Brothers+ A syndicated writer sees the Alabama case as not about the establishment of religion but as the usurpation of power by the Federal Courts. Charles+ -------------------------------------- Missed The Point The people on both sides of the flap over a monument to the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court building have missed the point entirely. It's not about state religion or about acknowledging God. It's about jurisdiction. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives a federal judge the authority to say how the state of Alabama should decorate the lobby of its courthouse. If you will read the First Amendment, you will note that it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Alabama doesn't have a Congress. The historical fact is that the Bill of Rights was a set of restrictions on the federal government. If the states wished to have a state religion, they were free to do so. It wasn't until after America's French Revolution, sometimes mistakenly called the Civil War and Reconstruction, that the federal government decided that the original confederation would be replaced by a national government. For a while, the federal government paid lip service to states' rights when it was convenient, but in recent times even lip service has been reduced to an occasional whisper. Nevertheless, it is foolish in the extreme for proponents of the monument to run to one federal judge in the vain hope that he will overrule another federal judge. The correct way to fight judicial usurpation of power, which is what we have here, is to argue for a return to the original meaning of the Constitution. The fact that a set of corrupt politicians decided in the 19th century to undo the work of the American Revolution is no reason for Americans in the 21st century to accept that as the final status quo. Of course, no rational person would conclude that a reproduction of the Ten Commandments constitutes establishing a religion, no matter where they are displayed. But rationality is rarely found on the federal bench. Remember, the recipients of these lifetime patronage appointments are just lawyers with political connections. They are not gods, though many of them act as if they were, and the overwhelming majority of them are not scholars. Some are not even intelligent. Thanks to wacky federal-court rulings, however, there is much confusion on the subject of religion. I heard one secular jerk say, "Well, what would you say if someone wanted to put a monument to the Torah in the courthouse?" Dearly beloved, the Ten Commandments are from the Torah. They have nothing to do with Christianity per se. These basic rules of good behavior — prohibiting murder, perjury, adultery and theft — are the moral basis of our laws, as well as of the laws of most countries. Moreover, how can any logical person say that a monument in a lobby is "establishing a religion," but chaplains for the armed forces and for the House and the Senate are not? The Constitution, like any other historical document, must be read in the context of its own times. The issue the Founding Fathers had faced was that the British Empire had an official church, the Anglican. Many European countries recognized the Roman Catholic Church as the official state church. If you read the arguments of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison against state religion, they were arguing that it was not proper to tax a Baptist to pay the salary of an Anglican priest or vice versa. Nowhere did they argue that acknowledgement of and reverence for God should be banished from all public venues. The words of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington's first Thanksgiving proclamation, clearly show that they acknowledged God. Heck, the very foundation of the American Revolution's philosophy is religious. Jefferson argued that rights were inalienable because they came from the Creator, not from government or any social contract. That's a very important point too many Americans have overlooked. Government cannot give you rights, because anything a government gives it can take away, and the definition of rights is things that cannot be justly taken away. Nowhere will you find the Founding Fathers crediting government with giving anybody any rights. The role of government, as Jefferson stated, is to protect rights granted by God. It is even incorrect to speak of "constitutional rights." The Constitution does not give anyone any rights. It merely prohibits the government from abrogating or abridging rights the people already have. That, too, is clear from the text if you read it. Americans clearly need to study their own Revolution. That way, they might be able to distinguish its principles from those of the Marxist revolution, which frankly is the guiding set of principles for many American politicians and intellectuals these days. BY CHARLEY REESE ---------------------------------------------------- © 2003 by King Features Syndicate, Inc ____________________________________________________________ Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005