge Moore's case, his oath of office required him to acknowledge God; the state constitution of Alabama says so. The United States Constitution, on the other hand, is silent on the issue - the only prohibition even close to the issue is that "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."

How this got twisted around is anyone's guess, but twisted it is. Read it again, carefully.

Who or what is prohibited from acting?

Congress.

What is Congress prohibited from doing?

Establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So Judge Moore comes along and installs the Ten Commandments - God's "codification" of Natural Law, the very basis of Western Civilization, the cornerstone of the Constitution of the United States, and the springboard from which all legal jurisprudence has arisen - in the courthouse as an monument to the law and as a reminder to the people of the origin of those laws. Setting aside the fact that Judge Moore is not "Congress," he did not establish a religion, nor did he prohibit the free exercise thereof. If a Muslim woman in a burka comes walking through the courthouse, Judge Moore is not going to be standing there with a shotgun, forcing her to her knees to recite the Ten Commandments.

There is no doubt that there will be a liberal feeding frenzy around Judge Moore, who has previously been targeted by the extreme left for his Christian beliefs. (WARNING - extremely foul language). Another example is this article from Slate, in which the author accuses Moore of being a "demagogue," and states, "Moore, who's made a career of confusing his bench with a pulpit, has evinced such contempt for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the rest of this nation that he's unworthy of another word." Despite this protest, the author spends many more words attacking Moore. Of course, the author fails to note any distinction between what Moore is permitted to do and what Congress is permitted to do, evincing his ignorance of the issue more succintly than I can do in this space.

It is fittingly symbolic that Judge Moore choose a 5,000 pound plus block of granite as the base for these laws, laws that have lasted through time, unchanged in substance and appearance. After all, we don't use the words "carved in stone" to refer to ever-changing and alterable things. Just as Peter was the rock upon whom Jesus built his Church, so too were the laws of God as handed down to Moses the rock upon which civilization was built. Without these laws, without resort to the natural laws of God, our civilization will be built upon the ever-changing, maleable opinions of men, and everyone knows that a house built upon a shifting foundation will fall.

God is not only mentioned in the Constitution itself, but He was part and parcel of the life of every found father. To believe that the founding fathers of this nation intended to wipe God from the face of public life anywhere in this country is beyond ludicrous. The mere thought of banning the Ten Commandments from a courthouse would have been absolutely inconceivable to Jefferson, Washington, or any of the other founders of this great nation.

But Barrister, you cry, what about the other religions?

One anti-religious zealot has already attacked Moore on this issue, stating "But Moore, true to form, didn't stop there. He said he would not permit Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims to erect monuments to their faiths, because they have nothing to do with what he sees as the moral foundation of law."

Well, Mr. Sullivan-County guy, Moore's right, and you're wrong. Please tell me where, and in what way, any clause, phrase, law or foundation of law in American Jurisprudence is drawn from Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim law? What's that? Do they practice sharia in your neck of the woods? No, our law is derived from God's law as handed down to Moses.

At least it was when the Constitution was written.
(endquote)

Additional background information regarding the church/state issue comes from the Jeremiah Project's Separation of Church and State web pages.

(quote)
The assault on America's religious underpinnings is based on a distorted interpretation of the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
Only a lawyer could claim not to understand the plain meaning of those words.

The Supreme Court has taken Jefferson's "separation" clause (divorced from Jefferson's own explanation of the phrase) and used it to create a new, and completely arbitrary, interpretation of the First Amendment.

In 1947, with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black construed the First Amendment in a more restrictive fashion, giving an absolute definition of the First Amendment Establishment Clause which went well beyond the original intent of the framers of the United States Constitution and paved the way for future cases that would further restrict religious expression in American public life. This ruling declares that any aid or benefit to religion from governmental actions is unconstitutional. As Justice Black said: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Hardly what Thomas Jefferson meant or what the constitution guaranteed!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" had always meant that Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination, that Congress could not require that all Americans become Catholics, Anglicans, or members of any other denomination.

This understanding of "separation of church and state" was applied not only during the time of the Founders, but for 170 years afterwards. James Madison (1751-1836) clearly articulated this concept of separation when explaining the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty. He said that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because "The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."

The complete and radical disassociation between Christianity and the State that is sometimes advocated now is not what they had in mind. It's clear that they had seen entirely too many religious wars and religious tyrannies in Europe, and thus that they did want to make sure that no specific church or creed had authority over the State.

Recognizing their failure to win their arguments on fact, the lastest tactic among liberals is simply to deny the very documents that contain the facts.

Schools and courthouses in eastern Kentucky are removing their displays of historical documents - including the Mayflower Compact, an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, the national motto, "In God we trust", and the preamble to the state's constitution - to comply with an order from Federal District Judge Jennifer Coffman, who said the displays are a violation of the First Amendment. [Dr. Billy James Hargis, Christian Crusade, June 2000]
(endquote)

Maybe the folks that believe that church and state should be entirely separate should stop using the religiously-infected money they carry in their wallets.

"In God we Trust"...yeah, right...how we have strayed....


Be not ashamed to proclaim Him Lord today,
Dr. Larry
scribbled with crayon by dr. larry at 5:47 PM