We've, most likely all been following the commotion over in Alabama about Judge Moore and the Ten commandments issue. We've covered the typical things. Where does a federal judge get off telling Alabamian how to live their lives? What about separation of church and state? What about the 10th Amendment? The list goes on.

First of all, and I think most people reading this column understand this, but the phrase Separation of church and State doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (emphasis mine). Well, it seems to me, that the federal government is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Misguided libertarians will follow, "yes, but it's in a government building. We can't allow religious monuments in a government building, because then people will think it's government sanctioning religion."

Here's where I think they miss it, government buildings aren't OWNED by the government. They're bought and paid for with taxpayers dollars. The taxpayers own it. It seems to me that, just like in a corporation, the taxpayers that paid the most for it should get the most votes about what's allowed to go on in there. I understand that doesn't entirely work, because perhaps then only the rich would get justice in a court room -- frankly I think we already have too much of that problem. But Judge Moore pays taxes too, and he should be allowed to express himself, publicly if he feels he needs to. Second, he's complying with Alabama law, which states that he can decorate his court room however he sees fit. "But we're paying taxes for the court building" Ah, but since we already have to pay for the court room and the court building, I don't see how a monument really exercises tyranny at all. The monument was paid for by himself and his friends, it was privately put up and placed. No tax dollars were used to raise it.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." But see, no man was compelled to furnish funds for the monument or the erecting thereof. Now, I realize the logical converse error I'm making and that maybe there are other ways to be tyrannical, but the people who complain they are
paying taxes for the government building and court are based on a faulty premise. They'd be paying for that anyway. Now, if they can figure out some why to privatize the court systems in such a manner that true justice is given, be my guest, but until then, we'll have to put up with tax funded courts and buildings. What DOES make me upset is that, the Courts used U.S. and Alabamian taxpayer money to get rid of it, which IS the use of taxpayers money for religious aims (atheism) which I don't agree with, which is therefore tyranny.

According to Jefferson's quote above, the entire fiasco, is an exercise in tyranny.

They say, "Yes, but Moore has said things to the effect that he wants to establish religion." Really. All Moore said was, "The issue is: can the state acknowledge God? If this state can’t acknowledge God, then other states can’t… And eventually, the United States of America … will not be able to acknowledge the very source of our rights and liberties and the very source of our law." He didn't say anything that Thomas Jefferson, the famed anti-Christian, deist, wouldn't have said. Thomas Jefferson recognized that the source of our rights come from "our Creator." If you don't believe me, read the Declaration of Independence . Second, he didn't say anything that wasn't already in his oath of office, which recognizes God. If people want to get upset, they shouldn't be getting mad at Judge Moore. He's just upholding his oath. They should be chastising whomever wrote the oath, or whatever makes an Alabamian judge say it. But the oath is based on the State constitution of 1901. Are they going to need amend it to make it conform? Obviously when Alabama was admitted into the union (both times) government recognition of God wasn't considered unconstitutional. Why should the 1st amendment mean something different now, then it did back in 1901?

In totalitarian states, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, the state wages open war against the idea of God. We've just given the fed another precedent to wage that war. I shudder to think, if this trend isn't halted, where we'll be in ten years.

However to me, the issue isn't so much about, the fed taking away the rights of Judge Moore to express his personal religious convictions, in violation of his freedom of speech and freedom of religion first amendment rights. The issue is more about the death of the 10th amendment. All of our founding fathers believed that decentralized government, was a fundamental pillar for
the preservation of liberty. Walter Williams put it this way:

Decent Americans are paving the road for tyranny just as Germans did. In the name of one social objective or another, we are creating what the Constitution's Framers feared -- concentration of power in Washington and the creation of a superstate. The Framers envisioned a republic. They guaranteed it in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, making an individual state's authority competitive with, and in most matters exceeding, federal authority. Now it's precisely the reverse. In the pursuit of lofty ideals like health care, fighting crime and improving education, we Americans have given up one of our most effective protections against tyranny -- dispersion of political power.

If the Fed can force the separate states to give us liberty, it can force them to take liberty away. I don't see how centralizing power can ever help people to achieve liberty in the long term. Sure, it might be a quick fix to a specific problem, once in a while, but once the fed gets a new precedent of power, it won't be more then a decade or so before it uses that inch and takes a parsec.

But what about the 14th Amendment?

What about it? For those of you who read LewRockwell regularly, you're probably well aware of the fraudulent nature with which the 14th Amendment was ratified (at the point of a bayonet), but lets forget about all that for a moment. The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about religion. It states,

     . . . No State shall make of enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
     United States; nor shall nay State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
     law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Section 1)

The "inclusion principle," which the U.S. Supreme court came up with which makes the Bill of Rights now apply to State governments, is a fraudulent mis-interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It's not what the 14th amendment says, but it's been used by the Supreme court to expand the role of the Federal government, WAY beyond it's enumerated powers outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It's done this at the detriment of everyone's liberties.

Even is this "inclusion principle" were true, the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law. . ." To me that would mean that now State legislatures would be bound by it. Moore's not part of the legislature. Obviously legislating from the bench is wrong, but judicial activism is what the Federal courts are practicing, not Moore.

How has his erecting of the 10 Commandments a) abridged the privileges or immunities of it's citizens; b) deprived any person of life, liberty, or property, or c) denied any person the equal protection of the law?

It seems to me, if the Fed really wanted to enforce the 14th amendment, it should be striking down property taxes, income taxes, zoning laws, and other true violations of life, liberty, and property, instead of striking down marginally offensive monument's that don't hurt anybody. Instead maybe we should get rid of the truly offensive things like the National Endowment for the Arts. It seems to me Moore is guilty of nothing more then a victimless crime.

Regardless, there's one question in all of this, that I want answered.

What about the replica of the  Temple of Athena in, The Parthenon, in Nashville’s Centennial Park. Why are these groups attacking 10 commandment, are not attacking the statue of the pagan Greek goddess Athena in? You'd think the ACLU and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State could have some consistency. You'd think, that because they believed the Fed can impose it's will on the state thus, it should be able to do the same against pagan gods. Believe it or not, there are people in this country who worship Athena, and other Greek gods. How come nobody's complaining that Tennessee is sponsoring Athena worship, or Greek god paganism? Just because it's a small minority doesn't mean it isn't an established religion.

In fact there are many pagan symbols in our Government. Separation of church and State advocates complain about "in God we trust" on Federal Reserve Notes (commonly mistaken for Dollars). But they should also be complaining about the Mason cult symbol of the Eye in the Triangle on the back too. Why don't they?

For that matter, why don't Christians complain about these pagan symbols in our Government?

I think for the most part, Christians figure there are more important things things to complain about. The Statue of Athena doesn't have any effect on them. The symbol of the eye in the triangle doesn't infringe on their liberty or property (except that the Federal Reserve itself needs to be abolished.) Christians are also confident enough in their God. He can handle the competition.

I'm reminded of Elijah and his God's competition with the prophets of Baal, in 1 Kings, Chapter 17, verses 20-46. He was confident about his God. God eventually won the competition with Baal on Mt. Carmel, and the evil King Ahab and his Queen Jezebel were eventually deposed.

Most Christians I know who advocate student led school prayer, really don't have a problem with their kids hearing prayers to Allah, or Buddha, or some other religion. God can handle the competition. Obviously the best solution is to just completely separate the school from the state, but the point is, "Fair is fair." If atheism, or secular humanism, or Gaia (environmentalism), is discussed and taught, the Bible, Christianity, and Judaism need to be allowed as well.

On the other hand, there is a concerted effort to rid government and society at large, of all forms of Christianity, and morality. Even the feminist and lesbian Tammy Bruce, author of "The New Thought Police," recognizes this. Every other religion is allowed and even praised in the public and government square in the name of multiculturalism, but Christianity and Judaism are consistently under attack.

Perhaps Lew is right;  they can't handle the competition.

Which brings me back to Athena and the Ten Commandments. A professed libertarian who I was discussing said that if the intent of the 10 commandments had been the same as Athena -- to show a part of our heritage -- he wouldn't have had a problem with it, but because Moore placed the monument for religious reasons -- so the State could acknowledge God -- placement was wrong. Is Moore guilty of thought crime? A victimless thought crime? Is the reason for doing something, worse then the action itself?

This strikes me as no different from hate crime legislation, which creates different classes of people. A Murder is a murder, regardless of why it was committed. In the same vein, placing a religious icon is placing a religious icon. 'A'='A'. There is definitely a double standard in allowing Athena to on government property, but not allowing the Ten Commandments.

As it turns out, the Ten Commandments have finally been forced to come down and Moore's been suspended. I could say we need to make sure the Fed plays fair and forces Athena, Zeus, and other pagan symbols out of state governments as well, but that would be wrong. I would then be guilty of the same 10th and 1st amendment atrocities the ACLU and the Federal courts are. Frankly, I'd have preferred both the commandments and Athena stay up. If nothing else, if I were an Alabamian I would want the federal tax money used in this frivolous pursuit back.

Tracy Saboe