You're viewing a partial stream (from 08/24/03 to 08/24/03), you may want to view the entire stream.

We Need Moore Like Him

“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.”

Lawless Behavior
Chief Justice Roy Moore has been accused of 'breaking the law'. But the above statement isn't a law, no – it's a right, the first in ten guaranteed by the 'Bill of Rights'. Guaranteed by our founding fathers, not because there were only certain rights they thought the citizens should possess – amendment 9 makes that clear – but because these were the rights they wanted to make sure were they were very clear - these rights were to be protected.

The first amendment is very clear, there shall be no laws respecting an establishment of religion. You catch that? No laws. None. Not one. Nothing. So what law is Judge Moore breaking? How can he be breaking a right? Hmm?

According to the first amendment, there can't be a law that states, “You can't hang a religious symbol from your rear view mirror.” Now before you go hanging Bibles and Crosses from your rear view mirror understand that it would be fine to have a law that states, “You can't hang anything from your rear view mirror.” The first law would violate the amendment, the second wouldn't.

The only way Judge Moore could be 'breaking the law' is if there was a law that stated that there could be no monuments in the building. A 'law' that stated that there could be not religious monuments in the building would be in violation of the first amendment.

It seems that District Judge Myron Thompson is the one guilty of 'lawless behavior'. There's no reason a judge should be obeyed when there's no legal or constitutional backing for his decision. To do that would be to allow judicial anarchy.

Historical Precedent
The 10 commandments hang over the bench of the supreme court, and on the outside and inside of many government buildings along with other passages of scripture. Why in the quest to remove God from our country have these not been chiseled out?

It's been tried, but the court has ignored that fact that they are protected by the first amendment and stated that they should not be removed because of their historical value. We shouldn't change those historical buildings, no we should leave as they were in the day's of our founding fathers. That's right, the same men that wrote, “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” If the intent of those men was to keep the concepts of the bible out of our government, they would not have built or allowed the building of those buildings.

It seems that their intent was exactly what they said.

Contorting the Intent
May I be so bold as to say that the judges who clame that they are entrusted with the 'interpretation' on the constitution are interpreting it wrong. Might I suggest that they are not really trying to 'interpret' the constitution at all, but are trying to contort it from what it was – a document with guarantees of life and liberty based on the divine gift of God to all men – to a document that guarantees liberty not divinely given, but liberty based on the laws of mere men. That is a dangerous thing to do – for while they promise liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption.

My liberty is from God, not man. For true liberty can not come from something that is corrupt.

Tim Lytle [08/24/03 00:53:41] | 2 Comments | Point