In another story about homosexuality, an Arkansas circuit judge made a decision last week that made “unconstitutional” a law that was established by the people of Arkansas in the 2008 election. The people voted 57% to 43% in favor of a law the judge has now decided to be unconstitutional. You may recall the effort that many Arkansans made to get Act 1 on the ballot before it was approved by those who went to the polls.
Here’s the story. We haven’t heard the last of this one.
Jerry Cox called Judge Piazza’s ruling “a classic example of judicial tyranny.” I couldn’t agree more.
This story reminds me of the FEDERAL judge that decided that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional…LAST WEEK!!!
The USA Today Story:
To quote U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of Wisconsin, her ruling “was not a judgment on the value of prayer. She noted government involvement in prayer may be constitutional if the conduct serves a ‘significant secular purpose’ and doesn’t amount to a call for religious action. But the National Day of Prayer crosses that line,” she wrote.
WHAT????? When did prayer ever become a secular practice?
It is interesting that Mr. Obama is going to observe the National Day of Prayer. We know, however, that his prayer will be inclusive of all religions.
***FOR THOSE OF YOU READING “AMERICA IS BROKE,” PLEASE START HERE:
So when did the big change begin? When did Christianity become one of many? I wish that I had the answer. I know that it once was different in America.
There is a great difference between today’s justices (at all levels) and those who held the same positions in 1844. You may be staggered by the difference between the courts of our lifetime and the ones in 1844.
This is only one example. It’s the story of a Supreme Court case in 1844. Those who say that this was never a Christian country should read the 1844 U.S. Supreme Court case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 132. Here are some of the facts of the case:
A man named Stephen Girard, a deist from France, moved to Philadelphia. When he died, he left an estate worth $7 million. He left instructions that an orphanage and school be established with the stipulation that no religious influence be allowed. The city of Philadelphia rejected the offer. Lawyers representing the city declared:
“The plan of education proposed is anti-Christian, and therefore repugnant to the law…The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith-the Bible….There is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach…a pure system of morality…
….the Old and New Testament’s importance is recognized. In the Old it is said, ‘Thou shalt diligently teach them to thy children,’ and in the New, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not…’ No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name forever, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it.”
The case reached the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously, stating:
“Christianity…is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public…It is unnecessary for us, however to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of…Deism, or any other form of infidelity.
Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country…Why man not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics…
And we cannot overlook the blessings, which such men by their conduct, as well as their instructions,…must impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation …its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?
Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?”
This was the view of the ENTIRE U.S. Supreme Court in the middle of the 19th century. Imagine the Supreme Court of 2010 voting unanimously on any “religious” item.
Imagine, in 2010, a municipality turning down free money because they viewed something not Christian. Today’s argument would be that the orphanage would create jobs and a home for kids.
This argument reminds me of the “benefits” we were to receive from the lottery. Our college students were to receive assistance with the cost of higher education. Unheard voices, like those at the Arkansas Family Council, warned that tuitions would only rise and offset any tuition assistance. Where did the AFC get their information? They took information from surrounding states. They listed examples of how the costs of college went up after lotteries were instituted. This was just one of many negative effects the Arkansas Family Council published about a then proposed lottery. Unfortunately, a few 15 second sound bites was the extent of the press that the folks concerned about the ill effects of a lottery got. Millions of dollars spent to convince the populace of “a good thing” won the day. Most churches were silent.
Did you see the story on the news last night? College tuition costs in Arkansas are rising. They didn’t increase last year. Now we have a lottery and tuition costs are going up. Although our increases aren’t as large as those in some states, a fact that the media made sure to point out, I think increases that range from 4% to 8% are unacceptable.
A few lottery administrators are living lavishly, overpaid college professors and administrators will have large pay increases, and students will be no better off than they were before. Many will still end up with student loans that they will be paying for years.
Christians believed in 1844 that if they made decisions based on Biblical principles that blessings would follow. Jobs and places for kids would be a part of those blessings.
What would $7 million be in today’s dollars? I’ll make a conservative guess. How about $250 million. I think that’s the amount one of the states will get because its legislators made concessions and voted to help pass the government’s new health care plan. Any city, Philadelphia in particular, that turned down that kind of money today would be viewed as insane. Turn down money because of some principle? Be real.
The statements made by the 1844 Supreme Court in the noted case would be viewed as “intolerant,” at best, today. And what would the Court of 1844 say about the Court of 2010? I think they would be so shocked at what’s going on that they wouldn’t be able to say anything.
In 1844, Christian principles were the most important thing. The contrast between the worldview of the man or woman who replaces Justice Stephens and the worldview of Justice Story cannot be overstated.
And now we have a Federal Judge saying that the National Day of Prayer is Unconstitutional? WHAT???????
I’ve heard people say that they fear a Theocracy of some kind if Christians get control of things. Christians – ones who believed that the entire Bible is truth – once made up a large majority of America and no one considered the absurd notion that a Theocracy was possible until the millennium. It was a Constitutional Republic then; it is a Constitutional Republic now. Barely. Nothing in the seven Articles in the Constitution has changed. The Bill of Rights is the same. Our problem is that we have done the same thing with the Constitution that we have done with the Bible.
What is different? The worldview of Americans living in 2010 is different. Today, lawyers representing the city of Philadelphia would not think to make a statement like the one made in the court case I’ve mentioned. The U.S. Supreme Court certainly wouldn’t make a statement similar to the one noted here from Vidal v. Girard’s Executors. Someone might be offended by Biblical principles.
The United States was not considered a Theocracy then, but if we consider doing something “Christian” now, well, there is concern that we may turn our nation into one. Today, in many places in this country, a manger scene may not be set up unless a winter solstice scene is allowed alongside.
Most Christians will tell you that we won’t have a Theocracy until Jesus returns. It would be impossible to have one before then.
If you are not a Christian and you are still reading this, there is something important that you should know. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. I write these words, not to scare or warn, although warning would not be out of line. I write these words because I believe, like Justice Story, that they are the truth.
The Supreme Court stated in 1844 that this was a Christian country, a true statement then. Our current President says that this country is not Christian. I would argue that he is, sadly, correct. Godlessness is being taught in 100% of our public science classrooms nationwide. If a professor at a college getting government funding mentions the words “Intelligent design,” he/she is in danger of losing his/her job. Don’t believe it? Check out the movie/documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed “starring” Ben Stein. I was not surprised by the angry and hateful response by so many to such a simple expose.
Christians obviously want the clock turned back to 1844 in many ways. I’ll take the mule and all that goes with along with it if I can get back a Supreme Court like the one on which Judge Story served. Is it possible? Those who are familiar with scripture know the answer. With God all things are possible.
If Act 1 is not upheld, a project that I and many of my friends spent hours on because of our concern for the welfare of children, I fear that we may be too far down the road to decadence.
If we are too far gone, if the clock isn’t turned back, we need not be concerned about a Theocracy. We will need to be ready to embrace one.
“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and FOREVERMORE. – Isaiah 9: 6-7c
…and Justice Joseph Story?
Joseph Story/Associate Justice 1812 to 1845
Story was only 32 years old when he joined the Supreme Court and was overshadowed by John Marshall during most of his tenure on the bench, but he ultimately had a greater impact on the law, society and legal theory than any other justice in history. Even though Marshall assigned virtually all the major early Supreme Court opinions to himself, Story was the intellectual anchor who gave lasting meaning to the decisions. After declaring the outcome of one case Marshall turned to him and said, “Now, Story, that is the law; you find the precedents for it.” When he was allowed to write, Story proved that he was the better of Marshall as a legal mind. In Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) he established the Court’s authority over state decisions touching on federal law. His decision in Bank of the United States v. Dandridge (1827) led to the creation of the modern corporation as a legal entity and other seminal opinions laid the foundations for admiralty law, equity law and patent law. In United States v. Amistad (1841), which was the basis of a 1997 Steven Spielberg film starring retired Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun as Story, he bolstered the abolitionist movement by ruling that the transport of a group of Africans across the Atlantic was illegal and the slaves should be freed.
Taken from HistoryNet.com.
Judge Story is listed as one of the top 9 Supreme Court Justices of all time.