posted 08-30-2003 07:21 PM            

our country was founded on Christian principles...that is not up for discussion...it is fact...

aethiests are the one's that are not comfortable in their lives there's no real love in their world and they are trying to inflict their opinions on the rest of us...

and for those people...I say this...prove to me God does not exist...

posted 08-30-2003 07:56 PM            

Prove to me that the US Constitution
designates
"conservatives' interpretation of "christianity'"

as superior to and exalted above all other religious beliefs.
and worthy of taxpayers' support as the one and only religion funded by tax monies.

Then; and only then, could you have any hope of winning any argument based on imposition of your beliefs on all others, at their unwilling expense.

posted 08-31-2003 01:27 AM            

by Jim Walker

Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.

Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry beliefs rather than to Christianity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and it does not include a single mention of God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states so in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union..." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

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. [bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st,1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Declaration of Independence

Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.

Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.

Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all get born with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."

The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.

Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [bold text, mine]

Click here to see the actual article 11 of the Treaty

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1997.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.") [Bold text, mine]

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Common Law

According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.

But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "ancien scripture", in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:

"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.

posted 08-31-2003 07:39 PM            

I do...

and I have a suggestion why don't you ship your negative ass over to method of destruction forums...you'd be somebody over there...

imagine that...you could achieve your life long dream...

btw, you have not proved to me that God does not exist...

you have not showed to the class the law that I asked for...

you are spamming with irrelevant and off topic information...

posted 09-01-2003 07:49 AM            

Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian.

Judges used to refer to the Declaration of Independence often.
It has been long considered "The Liberty Amendment"

Libertarians and Liberals consider their' basic beliefs best expressed in that portion of the Declaration:
>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 -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. < http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/independ/declar.html

Repeat for anyone paying attention.
This issue,
like the 'pledge' issue

has been manufactured by the Bush Administration to energize their base.

$eeker as evidence how energized that base has become.

eg: A Republican judge makes a ruling that gets his fellows upset and actively contributing to the Bushies' coffers.

Divide and rule!

In extremis, another 'terror attack' can be manufactured, for the same reason.
eg:Actual FL vote count scheduled for 911, was delayed, then downplayed, in the name of 'patriotism'.

The matrix/
only Sonny Barger seems to understand; it's a renegade government/media coalition manipulating all of us.

Keep us at each others' throats;
In hopes we won't notice;
There are more of us than there are of them.

When the magician does a flourish with one hand (to distract the audience) he does the trick with the other hand.

A 'Condit summer' while 911 was prepared.
Pay attention to what the media are NOT telling us.
eg: All media attention focused on Entebbe airport in Uganda while hundreds of Weathermen and Minutemen vanished without a trace.
Run over by a Ford, July 4, 1976.

Wake up America!

Pay attention to the man behind that curtain!

posted 09-01-2003 07:02 PM            

shitoga you are attempting AGAIN to puch your anti-right wing agenda...start you own thread...

ron paul weighs in on this discussion :

"The practice of judicial activism -- legislating from the bench -- is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. ... With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office." --Rep. Ron Paul

Editorial from Federalist.com

The "Despotic branch"...

Top of the fold...

Two weeks ago, The Federalist noted the remarkable parallel between bishops in the Episcopal Church who "interpret" Scripture to comport with their political and social agendas in violation of their ordinal vows, and judges who "interpret" the Constitution to comport with their political and social agendas, in violation of their oath to uphold our nation's legal foundation. Neither interpretation honors the original word and intent of those founding texts. Instead, they offer nothing more than a reflection of themselves as if they authored those venerable words.

Regarding the word of law, our Constitution provides a mechanism for its alteration by amendment, not adulteration by judicial decree. That premise is the basis for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's defense of the First and Tenth Amendments in what is, potentially, the most important and influential case in decades pertaining to religious liberty and states' rights as defined by our Constitution.

Most media pundits, and the couch potatoes who suckle at their font, never took a civics class and couldn't distinguish the substance of this case -- the constitutional issue -- from the superfluous -- "Showdown on the 10 Commandments." Thus, they have cast this case as nothing more than a "right-wing Christian zealot" trying to keep a monument of the Decalogue in a courthouse in the backwoods of lower Alabama.

Demonstrating their nescience, Leftmedia talkingheads adroitly taunt, "Well, can the state of Alabama put a shrine to Mohammed in the judicial rotunda?" The answer is...YES! In accordance with the First and Tenth Amendments, if the people of Alabama choose to do so, that is their prerogative.

Media ignorance notwithstanding, the ACLU knows what this case is really about: "This case is not about the Ten Commandments. This case is not about Roy Moore. It is about the First Amendment 'separation of church and state'." And the judicial activists who ruled in this case know what it is about, too; 11th U.S. Circuit Court Appellate Judge Ed Carnes wrote, "If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years." Of course, it is Carnes and his Leftjudiciary minions who are "above the law" by rendering verdicts based on their opinion rather than the Constitution.

The First Amendment's restriction on the central government reads simply, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." But the law itself has been "interpreted" by Leftjudicial activists beyond recognition -- and in violation of both their solemn oaths and the will of the Founders, who expected the judicial branch to rise above contemporaneous political and social agendas and abide by the letter of the Constitution.

This current practice of "constitutional interpretation" by judicial activists is tantamount to incremental tyranny by what Thomas Jefferson rightly feared would become "the Despotic branch."

In the Federalist Papers, the definitive exposition of the Constitution's original intent, James Madison, our Constitution's author, stated, "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. ... The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

In other words, the Constitution strictly limits the central government to its enumerated powers, not the unlimited powers now imposed by an activist judiciary. Every state, then, is individuated by its own Constitution.

Justice Moore was, predictably, denied his appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the appellate court's decision. He filed a second appeal questioning the federal court's jurisdiction in this matter -- directly confronting the lower court's violation of the Tenth Amendment edict, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, the Constitution is to be read and ruled on constructively, not as a matter of interpretive opinion, which circumvents its prescribed method of amendment. Those are the terms under which the states, including Alabama, ratified the Constitution.

Unfortunately, on Thursday as the deadline set by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson for removal of the monument passed, Justice Moore's associates on Alabama's Supreme Court acquiesced to Thompson's edict, claiming that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it," and ordered the monument's removal. In distinct contrast to that state's motto, "We Dare Defend our Rights," the associate justices conceded defeat, averting, at least temporarily, a direct confrontation with the federal courts concerning the First and Tenth Amendments.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, himself a federal appellate-court nominee, said he would comply with the state court's order to remove the monument, adding, "The rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders." (Perhaps Pryor's siding with Leftjudicial activists who issue lawless diktats is sufficient indulgence to get him released from the U.S. Senate's filibusterial purgatory.)

Taking a page from Pryor, ultra-Leftist Barry Lynn, mouthpiece for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "We either have 'rule of law' or a nation where every judge rules on his own personal opinion."

Inadvertently, Lynn is correct, though it is not, as he implies, Justice Moore who is acting on "personal opinion," but judicial activists who render diktats that contradict the rule of law. We abide by LAW, not the opinions of politicians, lawyers or judges. In this case, the LAW is clear. (Read the First Amendment on The Federalist's Historic Documents page -- http://federalist.com/histdocs/conamendments.htm ).

For his part, Justice Moore said, "I was very disappointed with my colleagues on the court. If the rule of law means doing everything a judge tells you to do we would still have slavery in this country. I will not violate my oath. I cannot forsake my conscience.... Have we become so ignorant of our nation's history that we have forgotten the reason for the adoption of the Bill of Rights? It was meant to restrict the federal government's power over the states, not to restrict the states from doing what the federal government can do. The time has come to recover the valiant courage of our forefathers, who understood that faith and freedom are inseparable and that they are worth fighting for..."

Justice Moore, a USMA (West Point) graduate and decorated Vietnam veteran, is not going down for the count, and will prepare a new petition to the U.S. Supreme Court "to resolve clearly our inalienable rights to acknowledge God under the First Amendment." In the meantime, the monument may have to be removed or covered.

Distinguishing between Patriots and cowards, our favorite Founder, Samuel Adams, said: "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom...crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

Fortunately, most Federalist readers regularly ask, "What should be the reward of such sacrifices?" Please take a minute and join almost 50,000 other American Patriots who have signed "An Open Letter to Justice Roy Moore" this week thanking him for his defense of religious liberty and states' rights in this landmark case.

Link to -- http://patriotpetitions.us/openletter (If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to: Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the petition.)

Memo to President George Bush: When a candidate, you were very clear about the need to appoint "constitutional constructionists" to the federal bench. When elected, you affirmed with your hand on a Bible, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Now would be a good time!

On cross-examination...

"We have three branches of government. And I stand here today in hope that all Americans will stand to call on the President and call on the Congress to take courageous action finally to put the bridle on these unruly courts!" --Constitutional scholar Alan Keyes

posted 09-03-2003 02:24 AM            

Alan Keyes, poly sci major:
>Keyes has a PhD in government from Harvard University
Though Keyes is sometimes called "Ambassador Keyes," the title is a bit misleading: ...during the Reagan administration...he served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, not as ambassador to the U.N. as a whole or to any individual nation.<
Keyes picks and chooses verses which support neo-con opinion and uses them in his public speaking.
Such a shame he never reads the whole book.

I've posted repeatedly the plain language of the Constitution:
"No religious test" separation clause!

>Mark 8:18
Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?<

Oh yeah that infamous pragmatism:
The idea that belief is more important than fact.

Or to put it gently:
Any facts which don't support your beliefs are disregarded.

Fact:
Separation of Church and State has been ruled as a principle of the US Constitution for over 200 years.
By the US Supreme Court.
They are the only "Constitutional Scholars" who have authority to decide issues.

posted 09-03-2003 02:35 AM            

not true...

I was taught this country had balance the executive legislative and the judicial...

it's the judicial running the show now jefferson (not george) warned about this...and everyone else did too...it's happening RIGHT NOW and you better pull your head out of your idealog ass...

and no all it says is "respecting established religion"...the interpretation has been incorrectly used by the left and aethiests to rid this country of it's tradition history and heritage...

btw, the ten commandments are sitting there bigger than dallas in the supreme court...

double standard, hypocrisy...take your pick...

posted 09-04-2003 12:35 AM            

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 15, 2003
Source: Constitution Party National Committee

"Ten Commandments" Justice Gains Support from National Political Party

Judge Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court, has gained the full and public support of the Constitution Party, the nation’s third largest political party in terms of overall voter registration. Moore has found himself having to defend the right of the State of Alabama to recognize God as the source of true justice and our inalienable rights.


The announcement by the Party came in advance of a planned rally, to be held Saturday, August 16th at the State capitol in Montgomery, in support of Justice Moore. Organized by Vision America, thousands of people, including many Constitution Party members, are expected to attend.

Constitution Party National Chairman, Jim Clymer commended, "Justice Moore’s heroic stand for the principles our nation was founded upon" and communicated the unanimous support of the Party’s Executive Committee in a recent statement. "Unfortunately, it is all too rare to find a high level judge that is willing to take a stand for the supreme laws of our land. Despite the desperate and illogical ramblings that have proceeded from the federal level that would have us believe that recognizing God and his authority in our system of justice is somehow unconstitutional, the Constitution has no such prohibition in it. Justice Moore knows this and so does anyone else who can read and has read the Constitution of the United States."

"Actually," Chairman Clymer elaborated, "the First Amendment places a prohibition upon the federal government that precludes it from making laws that in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion. This protects the ability of State, county or local jurisdictions to recognize God, as being what he is, the true author of our liberties. As the Declaration of Independence proclaims, ‘We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.’ But I would not be surprised if the next thing out of the mouth of Judge Myron Thompson was that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional too!" (Thompson is the federal judge who recently issued a court order demanding that the Ten Commandments monument be removed from the rotunda of the Alabama State judicial building)

"Such judges selectively forget that the same man, Thomas Jefferson, who introduced the term ‘separation of church and state’ to our public, also penned the Declaration of Independence," Clymer continued. "He worked to establish it, including its recognition that our rights come from God, as our nation’s charter."

"The people of Alabama knew what they were doing, and what they were getting when they overwhelmingly elected Roy Moore to be the Chief Justice of their State Supreme Court. No one can say that Judge Roy Moore hid his reliance upon God and his respect for His precepts from the people of Alabama during the election. The people of Alabama elected him to be the Chief Justice of their court system, because of his respect for these foundations and his willingness to exercise fidelity toward the Constitution. Who is Myron Thompson to tell the people of Alabama and Judge Roy Moore that they cannot choose to acknowledge God in the public square as their American forefathers did, and as the Alabama State Constitution presently does?"

"The people and their representative governments in the States, have the right to acknowledge God and to embrace His standards of justice if they so choose. The First Amendment is supposed to protect them from the potential restrictive misuse of federal power in this area, not to prohibit them from doing so."

"We stand together with Judge Roy Moore in support of the true foundations of American liberty. Our Party will be sending delegations to Saturday’s rally from many States including Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, Texas, Maryland, Virginia and, of course, Alabama. Former Constitution Party presidential candidate Howard Phillips will also be attending the rally and is to be among the speakers in his capacity as Chairman of the Conservative Caucus. We are proud to stand with all principled Americans and organizations such as the American Family Association, Ambassador Alan Keyes, The Conservative Caucus, Coral Ridge Ministries, Jerry Falwell Ministries, Rick Scarborough and Vision America, that are supporting Judge Roy Moore and the rally both by their presence or prayerful support", Clymer concluded.

posted 09-04-2003 08:49 AM            

A Re-Declaration of Independence

A Re-Declaration of Independence
Have you grown disheartened by recent moves toward fascism and a permanent police state in America? Are you feeling a bit claustrophobic, and perhaps threatened by the government's moves to roll back your Constitutional rights as part of the Forever War against terrorism? If so, it may be time to re-examine our First Principles, the philosophical beliefs underlying our patriotic allegiance to the America of our forefathers.

Our Federal, State and Local governments treat the Constitution as the lowest law, and not the highest. To them it is a sunken foundation upon which they have piled a million clarifications and exceptions during 225 years of our nation's history. Simply reading the Bill of Rights does not provide useful guidance to the citizen about what behaviors are permitted by the State. But there is a natural law greater than the Constitution, and it is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence.

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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Each American -- nay, each human being -- has inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 'Inalienable rights' are not rights granted to you by the government. Inalienable rights cannot be waived by a declaration of war. They cannot be voted away by the majority. The Supreme Court cannot take away inalienable rights But they may be infringed at the point of a gun held by criminals, or by well-meaning bureaucrats who have vowed to enforce their will, also at the point of a gun, come hell or high-water. And inalienable rights may be lawfully defended.

Our inalienable rights are our Sovereign rights, granted to us by our Creator -- the Creator of our understanding. You may have heard the expression, "A man's home is his castle." That saying expresses the idea of our intrinsic, sovereign human rights. In my home I am king, I am sovereign. In my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happiness I am king -- I am sovereign in these domains, and you are sovereign in your life, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness. My sovereign rights and freedoms are not limited except when they infringe upon your rights and freedoms. That is the basis of the highest law, the law our forefathers enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, and which they attempted to protect with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is the law spoken of by Jesus and other religious leaders in the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

According to Merriam Webster, sovereign means "one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere". Government cannot take away or waive these sovereign rights under any circumstances. In fact, the reverse is true: we institute governments to protect those sovereign rights, and the government derives whatever legitimate authority it holds from the consent of the governed.

Not only may your rights not be taken away by the government, but if the government infringes upon your rights and attempts to deprive you of your sovereign rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then you may withhold your consent to be governed. The government works for us to help defend our rights and our freedoms, not the other way around. It says so, right in the Declaration of Independence:

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I cannot improve upon the words of Thomas Jefferson. And I do not have time tonight to detail the many unconstitutional laws passed by Congress and the many unconstitutional Executive Orders signed by this President and his predecessors. What I can do tonight is to provide a few quotes from a great revolutionary leader who fought peacefully for human rights. That man, Mahatma Gandhi taught that:

Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen.
Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or, which is the same thing, corrupt.
Mass civil disobedience was for the attainment of independence.
Complete civil disobedience is a state of peaceful rebellion, a refusal to obey every single state-made law.
Aggressive civil disobedience should be confined to a vindication of the right of free speech and free association.