Originally posted from 08-31-03 to 09-07-03
Roy Moore and Alabama's Ten Commandments Monument:
The Wrong Cause for Christians
by Mike Ferguson

There is a right way and a wrong way to do just about anything. That includes the way of promoting one's religious beliefs. The current controversy in Alabama over a granite Ten Commandments monument has the world watching the wrong way to share your faith. The battle is also showing us the wrong way to select our heroes.

The problems began about two years ago when Alabama's Chief Justice, Roy Moore, had a five thousand pound monument of a Bible, opened to the Ten Commandments (in chapter 20 of the Book of Exodus), installed in the state's Supreme Court rotunda. Predictably, the political left went into a frenzy of protest and won a federal court order to have the monument removed from the rotunda. The fight is now intensifying as the monument has been removed to another part of the building and both Moore and his supporters are vowing to fight to return the religious symbol to it's former place in the rotunda.

Chief Justice Roy Moore is apparently a man of devout faith. I commend him for that. I am a Christian as well. He is not, however, any sort of legitimate figurehead of political or religious martyrdom as many on the political right try to make him out to be. Justice Moore has created an unnecessary controversy that has the potential to undermine the testimony and work of millions of normal Christians all over America. Even if Moore wins his appeal to the United States Supreme Court, he is setting a dangerous precedent of government interference in religion.

Both sides of this debate have based their positions on the First Amendment. Ironically, both sides have also severely misrepresented the First Amendment along with the rest of the Constitution.

First, there is no "separation of church and state" written in the Constitution. Despite what the media and liberals routinely say, the Bill of Rights does not prevent all government from promoting religion. The First Amendment does prevent our national government (Congress) from enacting legislation that promotes religious beliefs. The Tenth Amendment also clearly states that any authority not delegated to our federal government is left to the individual states to govern. Therefore, it is Constitutional for a state government to promote religion if it chooses. If anything, the federal court order to remove the state's monument in question is unconstitutional. To some degree, this battle could be one of states' rights even though Justice Moore, his supporters and his opponents have not focused on this point of the controversy.

Having said that, it should be noted that an action by government is not necessarily right just because it passes Constitutional muster. Justice Moore's actions are terrible public policy and force all taxpayers to fund his personal religious beliefs. By purchasing the monument and displaying it in a publicly maintained and funded building, he forced all citizens of Alabama - regardless of their agreement or disagreement with the Bible - to pay for his promotion of his religious principles.

I have heard and read Christian activists claim that the federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument is a violation of Justice Moore's First Amendment right to freely express his religious beliefs. This claim is among the most absurd I have ever heard. Nothing, including the court order, is violating Roy Moore's ability to express his Christian faith. His freedom to speak in defense of Christian beliefs and in opposition to other religious beliefs is not threatened. However, his ability to use public money and thereby force all taxpayers to fund his statements is rightfully being threatened.

The individual right to freedom of expression is absolute, and should be as long as no one else's rights are violated. If Justice Moore were being ordered to remove a religious symbol from his front yard, I would contribute to the legal defense fund. Obviously, that is not the case. What Justice Moore is doing is simply wrong. In fact, he is defying his own court considering that all eight of the other state Supreme Court justices agree that the monument is inappropriate for the building's rotunda. Roy Moore is abusing his position as Chief Justice in order to force the issue of religion in government. Keep in mind that both the federal judge who issued the order and the other state Supreme Court justices have said there is no problem with the monument being kept in a different part of the building, such as Justice Moore's chambers.

Unfortunately, many Christians have flocked to his defense because they claim the effort to remove the monument is some sort of attack on faith in God. They held constant prayer vigils and protests next to the monument. Many of these supporters of Justice Moore were arrested for trespassing when they refused to leave the rotunda after closing time in some misguided defense of the symbol. Several vowed to physically prevent the removal of the monument and shouted at the workers who were hired to move it.. These zealots should be a source of extreme embarrassment to all Christians.

These protesters should consider what they are fighting for: the ability of one person to use government property and public money to promote his personal religious beliefs. Would these same people run to the defense of an elected atheist using public money and/or property to denounce faith in God? Would they support and defend an elected Muslim if he placed a monument of passages from the Qur'an in a government building? Of course not. They are only participating in the controversy because the beliefs being discussed happen to coincide with their own personal views. They are missing the bigger picture of what is at stake.

For too many in America, we demand freedom to do what we want without considering the precedent being set for those who follow us. Justice Moore's supporters point out that he never made a secret of his faith when running for election. Again, I commend him for his apparent consistency and steadfastness of his personal beliefs. Indeed, the moral viewpoints and personal beliefs of candidates are important. We need more moral people to become involved in government. The fact is, though, that Mr. Moore was elected to administer justice based on both the United States Constitution and the laws of his state, not to decide what the collective religious philosophy of Alabama should be. True faith is not collective and religion should never be considered up for a vote.

Should he win his appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Moore would be providing future judicial leaders, via precedent, with immense power to impose any form of personal beliefs at the expense of others. While that is certainly a problem we deal with now in the form of activist judges, like the liberals on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California, a victory for Justice Moore would give credibility to all forms of judicial activism. We must never forget that all freedom we fight for must be applied to everyone, including those who disagree with us. Freedom is indivisible.

I believe we need more discussion about the presence of God in our society, but there is a right way and a wrong way to spur the start of that discussion. Celebrating Justice Roy Moore as a religious hero cheapens the very message he claims to defend. Bringing the debate of the role of faith in our everyday lives to the halls of government results in a centralization of discussion and thought. It also puts government and elected officials in a pseudo authority position in regards to religious issues. That trivializes and politicizes matters of faith and matters of the church.  It also provides government with the potential to impact religious communities of all types to a greater degree.

That is why, despite even the best of intentions, there must be a degree of separation between church and government. I do not worry about protecting government from religion, I worry about protecting religion and the church from government once that line is crossed. Government, by its nature, is unable to instill personal morality. Personal beliefs, whether secular or pertaining to matters of faith, should remain just that: personal and without governmental interference. Mixing a religious message with government undermines what is really important: the message of faith.

The conflict in Alabama is not about God, despite how much  Justice Moore wishes it were. It is about the role of government in religion and the potential unintended consequences of allowing the former to infiltrate the latter.

Originally posted from 08-17-03 to 08-24-03
Flagging Intellects
by R.A. Hawkins
 
Several years ago I checked out a book about the United Nations being a Trojan Horse. In many ways I found it to be written from the right brain point of view and lacking in what was really necessary to make the point the author was trying for. Included in the book was a very interesting story about UN Day at a college and the ruckus they attempted to raise in order to expose the Communist roots of the UN.
 
They wanted to alert everybody to the fact that the United Nations was going to subvert the sovereignty of the United States. They were told that they could not harass anyone going in or out and they had to stay out of the building. They could however engage in discussions and hand out their pamphlets, etc. They fought that limitation tooth and nail. I can’t really say that I blame them for their efforts either. UN Day is the day before the anniversary of the 1917 October revolution using the old calendar. Interesting isn’t it, an indoctrination held on the day before the anniversary of the Communist Revolution. The Communists celebrate it on the 25th of October, even though it is popularly stated to be on the 14th of October.
 
Now back to that fateful day….. The anti-UN crowd was energized and had unfortunately alerted the UN crowd that something was in the offing. In the morning the anti-UN folks arrived with their signs, pamphlets and soap boxes ready to champion freedom. They knew they were right and intended to settle for nothing less than victory and setting the record straight. They intended to make sure everyone knew what the United Nations was all about. There was a bit of a problem however.
 
As they all gathered they could see that the United Nations flag was flying over the United States flag. Immediately the pamphlets and soap boxes were jettisoned in favor of more direct action. The groups fanned out and tried to get hold of unavailable administrators, politicians and anyone else they could think of to remove this insult. The entire day was spent dealing with this egregious affront to common civility, mom and apple pie.
 
The numerous children, or shall I say young adults, arrived and went to their little UN indoctrination and learned all of the warm fuzziness that has brought us nothing but war since it came into being. At the end of the day the kids all went home having learned the UN’s side of the world view. That was all they learned that day too.
 
What happened to the opposing view? Unfortunately they got short circuited by a much sharper adversary. They spent the entire day trying to remove an affront to their delicate sensibilities. Not one speech was made. Not one pamphlet was handed out. Their enemy had been alerted because they didn’t think about what they would and would not be allowed to do in advance. Because of that the enemy was more prepared than they were. The enemy had located their hot button and it wasn’t hard to do it either. These people were reacting out of patriotism and all they had to do was set that on edge….so they did. They caused their adversary to wrap themselves around an issue that ticked them off. The patriots went to work to try to undo what they perceived as a horrible wrong. What they did was absolutely stupid and it was a waste of time. People who have hot buttons have no place in situations such as this because they can be damaging to their cause.
 
What could have been done? I would have shot tons of film showing the flag in its’ wrongful position. I would have had a lot of pictures of who took the flag down and carefully stowed it away. The chances would be pretty good they would be the ones that put it up that way in the first place. The editorials I would have written would have been slanted that way at least. Everyone upon whom I could possibly smear it would be named even if they were only remotely involved in the entire little UN promotional event. I would have cheerfully named those names along with the name of Alger Hiss and all of the other scum who were involved in the very formation of the UN. I would have pointed out the numerous similarities to all of them.
 
But those would have been the things I would have done afterwards. What about while it was going on in there? I would have gotten every parent and veteran in the area to come and see what they had going on there. The VFW would have been contacted for sure so they could do the rest of the contacting for me. It would not have gone unnoticed. When everyone came out? I would have used their tool against them! I would have pointed out where that flag was flying in relation to ours and I would have used it as an instructive tool. I wouldn’t have wasted my time trying to remove the evidence. That was all they did. They had evidence of what they were there to prove, and like a bunch of fools spent the entire day trying to erase it rather than use it to their own advantage.
 
Not very good strategists were they?!
 
(c) 2003 R.A. Hawkins
 
Comments are always welcome. Please send them to ironwyng@aol.com .
 
R.A. Hawkins is the author of "Through Eyes of Shiva", available through www.amazon.com. Visit http://www.entropical-paradise.com/ --Entropical Paradise - The Home of R.A. Hawkins for more commentaries and editorials by R.A. Hawkins.

Originally posted from 06-15-03 to 06-22-03
Churches Hitching a Ride Down Easy Street -
at Taxpayer Expense
by Kimberly Blaker

Two and a half years into President Bush’s term, the violations between church and state continue to mount. One of the most conspicuous and unequivocal breeches was announced by Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton on May 27. Taxpayers will now foot the bill to repair and restore churches that are deemed historic, regardless of their status as a current place of worship.

The first allocation of these funds - $317,000 - goes to Boston’s Old North Church, which serves an Episcopalian congregation. The 180-year-old church was used by Paul Revere as a signaling post at the start of the American Revolution.  Some opponents, however, have pointed out that the purpose in selecting this particular church as the first to receive these funds is to conceal what’s really going on and, worse, what is yet to come.

Supposedly, churches and synagogues must meet certain criteria to receive the federal funds. Such houses of worship must be nationally significant and in need of urgent repair, and offer educational or a public benefit. The question remains, how and by whom are such criteria determined?

 Moreover, it opens the door for states and communities across the nation - where the religious right is often most active and effective - to devise their own schemes for renovating church buildings, at taxpayer expense, under whatever conditions they deem fit. The danger this presents is illustrated by the fact that, according to Diane Cohen of the Partners group, as reported in Philadelphia Enquirer, in Boston there are 200 60+-year-old churches that are in terrible condition.  Given such a number in one city alone, consider how many churches across the country are in dire need of a face lift or complete overhaul.

And how many could manage to draw at least something from their long histories that could, in some minute way, be used to regard them as historical, if not at the federal, at least at state or local levels? Surely every church with a history of 50 years or more has had someone of at least local or regional importance or fame step foot in, and perhaps even been a member; is architecturally significant in some way; was part of an historical event; or is symbolic of a particular period or event.

If federal, state, or local governments were to incorporate the criteria used by the National Register of Historic Places, a church wouldn’t even need to be 50-years-old to be considered historic, providing it holds the grave or is the birthplace of someone significant or is architecturally or artistically distinct. Imagine the plotting that could soon be underway in churches in every part of the country to create eligibility for our public funds.

But regardless of what may or may not transpire, this latest ruse of the Bush administration is a whopping desecration of our Constitution. In 1973, the Supreme Court observed in PEARL v. Nyquist, “If the State may not erect buildings in which religious activities are to take place, it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair.” The repair and restoration of churches under the guise of historical value is merely one more way for Bush and the Christian Right to soak Americans for their own deceitful purposes; what it all boils down to is their theocratic dreams.
 
Kimberly Blaker is editor and coauthor of The Fundamentals of Extremism: the Christian Right inAmerica.Visit http://www.NewBostonBooks.com for details. Send your comments to Kimberly Blaker to: kblaker@TheWall-OnChurchAndState.com © 2003, Kimberly Blaker