By Rev. Jack Cascione
August 26, 2003
|
Home | Articles | Victory | Church Index |
National news organizations are broadcasting images of people protesting the
removal of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roy Moore's 5000-pound monument
of the 10 Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court and people praying around
the monument.
Moore has been accused by US Federal Courts of promoting religion by displaying
the Ten Commandments.
Confused reporting on the pros and cons of the controversy has also demonstrated
how inept and poorly educated the editors, news writers, and reporters of the
American press really are.
Numerous articles in the New York Times report why Judge Moore is wrong but
don't explain Moore's legal argument or quote him. At least World Net Daily
quotes both sides of the issue while also failing to explain or understand what
is happening.
On November 19, 2002, World Net Daily reported: "Yesterday, U. S. District Court
Judge Myron Thompson found 'Roy's Rock,' as it's nicknamed, violates the
Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution, which provides
that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'"
"'Both in appearance and in stated purpose, the Chief Justice's Ten Commandments
monument is ... nothing less than 'an obtrusive year-round religious display'
... to place the government's weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on
behalf of a particular religion,' wrote Judge Thompson in his opinion."
"The top of Moore's monument is engraved with the Ten Commandments as excerpted
from the Book of Exodus in the King James Bible. The sides of the monument bear
quotations from the Declaration of Independence and smaller quotations from
James Madison, William Blackstone, James Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, George
Washington and John Jay. Also included in the engravings is the National Motto,
'In God We Trust,' and quotations excerpted from the 1954 Pledge of Allegiance
and the Preamble to the Alabama Constitution."
"'The court is captivated by not just the solemn ambience of the rotunda, but by
something much more sublime,' wrote Judge Thompson, who described the monument
and its surroundings as 'a consecrated place, a religious sanctuary, within the
walls of a courthouse.'"
"Judge Thompson noted that the monument has become a 'compelling place for
prayer' for visitors and court employees."
FOXNEWS and CNN gave Moore a chance to defend himself. Moore explained
that:
1. The Alabama Constitution acknowledges the God of the Ten Commandments.
2. The Federal Government has no right to make a law about the establishment of religion, which means it has no jurisdiction in his courthouse.
3. The Federal
Courts refuse to define the word "religion" in the Constitution, which means
they are no longer following the US Constitution. In other words, the American
Courts will not define what they are opposed to.
World Net Daily quotes Moore on August 14, 2003: "The acknowledgement of
Almighty God is the basis for our justice system. It is the source of our law.
It is the foundation of our country," he explained.
"Separation of church and state never was meant to separate God from our
government. It never was meant to separate God from the law."
"Moore asserted the federal courts, by their rulings against the monument, are
restricting the First Amendment rights of Alabamans."
"Today [the freedom to worship God] is being taken from us by federal courts who
misuse the First Amendment as a sword to take away our rights, instead of a
shield to preserve them for us."
American Courts now claim that the mere acknowledgment that there is a God is an
act of religion. This means the Devil has faith because he believes God exists.
By confusing Law and Gospel Judge Moore has missed his most compelling argument
for displaying the Ten Commandments, which is, the 10 Commandments are not
religion. No one can believe in the 10 Commandments. They do not identify who
God is or prescribe any form of worship. They are a historic record of the Law.
Webster's New World Dictionary defines religion as, "The service and adoration
of God or a god as expressed in forms of worship." Evidently, American Courts do
not accept the dictionary's definition of religion.
The flawed reasoning of U. S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson above is that
the 10 Commandments should be removed because people are praying around and to
the monument. Myron concludes if people pray to something, it must be a
religious object. What if they start praying to the courthouse?
The Federal Courts' refusal to acknowledge God's existence on the grounds of
religion is more than likely motivated by fear of competition. If God exists,
people may not worship the Judges. If the Law is religion then the Lawyers are
America's priests.
Yes, the 10 Commandments are in the Bible, but so are sandals, food, sex,
clothes, trees, earth, sky, sea, etc. Are judges practicing religion when they
tell people not to steal?
Many who claim to follow Christianity incorrectly teach that people should have
faith in the 10 Commandments and that their love for God and other people is an
act of faith instead of the Law. Therefore they will not be able to understand
Luther's explanation of Galatians 3:12 as follows from Vol. 26, page 270-271, of
the Luther's Works in the American Edition:
Gal. 3:12. "But the Law does not rest on faith."
"The sophists say: 'The righteous shall live if his faith is formed [by love].'
Paul, on the other hand, says: 'The Law does not rest on faith.' But what is the
Law? Is it not also a commandment of love? In fact, the Law commands nothing
else but love, as the text says (Matt. 22:37): 'You shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart, etc.' Again (Deut. 5:10): 'Showing steadfast love to
thousands of those who love Me.' And again (Matt.
22:40): 'On these two commandments depend all the Law and the prophets.' Thus if
the Law commanding love conflicts with faith, then love is not of faith. In this
way Paul clearly refutes the gloss made up by the sophists about a 'formed
faith,' and, putting the Law aside, he speaks only about faith. Once the Law has
been put aside, love is also put aside, as well as everything that belongs to
the Law; all that is kept is faith, which justifies and makes alive.
Paul is arguing on the basis of a very clear testimony of the prophet that there
is simply no one who attains to justification and life in the sight of God
except the believer, who attains to righteousness and life on the basis of
faith, without the Law or love. The reason: The Law does not rest on faith, that
is, the Law is not faith or anything about faith; it does not believe. Nor are
the works of the Law faith. Therefore faith is something different from the Law,
just as the promise is something different from the Law. But the promise is not
grasped by doing; it is grasped only by believing.
As in philosophy, at the first division, substance and accident are distinct, so
in theology the promise and the Law are as distinct as heaven and earth. But if
the promise and the Law are distinct, then faith and works are distinct also.
Hence it is impossible for faith to rest on the Law, because faith rests only on
the promise. Therefore it only accepts and knows God, and it consists only in
receiving good things from God. But the Law and works consist in doing and in
giving to God. Thus Abel the sacrificer gives to God, but Abel the believer
receives from God. Therefore from this passage in the prophet Paul draws the
very forceful conclusion that the righteous shall live by faith, that is, by
faith alone, because the Law does not belong to faith at all. The Law is not the
promise, but faith clings to and rests on the promise. Accordingly, just as the
Law and the promise are distinct, so are works and faith. Hence the gloss of the
sophists, which joins the Law to faith, is false and wicked; in fact, it
extinguishes faith and puts the Law in place of faith.
Paul is speaking continually about those who want to keep the Law morally, not
theologically. But whatever is said about theological good works is simply
attributed to faith alone."
When so many Americans don't understand that faith is religious belief and the
Law is what people obey, the 10 Commands will be falsely regarded as religion.
Hence Federal Judge Myron Thompson claims that displaying the 10 Commandments is
proselytizing.
© 2003 Jack Cascione - All Rights Reserved
Rev. Jack Cascione, editor of Reclaim News, can be
reached at pastorcascione@juno.com
Also view www.reclaimingwalther.org
for papers, articles, & previous releases.
| Home - Articles - Victory - Ten Commandments] |
Email this page |