Marie Komar (5 Mar 2005)
"Freedom From Religion"

The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest
Vol: 42 Issue: 3 - Thursday, March 03, 2005

Freedom From Religion
The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that, depending on how it rules, will determine whether the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religion.
Before we go on, let's examine the relevant passage from the Bill of Rights to see just why it is so complicated that nobody has been able to understand it for at least the last forty years.
"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." - The 1st Amendment, Constitution of the United States.
Well, no wonder the finest legal minds America has ever produced are having such a hard time deciphering this cryptic paragraph! It's too disjointed. Let's look that the problems -- which are obvious and manifold.
Try and put yourself in the place of one of the justices sorting this all out from the bench. . .
First off, it starts by saying "Congress" -- which is CERTAIN to throw the justices off their feed. After all, they are hearing cases involving the rights of individual counties in the states of Texas and Kentucky to display the Ten Commandments.
Since Texas and Kentucky are such a long way from Washington, DC, where the Congress is seated, that is the first obstacle for the justices to tackle. Hmmmm. Weighty stuff to consider.
"Let's see. Is the Texas Attorney General the "Congress"? No, that's not right. The Texas Attorney General is the Texas Attorney General. Umm, maybe by "Congress" the Founding Fathers really meant 'state lawmakers'? Hey, that's good! But, wait! The Texas Attorney General isn't a law MAKER, he is a law enforcer! Darn!"
"Ummm, why is this in front of us, again? Oh, yeah - The American Civil Liberties Union. But, wait! Isn't freedom of religion a 'civil liberty'? Why would the American Civil Liberties Union fight against an American civil liberty guaranteed by the 1st Amendment? Oh, well, that's not important, now."
"The question before the Court is to figure out what the Founding Fathers meant when they said, ‘Congress shall make no law.' It all depends on how you define 'Congress'? Do you mean the 435 Congressional representatives, the 100 Senators, or both Houses combined?"
"Or is 'Congress' any public building in America? Does posting the Ten Commandments in public make that place the 'Congress'? Did Congress SAY somebody had to post the Ten Commandments?"
"No? Ummm, that makes this a HARD one.”
"Let's move on . . . we can sort out 'Congress' making 'laws' later. (Let's pretend they did -- so it looks like we're trying real hard.)"
"What 'religion' is that ‘Congressional law' (that we can't find) ordering the posting of the Ten Commandments trying to 'establish'? The ACLU suit calls the Ten Commandments an 'endorsement’ of 'Christianity."
"Oh, that's bad! It would be terrible if Americans read the Ten Commandments in public and turned into Christians!"
"What's that? 87% of Americans ALREADY identify themselves with Christianity?"
"Eighty-seven percent! Hey, is that a majority? I thought America was a democracy?"
"Idiot! Of course it is. That is why the case is in front of us. We're protecting the American system by ensuring the minority view is of equal legal weight with the majority. It's the American way."
"But, just a second? Aren’t the Ten Commandments the foundation of Judaism? How did Christianity get involved here?'
"Well, you see, judge, Christians believe that they are set free from the Ten Commandments by faith in Jesus, making the identification of Christianity with the Ten Commandments a no-brainer. They aren't under the Ten Commandments so the Ten Commandments are clearly Christian!"
"But what about Judaism? Aren't the Ten Commandments still the Supreme Jewish Law?"
Ok, judge. Have it your own way. They're Jewish. But it is still a case of Congress passing a law establishing a religion, right?"
"I'm not sure. You've confused me. But let's move on."
"Your argument is that putting the Ten Commandments on public property is the equivalent to Congress passing a law establishing Christianity as a religion because the Ten Commandments are the Supreme Law of Judaism?"
"But what about second half of the sentence, where it says Congress shall pass no law 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof'?”
"Well, Your Honor, this is where you have to think 'outside the box,' so to speak. First off, consider this. You guys are the Supreme Court, not the Congress, so there's no conflict. You see what I mean?"
"Secondly, we aren't asking that ALL religions be prohibited, just Christianity because it ISN'T based on the Ten Commandments. You see? That's why YOU can ban it -- you AREN'T the Congress. Honestly, I don't see why you are having so much trouble with this."
Assessment:
According to the Los Angeles Times headline, the Supreme Court is 'wrestling' with this contentious issue.
The Pittsburg-Tribune Review headline described the Court's dilemma as a case of "Supreme Contradictions." The New York Sun's headline said that the "10 Commandments Frustrate the Court."
What can possibly be difficult about interpreting the 1st Amendment? If Congress isn't passing a law respecting the establishment of a religion, and if Congress hasn't passed laws 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof' then the posting of the Ten Commandments in the Texas courthouse is protected by every single element of the 1st Amendment.
* Freedom of the Press -- it would be news to historians that the Ten Commandments did NOT form the basis for Western Common Law.
* Freedom of Speech -- if the State of Illinois is required by law to grant demonstration permits and provide police protection for the annual Nazi Party parade in Skokie, then similar legal protections are guaranteed for the 87% of Americans who believe in God.
Why hasn't the Supreme Court ordered police protection for the 10 Commandment monuments to protect them from the 8% of atheists and 5% of other assorted nutbars who make up the difference?
"Freedom to peaceably assemble" -- since the Ten Commandments are the foundational principals upon which all Western common law is based, and since they are also contained in the Bible that 87% of Americans say they accept, the Supreme Court should be passing laws protecting our right to assemble in public places to read them.
In a free society, the government shouldn’t suppress the principles upon which their legal system is based. You'd think stuff like that would leap out at them. It DOES seem somewhat obvious.
So how can the Supreme Court POSSIBLY be 'wrestling' with this issue, as the LA Times described it?
It is about as uncomplicated as, oh, say the question of whether or not women ought to be allowed to kill their babies.
"This know also, that IN THE LAST DAYS, perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:” (2nd Timothy 3:1-4)
Read through that list again. Now, (if you can find a copy without being arrested) read the Ten Commandments.
Directly above the bench in the Supreme Court is a bas-relief sculpture of Moses receiving the tablets containing the Ten Commandments from the Hand of God.
The Supreme Court in recent years has upheld the rights of pornographers, pedophiles, perverts of every persuasion, murderers, traitors and thieves, ruling against the concept of life being endowed by a Creator, ruling against exposing students to the Ten Commandments, ruling against school prayer, ruling against public displays of religion, BUT, opening each session by invoking God's blessing on the Court.
No matter how the Court rules in the end, the very fact that this issue can BE a 'frustration' for the Supreme Court is itself evidence that we are living in a time in which the supernatural is spilling out into the natural as the war in heaven approaches its climax.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." (Romans 1:22, 25, 28)
Archives of past issues of The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest plus many other Omega Letter member features can be found at: www.omegaletter.com


The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest Vol: 42 Issue: 3 - Thursday, March 03, 2005
Freedom From Religion The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that, depending on how it rules, will determine whether the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religion. Before we go on, let's examine the relevant passage from the Bill of Rights to see just why it is so complicated that nobody has been able to understand it for at least the last forty years. "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." - The 1st Amendment, Constitution of the United States. Well, no wonder the finest legal minds America has ever produced are having such a hard time deciphering this cryptic paragraph! It's too disjointed. Let's look that the problems -- which are obvious and manifold. Try and put yourself in the place of one of the justices sorting this all out from the bench. . . First off, it starts by saying "Congress" -- which is CERTAIN to throw the justices off their feed. After all, they are hearing cases involving the rights of individual counties in the states of Texas and Kentucky to display the Ten Commandments. Since Texas and Kentucky are such a long way from Washington, DC, where the Congress is seated, that is the first obstacle for the justices to tackle. Hmmmm. Weighty stuff to consider. "Let's see. Is the Texas Attorney General the "Congress"? No, that's not right. The Texas Attorney General is the Texas Attorney General. Umm, maybe by "Congress" the Founding Fathers really meant 'state lawmakers'? Hey, that's good! But, wait! The Texas Attorney General isn't a law MAKER, he is a law enforcer! Darn!" "Ummm, why is this in front of us, again? Oh, yeah - The American Civil Liberties Union. But, wait! Isn't freedom of religion a 'civil liberty'? Why would the American Civil Liberties Union fight against an American civil liberty guaranteed by the 1st Amendment? Oh, well, that's not important, now." "The question before the Court is to figure out what the Founding Fathers meant when they said, ‘Congress shall make no law.' It all depends on how you define 'Congress'? Do you mean the 435 Congressional representatives, the 100 Senators, or both Houses combined?" "Or is 'Congress' any public building in America? Does posting the Ten Commandments in public make that place the 'Congress'? Did Congress SAY somebody had to post the Ten Commandments?" "No? Ummm, that makes this a HARD one.” "Let's move on . . . we can sort out 'Congress' making 'laws' later. (Let's pretend they did -- so it looks like we're trying real hard.)" "What 'religion' is that ‘Congressional law' (that we can't find) ordering the posting of the Ten Commandments trying to 'establish'? The ACLU suit calls the Ten Commandments an 'endorsement’ of 'Christianity." "Oh, that's bad! It would be terrible if Americans read the Ten Commandments in public and turned into Christians!" "What's that? 87% of Americans ALREADY identify themselves with Christianity?" "Eighty-seven percent! Hey, is that a majority? I thought America was a democracy?" "Idiot! Of course it is. That is why the case is in front of us. We're protecting the American system by ensuring the minority view is of equal legal weight with the majority. It's the American way." "But, just a second? Aren’t the Ten Commandments the foundation of Judaism? How did Christianity get involved here?' "Well, you see, judge, Christians believe that they are set free from the Ten Commandments by faith in Jesus, making the identification of Christianity with the Ten Commandments a no-brainer. They aren't under the Ten Commandments so the Ten Commandments are clearly Christian!" "But what about Judaism? Aren't the Ten Commandments still the Supreme Jewish Law?" Ok, judge. Have it your own way. They're Jewish. But it is still a case of Congress passing a law establishing a religion, right?" "I'm not sure. You've confused me. But let's move on." "Your argument is that putting the Ten Commandments on public property is the equivalent to Congress passing a law establishing Christianity as a religion because the Ten Commandments are the Supreme Law of Judaism?" "But what about second half of the sentence, where it says Congress shall pass no law 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof'?” "Well, Your Honor, this is where you have to think 'outside the box,' so to speak. First off, consider this. You guys are the Supreme Court, not the Congress, so there's no conflict. You see what I mean?" "Secondly, we aren't asking that ALL religions be prohibited, just Christianity because it ISN'T based on the Ten Commandments. You see? That's why YOU can ban it -- you AREN'T the Congress. Honestly, I don't see why you are having so much trouble with this." Assessment: According to the Los Angeles Times headline, the Supreme Court is 'wrestling' with this contentious issue. The Pittsburg-Tribune Review headline described the Court's dilemma as a case of "Supreme Contradictions." The New York Sun's headline said that the "10 Commandments Frustrate the Court." What can possibly be difficult about interpreting the 1st Amendment? If Congress isn't passing a law respecting the establishment of a religion, and if Congress hasn't passed laws 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof' then the posting of the Ten Commandments in the Texas courthouse is protected by every single element of the 1st Amendment. * Freedom of the Press -- it would be news to historians that the Ten Commandments did NOT form the basis for Western Common Law. * Freedom of Speech -- if the State of Illinois is required by law to grant demonstration permits and provide police protection for the annual Nazi Party parade in Skokie, then similar legal protections are guaranteed for the 87% of Americans who believe in God. Why hasn't the Supreme Court ordered police protection for the 10 Commandment monuments to protect them from the 8% of atheists and 5% of other assorted nutbars who make up the difference? "Freedom to peaceably assemble" -- since the Ten Commandments are the foundational principals upon which all Western common law is based, and since they are also contained in the Bible that 87% of Americans say they accept, the Supreme Court should be passing laws protecting our right to assemble in public places to read them. In a free society, the government shouldn’t suppress the principles upon which their legal system is based. You'd think stuff like that would leap out at them. It DOES seem somewhat obvious. So how can the Supreme Court POSSIBLY be 'wrestling' with this issue, as the LA Times described it? It is about as uncomplicated as, oh, say the question of whether or not women ought to be allowed to kill their babies. "This know also, that IN THE LAST DAYS, perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:” (2nd Timothy 3:1-4) Read through that list again. Now, (if you can find a copy without being arrested) read the Ten Commandments. Directly above the bench in the Supreme Court is a bas-relief sculpture of Moses receiving the tablets containing the Ten Commandments from the Hand of God. The Supreme Court in recent years has upheld the rights of pornographers, pedophiles, perverts of every persuasion, murderers, traitors and thieves, ruling against the concept of life being endowed by a Creator, ruling against exposing students to the Ten Commandments, ruling against school prayer, ruling against public displays of religion, BUT, opening each session by invoking God's blessing on the Court. No matter how the Court rules in the end, the very fact that this issue can BE a 'frustration' for the Supreme Court is itself evidence that we are living in a time in which the supernatural is spilling out into the natural as the war in heaven approaches its climax. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." (Romans 1:22, 25, 28) Archives of past issues of The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest plus many other Omega Letter member features can be found at: www.omegaletter.com