This article appeared in the December 2006 issue of Citizen magazine.

High Court’s Big Secret
by Stephen Adams, Focus on the Family

Don’t tell the ACLU, but a recent discovery proves the U.S. Supreme Court is a faith-based organization.

One significant milestone totally unnoticed by the Washington establishment this year was the 100th anniversary of the Harlan Bible. Don’t feel bad if you’ve never heard of it. The Harlan Bible is a well-kept secret to virtually all but the 50-plus U.S. Supreme Court justices who have signed their names to its flyleaf since 1906, nearly half of all justices who have ever served.

The little-known Harlan Bible is named after John Marshall Harlan, a prominent Supreme Court justice, devout Christian and Sunday school teacher who started the tradition, bequeathing this English Bible to the generations of justices to come. Some of its mystery has been unwrapped by retired Louisiana City Judge Darrell White, a friend of Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama chief justice who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse.

Judge White was on a law panel with Judge Moore in Oklahoma City several years ago when a random question about the oath taken by federal judges sent him on a research project that turned up so many curious historical facts that he’s now working on a book about it. In particular, White wanted to know the origin of the phrase “so help me God” in the judicial oath prescribed by the original Judiciary Act of 1789.

continue reading "High Court’s Big Secret"

Citizens in Berkely, Michigan, are making news for standing up for what the First Amendment actually says: http://www.candgnews.com/Homepage-Articles/10-25-06/FG-NATIVITY.asp Here’s an interesting point in the article:

“Meg Boker argued to keep the nativity scene where it is, saying that her children are inundated with immoral and objectionable material every day on television and the Internet, yet she has to fight for any kind of religious or spiritual symbols to be displayed in public. ‘When we force religion indoors, we become less tolerant as a society,’ she continued. ‘We never get to learn about our brothers and sisters.’”

Her assertion - a powerful one - is that the First Amendment simply does not protect people against being offended. Thomas Jefferson affirmed that proposition in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, the icon most closely identified with the concept of “separation of church and state” when he wrote that, “…the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions….” Elsewhere Jefferson wrote:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

A little critical thinking puts the issue in perspective: why is it that the same First Amendment free speech clause that protects the “rights” of persons who wish to speak ill of God shouldn’t protect the rights of persons who wish to speak well of Him in public? Regrettably, the Supreme Court’s misapplication of the “separation of church and state” principle has given us what Justice Arthur Goldberg warned could become “…a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious.”

continue reading "A Constitutional Law Lesson"

20 Logic errors used by evolutionists when discussing origins

1. Fuzzy Words

continue reading "20 Logic Errors"

«A federal judge hearing a constitutional challenge to a Kansas law requiring doctors, teachers and others to report underage sex between consenting youths said the state presented no credible evidence that underage sex is always harmful.U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten stopped short of issuing a decision from the bench, but he repeatedly interrupted Thursday’s closing arguments by Assistant Attorney General Steve Alexander to challenge his assertions.“Motives are irrelevant - I want to deal with facts,” Marten said. “Where is the clear, credible evidence that underage sex is always injurious? If you tell me because it is illegal - I reject that,” Marten said»

AP Wire | 02/09/2006 | Judge: No credible evidence underage sex always harmful:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/13823878.htm

Commentary:  Of course if an elected trial judge were to utter such nonsense, the line would begin forming to oppose his re-election.  However, Judge Marten - clutching his federal commission - could care less about public opinion.  In fact there are only 435 “natural enemies” of the Judge Martens of America.  And if hizhonor reads the paper Monday morning and finds that no impeachment inquiry has been initiated against him, then in the grand scheme of things, he has been officially vindicated and every member of the House of Representatives has, by his/her silence, become complicit in issuing Judge Marten a :-)    of continued “good behaviour.” 

That is because impeachment must begin in the House of Representatives.  See Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  It’s that simple (and hard).  Remember James Madison’s words, “In republican governments, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Federalist #51. 

And if “we the people” don’t take the time to contact our congressman’s office to respectfully insist that that such behaviour is not “good” and deserves impeachment, we become “principals” by “aiding and abetting” the judge’s misfeasance.  For in a self-governing nation, there are no innocent bystanders; only those guilty of bystanding!

Judge Darrell White (Retired)

So far Rodney Alexander and Bobby Jindal are the only members of the Louisiana congressional delegation who are cosponsors of the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause from awarding attorney’s fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square – such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal. If passed, the ACLU would have to spring for its own attorney’s fees in suits such as the one pending in Tangipahoa Parish where it persuaded a former-state-ACLU-president-turned-federal-district-judge to order the duly elected parish school board members to stop opening their meetings with prayer.

continue reading "Let’s Stop Paying the ACLU to Sue Us!"

Constitutional Law Professor John Eidsmoe has issued the following tongue-in-cheek rationale for banning all holidays.  
December 25 is now history, and the combatants in the “Christmas wars” have laid down their arms until next year. But the issues are far from resolved, and the conflict is far from over. Look for the guns to sound again come next December.
The problem with a ban on “Merry Christmas” is that it doesn’t go far enough. To be consistent (though that is a rare virtue these days) we should consider banning all holidays that might offend someone. Looking at my 2006 calendar, I find many holidays at which some might take offense.
New Year’s Day is an observance of the Gregorian calendar, an offense to those who don’t accept the Gregorian calendar, who don’t accept Jesus Christ as the central focus of human history, and who are offended by a calendar named after a Roman Catholic Pope. Let’s ban it.
January 16, Martin Luther King Day, is offensive to racists. Some might say racists deserve to be offended, but what right have we to be judgmental? Besides, the day is also used to celebrate the birth of Robert E. Lee, and this is offensive to Yankees. Let’s ban it.

continue reading "Ban All Holy Days!"

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of Toward Tradition and author of America’s Real War, notes that “In Israel, the mail is not delivered on Yom Kippur.  It is a Jewish nation.  In Saudi Arabia, the mail is not delivered on Friday.  It is an Islamic nation.  In America, the mail is not delivered on Sundays or Christmas.  It is a Christian nation.”
Not surprisingly, a November 2005 FOX News poll discloses the following:

• 59 percent of Americans think Christianity is under attack here;
• 81 percent disagree with the statement that religion should be “excluded from public life”;
• 93 percent want “In God We Trust” to remain on our currency and coinage;
• 90 percent are for keeping “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Alliance;
• 76 percent say public display of the Ten Commandments should be legal;
• 82 percent favor voluntary school prayer; and
• 77 percent believe “the courts have gone too far in taking religion out of public life.”

Meanwhile, the civil war of cultural values continues to heat up with polygamists now seeking their “civil rights” - http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20051211-121113-7195r.htm.  Are they entitled?  Justice Anthony Kennedy and four concurring SCOTUS justices opined in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”.  On the other hand, Noah Webster, in his massive work, the 1828 Dictionary of the American Language defined civil liberty as “the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation.”  Thomas Jefferson affirmed that view in his now famous-but-little-understood 1802 letter to Danbury Baptists [enshrining “separation of church and state”] when he wrote that man “… has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

Will we continue down this unmistakable “slippery slope”?  Put more personally, if the outcome of restoring our constitutional republic depended on you, would we transmit it intact to our children and grandchildren?  Well, it really does depend on you – and me!  Theodore Roosevelt issued a poignant challenge when he said, “No man is worth his salt who is not ready at all times to risk his well-being, to risk his body, to risk his life, in a great cause.” -Theodore Roosevelt

A classic justification for passage of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (S. 520 in the Senate and H.R. 1070 in the House) is shown in a recent federal district judge’s ruling that the Indiana Legislature’s mention of the name of Jesus during prayer is unconstitutional.  See http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038817.cfm.  While the Speaker of the Indiana House characterized this unelected federal judge’s decision as “intolerable”, it remains to be seen what specific action will follow.
It’s been said that when everything is said and done, more is usually said than done.  Enactment of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would totally remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over the acknowledgement of God as sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.  And if a federal judge ignores this statute, that fact would be evidence of a breach of the “good behaviour” condition for the judge’s holding office.  That development would give America a much-needed lesson in constitutional law, specifically Article III, Section 1.
The threats to America’s national security today are such that it behooves us to heed the warning of that “Defender of the Constitution” Daniel Webster:

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and continue to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” (Daniel Webster, statesmen and orator, God Bless America, Prayer and Reflections for Our Country)
For a more current affirmation of this imperative, Billy Graham, upon receiving the Congressional Gold Medal in 1996, stated: “As we face a new millennium, I believe America has gone a long way down the wrong road. We must turn around…  If ever we needed God’s help, it is now.”
You can help by urging your congressman/woman and U.S. Senators to become co-sponsor of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005.  Here is a link:  http://www.lafamilyforum.org/explore.cfm/newsandalerts?Screen=alert&IssueId=5326&SessionID=$SITEID=-1:AID=176:APP=GAC$
Don’t put it off; do it now even as Louisiana’s recently approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 30 has urged Congress to act.

If you’re looking for a rifle shot (as distinguished from a shotgun blast) to aim at today’s cultural malaise, consider supporting passage of Congressman Walter Jones’ Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (HR 235) that appears to be picking up support in the House of Representatives.  The measure – with 165 co-sponsors to date – would lift IRS restrictions banning political speech from the pulpit.
Have religious leaders ever been allowed to speak out politically?  Yes!  Prior to 1954, pastors and religious leaders spoke freely about candidates and political issues when they felt the need. The slavery abolitionist organizations and the civil rights movement are great examples of church inspired political successes.  But in 1954, then Senator Lyndon Johnson added language to pending tax legislation to prevent two non-profit groups that opposed him in 1948 from speaking out against him in his 1954 re-election.  Since then, that tax language has been used to silence political speech in America’s houses of worship.
The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act legislation would restore to America’s clergy the freedom to discuss politics with their congregations without putting their church’s tax exempt status in jeopardy.  Under the new formulation, clergy would be free to speak out on political issues during worship services - but prohibited from any direct participation in campaign activities.
Up till now, however, support from Democrats has been slim to none.  But that may change with the IRS investigation - announced just last month - into the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., one of the largest liberal congregations in the nation.  The IRS claims that two days before the 2004 presidential election, All Saints Rev. George Regas Regas ran afoul of tax law when he used his pulpit to deliver a blistering attack on President Bush and the Iraq war.  While insisting he wasn’t instructing anyone on how to vote, according to Gannett News - Regas implored his flock: “Jesus places on your heart this question. When you go to the polls this November, will you vote all your values?”  Reacting to the IRS investigation into All Saints, Robert Edger, general secretary of the left wing National Council of Churches, complained that the church is being targeted by “a political witch hunt.”
And while traditional left-wing advocacy groups like People for the American Way and Americans United for Separation of Church and State remain opposed to Rep. Jones’ measure, the All Saints case is making for some strange political bedfellows.  The Los Angeles Times reports that when Ted Haggard, head of the 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals, heard about the All Saints case, he reached out to the National Council - telling them that while probably would not agree with much in Rev. Regas’ election eve sermon, he wants to work together to do “whatever it takes to get the IRS to stop” such actions.
With so many issues before legislative bodies involving moral questions of the day, those who ask for help from a higher power should not be excluded from the political process. Stay tuned – and weigh in by letting your lawmakers know what you think!

Several years ago, a Louisiana legislator sympathetic to a proposed law extending employment non-discrimination protection on the basis of an undefined term, “sexual orientation” got upset when I pointed out in committee that immorality does not stand still. Thankfully that legislation was defeated and has not been enacted in Louisiana.  Common sense – a commodity in increasingly short supply – should warn any thinking person that a relaxation of sexual morality would end with legalizing and normalizing a host of sexual perversions, including polygamy, incest and bestiality.
So we should not be surprised to read reports that legislators in Massachusetts are following up on their success at legalizing homosexual unions by pushing for softening laws against other forms of sexual deviance. They have introduced legislation called “An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes” proposing to reduce the penalties associated with the state’s criminal prohibition on sex acts with animals.  The bill would also amend the penal code to de-criminalize adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion  Not surprisingly, the proponent lawmakers are all endorsed by all three of Massachusetts’ gay lobby groups.   Read about it at http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html