- The Washington Times - Sunday, October 5, 2003

Steadfast in truth

In response to J. Patton’s letter “One nation under God?” (Sept. 4): This is an open letter in defense of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is under suspension by fellow jurists for displaying a Ten Commandments monument and recognizing God’s word as the foundation of our law.

Are those jurists who oppose Justice Moore acting in compliance with the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence expressly recognizes the “Supreme Judge of the World,” the First Amendment gives all Americans the freedom to worship God and the Alabama Constitution invokes “the favor and guidance of Almighty God.” It is Justice Moore, not those justices who oppose him, who remains true to his oath of office and the rule of law.

The case goes deeper than a slanderous attack against an honest man, though. It is ultimately about the aggressive purging of biblical morality from America’s courts.

Though the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” those who oppose Justice Moore twist this straightforward language by claiming that our Founders established a godless Constitution. The men who wrote the Constitution, however, would disagree. James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, stated: “We staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

The man who coined the phrase “separation of church and state” would also disagree. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president, wrote: “The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation of church and state. The wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.”

How can any jurist argue against the men who actually wrote the Constitution? It is obvious that those who oppose Justice Moore actually oppose the original intent of our Founders. As a result, they oppose liberty.

By relying on a separation of church and state doctrine corruptly enacted by a 1948 Supreme Court decision that did not have one legal precedent, these jurists threaten our freedom. Religious expression is now ruled illegal in public places. And even in private, religious liberty has eroded with the rise of hate-speech codes.

What these jurists and those who support them do not accept is that they, along with everyone else, are under God. And though today religious oaths are struck down, abortion and sodomy are legalized and there are no more blue laws restricting commerce on Sunday, that does not change the law of God. It is as true and unchanging as it has always been. The law of God and the laws of nature are clearly seen. Everyone understands the law of gravity: What goes up must come down. The law of God is as discernable. An individual (or a nation) cannot break the commandments of God without being broken on them.

This is a rock-solid foundational truth and the basis of our legal system, which Justice Moore relies on and those who oppose him fight.

The original roles of church and state, as outlined by the founders of America, and unmistakably framed in the U.S. Constitution,emphasized unity,notseparation,of church and state.

MICHAEL LAMPIRIS

Gaithersburg

Gunnin’ for it

In regard to “Lawmakers seek ban on sniper rifle” (Metropolitan, Tuesday): The D.C.-area sniper used a semiautomatic “varmint” rifle that looks like a machine gun to commit his crimes. If he had used a “buck” rifle, we would have 13 dead and zero injured. The assault-weapons ban defines an assault weapon by features that gun-control advocates claimed greatly enhanced the gun’s killing power. Now that the companies have removed these features from their weapons, the gun-control advocates claim that they only made cosmetic changes.

LARS EKSTROM

Madison Heights, Mich.

A return to orthodoxy

To the message relayed to us in “Killing the messenger” (Editorial, Friday), I reply “Amen.” The editor is quite right in stating that, among the Catholic hierarchy, there is a denial of the causes (toleration of homosexual behavior and dissident theology) of the current sex scandals plaguing the Church. I’d like to add that the anomalies so accurately described in this editorial are firmly ensconced within our own local Archdiocese of Washington. Examples abound, of which I’ll describe only a few.

This past March, the archdiocese released its Archdiocesan Child Protection Policy. It was hailed in the Catholic Standard (the official archdiocesan newspaper) as a foundational document with regard to solving the problem in this archdiocese. It was published in segments over several issues of the Standard and is downloadable from the archdiocesan Web site. I downloaded it, and then did a word search on it. In this supposedly seminal masterpiece, the word “homosexual” was not once mentioned. Other word omissions, most curious from a truly Catholic perspective, include “sin,” “repent,” “sacrament,” “salvation” and others. This could give one the impression that this document is not much more than an attempt at legal and public-relations “damage-control.” The word omissions make obvious that this document does not attempt to address the deadly spiritual roots of this scandal.

On Sept. 8, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick and other members of the hierarchy met with some conservative Catholic leaders. These leaders petitioned the bishops to act like true bishops and to lead their flock by word and example. One of their main grievances had to do with the appointment of Leon Panetta (former Clinton White House chief of staff) to the same review board from which Frank Keating was driven. Recall that Mr. Panetta is just as pro-abortion as his former boss. The bishops were asked to stop bestowing honors upon those who openly dissent from key Catholic social teachings, such as opposition to abortion.

Less than two weeks after that meeting, on Sept. 17, a fund-raising dinner was held at the Capital Hilton to benefit Catholic schools. Hosting that dinner was none other than Sen. Edward Kennedy, champion of “abortion rights” and foe of school vouchers. Many area Catholics tried, to no avail, to have that ridiculous invitation rescinded. Finally we picketed that dinner. Imagine our profound disappointment when Cardinal McCarrick walked into that hotel. He stated: “We aren’t honoring him (Mr. Kennedy), we’re raising money for the children.” Conveniently he overlooks the fact that Mr. Kennedy was brought in for his money-drawing potential, a potential obtained at the price of blatant disregard to the teachings of his Church and his support of abortion. Not only can it be argued that His Eminence was legitimizing Mr. Kennedy’s stances by his own presence, but perhaps the Church was using Mr. Kennedy’s notorietyto draw in money. Talk about wolves feeding off sheep.

Instead of calling Mr. Kennedy to repentance for his public sinful stances, the hierarchy takes advantage of such fame with precious little regard for resultant damage to his eternal destiny. Shame on our local Church leadership.

I commend the reading of that editorial to all, especially to our Church leadership — nationally and in Washington.

JANET M. BAKER

Gaithersburg

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide