Should the Federal government be allowed to designate approved Ministers who may claim Freedom of Religion? Would the next step be, for the Federal Government to designate approved Religions or Churches who would be allowed Freedom of Religion? Would the next step be for the Federal Government to define what is and is not “religion”?
Guess what? They have already done all of this. A notable recent outrage was a Federal Court declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the phrase, inserted by President Eisenhower, “under God”. The next, and even more horrendous Federal Court error was the ruling by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson that the display of the stone monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building was unconstitutional and the monument of the Ten Commandments had to be removed. An additional outrage of the Federal Court system is from U. S. District Judge Jones in Southern California ruling that the Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization.
Would you not think that Anti-Religionists are a Religion fighting religion, or anyone’s interpretation of religion or practice of religion or references to God including prayer in public (government places)? We notice that the Anti-Religionists never complain against the religion of Science, especially not against the religion of Darwinist Evolution.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America:
Our Congress, July 4, 1776, signed the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America which began:
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.
The Constitution of the United States was an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, that were amended by the Congress of the Confederacy of the United States of America on September 17, 1787, with the historic signing of the amendments called the Constitution of the United States. Their signatures are found at the end of ARTICLE VII stating:
DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven . . .
Even prior to those events, in 1774, look at what was voted for and happened in Congress:
A Constant Reminder That America Was Born With a Prayer and Founded as a Nation “UNDER GOD”.
September 7, 1774. Carpenter’s Hall – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — When the Congress first met, Mr. Cushing (also representing Massachusetts) made a Motion, that it should be opened with prayer.” “Mr. Peyton Randolph, our President, requested the prayer for the following morning from an Episcopal clergyman, Mr. Duche
Lord, our Heavenly Father, High and Mighty King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth; and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy we beseech Thee, on these American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor, and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring henceforth to be dependent only on Thee; to Thee, they have appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support which Thou alone canst give; take them therefore Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause; and if they persist in their sanguinary purpose, O, let the voice of Thy own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation, that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety prevail and flourish among Thy people.
Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come.
All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Savior. Amen.
The above proceedings and prayer were recorded in a letter from John Adams to his wife as he signed off:
“I long to see my dear family. God Bless, preserve and prosper it. Adieu. John Adams.”
Don’t these conspirators in the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center and America United for Separation of Church and State and the Federal agents such as U. S. Attorneys and Federal District Judges know anything? Don’t they know that the front facade of the United States Supreme Court building has a picture of Moses carved in stone holding the tablets containing the Ten Commandments and that each door of entry around the Supreme Court building is made of heavy oak with the Ten Commandments carved into the face of the doors. Must all of this be removed because it is furthering a religion? What fools are those proposing this insanity?
Clearly, the Supreme Court, at least, knows what other nations, long before the United States, knew which is that the Ten Commandments and the Statutes and Judgment based upon the civil and criminal rights and prohibitions founded thereon formed the basis for civil and criminal law for the nations of Europe, much of Asia and large parts of Africa for thousands of years.
Now, certain highly confused and brainwashed black robed judges don’t know that the basis for our law is the Ten Commandments. Can you imagine that we have such people dictating our lives and property over us who are too stupid to see the difference? Surely, these idiots must be removed from the bench and from prosecutorial positions and, We the People can surely accomplish this.
How dare a black robed United States District Judge order the Ten Commandments removed from a State Supreme Court building, claiming separation of Church and State as the excuse. How dare U. S. District Judge Myron Thompson attempt to order the Supreme Court of Alabama, an independent State, to obey Federal Court orders where the Federal Court has no Jurisdiction outside of the District of Columbia or under the interstate commerce excuse.
This order by the Federal District Court, by Judge Myron Thompson, should be the final blow against the existence of the present tyrannical Federal District Court system. The real issue here is FEDERAL ABUSE OF POWER vs. STATES RIGHTS. However, the issue of the separation of Church and State is a secondary issue, which is in the headlights of the press and public scrutiny.
Addressing the issue that is before the public today of the removal of the monument of the Ten Commandments, it is clear that the atheists and other anti-founding father’s groups who have banned together into three main groups, namely the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and have filed various lawsuits and have deliberately perverted the meaning, as well as the founding father’s intent, in the First Amendment to meanings never intended.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides that:
Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.
1. In 1787, at the time of the signing of the Constitution, the States were sovereign and independent States working together under a successful Confederation, under which they had won their independence from the King of England. The idea of being ruled by a super state, such as Washington, D.C., was a feared and repugnant consideration among these founders who greatly distrusted Kings and centralized Federal power. The creation of a “nationalist super state” was not the intent of the vast majority of those founding fathers.
2. Thomas Jefferson, who penned the Declaration of Independence and had much influence upon James Madison’s writing of the Bill of Rights which was passed by Congress as part of the Constitution and ratified by the States, made it clear that the First Amendment was no prohibition against religion, but an estoppel against government from interfering with religion or Churches. Jefferson considered this a one way door allowing independence for and free exercise of religion, but stopping government interference. However, Jefferson also provided that Congress would not pass any law respecting an establishment of religion.
In a call to action, Jefferson exclaims that unless the people put off the shackles which bind them and abolish any laws inhibiting religious freedom, the state of religious freedom in this country will only decline until “our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.” Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, Query XVII, 1782
It is of great interest to note that in the ensuing years since this Amendment was ratified that in the wording of the First Amendment, the third of the first twelve Amendment proposals, that in the true bill submitted to the states for ratification “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, . . . ” , not ” . . . an establishment of religion, . . . “ The word “THE” is definitely more “declaratory and restrictive” than “AN”.
This fraudulent deception has allowed misconstruction of a very explicit restriction on the legislatures and the government. This changed wording appears in virtually all presentations of the 1st Amendment today, including the official NARA presentation. It was correctly presented in history books prior to the Civil War. The correct wording as presented to the States for ratification is shown in the original “True Bill”. There are also records of the several States in their discussion of the first twelve Amendment proposals. For example:
In New Hampshire’s Ratification Document with their Amendment Recommendations, they list as one of the recommendations: “CONGRESS shall make no laws touching Religion or to infringe the rights of Conscience.”
3. The founding fathers were overwhelmingly of Christian culture and heritage as was the American public. Even today we are a predominantly Christian nation and not a nation expressing a predominant religious heritage of Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Shintoist, Agnostic, Humanist, Odinistic, Atheistic, Satanic nor any other heritage other than predominantly Christian heritage and social culture. Of course, small segments of these lesser religions do exist in the United States and with Constitutional protections as well.
This is not to name a church or a denomination per se, but a culture of the people who founded this nation and who fought for its independence and who framed the Constitution thereof. In the 1892 Supreme Court decision of Holy Trinity vs. The United States, the court in its majority opinion cited 88 historical reasons why the United States was a Christian nation. (It should be noted that the Christian, Moslem and Jewish religions all recognize the Ten Commandments also called the Decalog of Moses found in the Old Testament (Pentateuch), Torah or the Koran as being the foundation of civil law, the violation of many of those statutes bringing civil or criminal penalties.
4. The false and erroneous term “Separation of Church and State” is a corruption of the actual First Amendment. None of the words, “Church”, State” nor “Separation” exist in the amendment. By fraudulently substituting the phrase “Separation of Church and State” for the actual amendment, clever attorneys have been able to argue their cases and trick juries and judges to establish case law precedence based upon a false and fraudulent premise.
Arguments using the phrase “Separation of Church and State” which is erroneous and not part of the Constitution, nor amendments thereto, do not establish subject matter jurisdiction for the Court in the present Ten Commandments case against Judge Roy Moore, and the fraudulent representation of this phrase as part of the First Amendment should be actionable under Federal Criminal Statutes.
The actual amendment states: “Congress shall make no law [touching religion] respecting the establishment of religion,” [The intent and meaning of this is that Congress shall pass no law creating a State Religion . . . no law favoring establishment of some particular religion . . . and no law involving (or touching) an existing religion or (religious symbols or objects or statements). If Congress is restricted, the Courts are restricted as well since they are not authorized to write or pass laws. The President is restricted because he is not authorized to pass laws but to enforce or carry out laws passed by Congress.] [New Hampshire’s recommended amendment read: “CONGRESS shall make no laws touching Religion or to infringe the rights of Conscience].”
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” [this means that Congress may not pass a law restricting or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. . .thus neither may the courts nor the executive branch (President) restrict or prohibit the free exercise of religion.]
5. The Ten Commandments are not a religion nor is a monument of the Ten Commandments a religion or a religious object, but instead a set of Civil laws given for a Constitution of a nation headed by Moses thousands of years ago. Upon the general constitution; Bill of Rights and Prohibitions found in the Ten Commandments (also called the Decalog of Moses) were founded Civil and Criminal Statutes and Judgments for the operation of the Nation of Israel of old. Religion, in those days, amounted to a series of sacrifices and ordinances required of the people of that religion.
The people living in Israel of old were predominantly of the same religion, that being a religion of Abraham, which was also encouraged by Moses. To claim that the Bill of Rights and Prohibitions (Ten Commandments) in those days was a religion is like claiming that our modern day Bill of Rights is a religion. In the Old Testament we find a history of a people and a nation with their trials, tribulations, wars, etc. Is history a religion?
Death sentences in those days were not issued for failure to go to the Synagogue (Church) or to make certain sacrifices of doves or lambs to the Priests, but rather for the violation of Criminal law statutes heralding from the Ten commandments(Bill of Rights and Prohibitions). Moses claimed those provisions were given to him by God.
The 1st Commandment alleges to be from God and establishes His credentials.
The 2nd Commandment establishes God expects from His people Israel.
Does that make the Ten Commandments a religion?
Most of our founding fathers believed that wisdom was given by God to help them gain independence and form a Constitution which started with the Declaration of Independence. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mentions God the Lord. Does that make those documents a religion not to be allowed on government or public property? Which department of Government thinks they have the authority to define religion as to what is and what is not?
We should petition and demand a statement by the each head of our Departments of Government President, namely: the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that they; 1. Have authority to define religion. 2. That they do not have authority to define religion. Perhaps we should demand answers from the various political candidates as to whether they believe government has the right to define religion. Then we can know who is not suitable to elect or re-elect.
A writ of Mandamus should be brought against the U. S. Attorney in Alabama requiring him to prosecute those guilty of the above crimes, namely the ACLU, the SPLC and the AUSCS, especially for defrauding U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson with false arguments causing him to commit crimes as well.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson is the one who ordered the Ten Commandments monument removed from the State Supreme Court building in Alabama. How dare him do such a thing. On at least three counts has he erred, producing the irrevocable grounds for his removal from the bench.
1. Ridiculously erring and falling prey to the lies and fraudulent arguments of the counsel of the Anti-American, Anti Religion coalition against the foundation of our law and has thus misinterpreted the First Amendment,
2. on the grounds that Judge Thompson’s order violates U.S. Constitution, Art. 6., Sec. 3.- “no religious test shall ever be required” and
3. on the grounds that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction over the matter in a sovereign State where no interstate commerce issues are involved.
U.S. Constitution, AMENDMENT X.
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.
Because of his violation of the Civil Rights of Chief Justice Roy Moore of his freedom of speech and belief, U. S. District Judge Myron Thompson has lost his immunity and may be sued civilly for damages and defamation. Judge Thompson could be in violation of U.S.C. 18 Section 241 – Conspiracy against rights, a ten year felony. Conspiring parties, namely the American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center and the American United For Separation of Church and State, could be liable as well for these civil and criminal Civil Rights violations.
Moreover, because Judge Thompson presumed to issue Federal Court orders against the State Supreme Court of Alabama without jurisdiction over the State of Alabama, his orders are unlawful, moot and void and should not be obeyed by Chief Justice Roy Moore. The other eight associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court have seriously erred in cowardly jumping to obey the illegal Federal order and should be immediately recalled by the people of Alabama.
This issue transcends party politics whether Republican or Democrat and must bring all true Americans together to put an end to this outrage and tyranny of the U.S. District Courts. Because these Federal Courts have allowed a long train of abuses and usurpations, they have invoked the next phrase of the Declaration of Independence which states:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
by Ron Anderson
Section 1 of the Alabama Constitution asserts that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;”
Section 3 declares that “no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect …” [The Ten Commandments are not a religious sect, but the civil law of ancient Israel].
Acknowledging the Old Testament consensus of the identity of that Creator and His requirements of all Alabamians is not the same as the establishment of a state religious sect. It is essential to her survival (as a Sovereign State), ensuring that said Creator does not rescind what He endowed – the grafted vine, as He did to the natural branches in Jeremiah’s era. (End of Anderson’s Internet Article)