Follow me on this.

In the abortion cases, the mother's personal convenience taken
to an obscene extreme trumps the very right to life of the baby
made in God's image. In the Massachusetts gay marriage case, the
biblical concept of marriage is summarily and arrogantly
rejected by four robed anti-culture warriors in favor of the
newfound sanctification of homosexual behavior. ______________

Uprooting Our Biblical Foundation
David Limbaugh
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Given the public outcry about the federal court's order for the
removal of Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments display, I'm
surprised there isn't as much alarm about the Massachusetts
Supreme Court decision to sanctify gay marriage.

In the Moore case you have a federal court telling a state court
that it can't symbolically recognize the God of the Bible as the
source of our laws (or otherwise). In the Massachusetts case you
have a state court ruling that the Bible (can't be the source of
our laws. I think the latter has even graver implications.

Follow me on this. There is little question that the institution
of marriage between a man and woman was ordained by the Bible.

Genesis 2:24 says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and
his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be
one flesh." That is a prescription for man and woman to be
joined, not man and man or woman and woman.

The Massachusetts court ruled that because the Massachusetts
Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all
individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class
citizens," homosexuals have a right to marry.

This should be no surprise, as it is a result of a logical
progression in our jurisprudence toward radical individualism -
the rights of the individual trump everything else - including
the interest of the majority in establishing a moral and stable
society.

Since the United States Supreme Court in its recent sodomy case
(Lawrence vs. Texas) reaffirmed the Court's earlier
pronouncement that "Our obligation is to define the liberty of
all, not to mandate our own moral code," it's hardly a surprise
that a state court is following suit. The Massachusetts court is
doing precisely that: Forbidding the state Legislature from
mandating a moral code - at least one with biblical roots.

The oft-repeated lie that "we can't legislate morality" has
finally borne its poisonous fruit. Of course we can legislate
morality. We always have. We must. Try looking at the criminal
code of any state or the federal system and tell me it isn't
based on morality. Look further into our civil law and try to
deny that much, if not most, of tort law and contract law, not
to mention property law, is rooted in our traditional (biblical)
moral beliefs.

It is not just for mercantile reasons that men are prohibited
from breaching contracts. And punitive damages in tort law are
awarded not to compensate the victim, but to punish the
tortfeasor. Punishment - that's a moral concept.

Not only are our statutory and common law rooted in biblical
morality; at a more fundamental level, so is our Constitution.
If we remove that foundation, the fabric of our society will
unravel, and we'll eventually lose our liberties - ironically,
at the hands of those claiming to champion freedom. And, by the
way, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in demolishing traditional
marriage, is itself legislating - that's right, I said
"legislating," not "adjudicating," morality.

Secularists in our culture and on our courts are not just
turning the First Amendment Establishment Clause on its head and
using it as a weapon to smother religious liberty for
Christians. They are further attacking our Judeo-Christian
foundation by promoting individualism to the extreme - to the
exclusion of biblical truths.

In the abortion cases, the mother's personal convenience taken
to an obscene extreme trumps the very right to life of the baby
made in God's image. In the Massachusetts gay marriage case, the
biblical concept of marriage is summarily and arrogantly
rejected by four robed anti-culture warriors in fav or of the
newfound sanctification of homosexual behavior.

We might as well just be blunt about what's happened. According
to our renegade courts, the government is not just forbidden
from endorsing the Christian religion, it must now disavow its
Judeo-Christian heritage. It must bastardize itself.

Sadly, chillingly, it's all based on a lie: that the Framers
intended to create an impregnable wall of separation between
religion and government. But whatever the Framers believed, they
certainly didn't intend to bastardize government from its
biblical parentage the instant it was spawned. What sense would
it have made for them to build our Constitution on the solid,
immovable rock of biblical principles, then immediately uproot
that foundational anchor?

The courts are making quite clear their disenchantment with this
wonderful document we call our Constitution, as they dismantle
it bit by bit. If the prescient John Adams was correct that our
Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people,
perhaps before too long it will not be suitable for us.

COPYRIGHT 2003 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

David Limbaugh can be reached at doclim@charter.net.

In
the Massachusetts gay marriage case, the biblical concept of marriage is
summarily and arrogantly rejected by four robed anti-culture warriors in
favor of the newfound sanctification of homosexual behavior.

Uprooting Our Biblical Foundation

In the Moore case you have a federal court telling a state court that it
can't symbolically recognize the God of the Bible as the source of our laws
(or otherwise). In the Massachusetts case you have a state court ruling that
the Bible can't be the source of our laws. I think the latter has even
graver implications.

Follow me on this. There is little question that the institution of marriage
between a man and woman was ordained by the Bible.

The Massachusetts court ruled that because the Massachusetts Constitution
"affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the
creation of second-class citizens," homosexuals have a right to marry.

This should be no surprise, as it is a result of a logical progression in
our jurisprudence toward radical individualism - the rights of the
individual trump everything else

- including the interest of the majority in
establishing a moral and stable society.

Since the United States Supreme Court in its recent sodomy case (Lawrence
vs. Texas) reaffirmed the Court's earlier pronouncement that "Our obligation
is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," it's
hardly a surprise that a state court is following suit. The Massachusetts
court is doing precisely that: Forbidding the state Legislature from
mandating a moral code - at least one with biblical roots.

The oft-repeated lie that "we can't legislate morality" has finally borne
its poisonous fruit. Of course we can legislate morality.

We always have.

We must.

Try looking at the criminal code of any state or the federal system
and tell me it isn't based on morality.

Look further into our civil law and
try to deny that much, if not most, of tort law and contract law, not to
mention property law, is rooted in our traditional (biblical) moral beliefs.

It is not just for mercantile reasons that men are prohibited from breaching
contracts. And punitive damages in tort law are awarded not to compensate
the victim, but to punish the tortfeasor. Punishment - that's a moral
concept.

Not only are our statutory and common law rooted in biblical morality; at a
more fundamental level, so is our Constitution.

If we remove that
foundation, the fabric of our society will unravel, and we'll eventually
lose our liberties

And, by the way, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in demolishing
traditional marriage, is itself legislating - that's right, I said
"legislating," not "adjudicating," morality.

Secularists in our culture and on our courts are not just turning the First
Amendment Establishment Clause on its head and using it as a weapon to
smother religious liberty for Christians.

They are further attacking our Judeo-Christian foundation

by promoting individualism to the extreme

- to the exclusion of biblical truths.

In the abortion cases, the mother's personal convenience taken to an obscene
extreme trumps the very right to life of the baby made in God's image. In
the Massachusetts gay marriage case, the biblical concept of marriage is
summarily and arrogantly rejected by four robed anti-culture warriors in fav
or of the newfound sanctification of homosexual behavior.

We might as well just be blunt about what's happened. According to our
renegade courts, the government is not just forbidden from endorsing the
Christian religion, it must now disavow its Judeo-Christian heritage. It
must bastardize itself.

Sadly, chillingly, it's all based on a lie: that the Framers intended to
create an impregnable wall of separation between religion and government.

But whatever the Framers believed, they certainly didn't intend to
bastardize government from its biblical parentage the instant it was
spawned.

What sense would it have made for them to build our Constitution on
the solid, immovable rock of biblical principles, then immediately uproot
that foundational anchor?

The courts are making quite clear their disenchantment with this wonderful
document we call our Constitution,

In the abortion cases, the mother's personal convenience taken to an

extreme trumps the very right to life of the baby made in God's image. In
the Massachusetts gay marriage case, the biblical concept of marriage is
summarily and arrogantly rejected by four robed anti-culture warriors in
favor of the newfound sanctification of homosexual behavior.
______________

Uprooting Our Biblical Foundation
David Limbaugh
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Given the public outcry about the federal court's order for the removal of
Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments display, I'm surprised there isn't as
much alarm about the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to sanctify gay
marriage.

In the Moore case you have a federal court telling a state court that it
can't symbolically recognize the God of the Bible as the source of our

(or otherwise). In the Massachusetts case you have a state court ruling

the Bible (can't be the source of our laws. I think the latter has even
graver implications.

Follow me on this. There is little question that the institution of

between a man and woman was ordained by the Bible.

Genesis 2:24 says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." That is a
prescription for man and woman to be joined, not man and man or woman and
woman.

The Massachusetts court ruled that because the Massachusetts Constitution
"affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the
creation of second-class citizens," homosexuals have a right to marry.

This should be no surprise, as it is a result of a logical progression in
our jurisprudence toward radical individualism - the rights of the
individual trump everything else - including the interest of the majority

establishing a moral and stable society.

Since the United States Supreme Court in its recent sodomy case (Lawrence
vs. Texas) reaffirmed the Court's earlier pronouncement that "Our

is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," it's
hardly a surprise that a state court is following suit. The Massachusetts
court is doing precisely that: Forbidding the state Legislature from
mandating a moral code - at least one with biblical roots.

The oft-repeated lie that "we can't legislate morality" has finally borne
its poisonous fruit. Of course we can legislate morality. We always have.

must. Try looking at the criminal code of any state or the federal system
and tell me it isn't based on morality. Look further into our civil law

try to deny that much, if not most, of tort law and contract law, not to
mention property law, is rooted in our traditional (biblical) moral

It is not just for mercantile reasons that men are prohibited from

contracts. And punitive damages in tort law are awarded not to compensate
the victim, but to punish the tortfeasor. Punishment - that's a moral
concept.

Not only are our statutory and common law rooted in biblical morality; at

more fundamental level, so is our Constitution. If we remove that
foundation, the fabric of our society will unravel, and we'll eventually
lose our liberties - ironically, at the hands of those claiming to

freedom. And, by the way, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in demolishing
traditional marriage, is itself legislating - that's right, I said
"legislating," not "adjudicating," morality.

Secularists in our culture and on our courts are not just turning the

Amendment Establishment Clause on its head and using it as a weapon to
smother religious liberty for Christians. They are further attacking our
Judeo-Christian foundation by promoting individualism to the extreme - to
the exclusion of biblical truths.

In the abortion cases, the mother's personal convenience taken to an

extreme trumps the very right to life of the baby made in God's image. In
the Massachusetts gay marriage case, the biblical concept of marriage is
summarily and arrogantly rejected by four robed anti-culture warriors in

or of the newfound sanctification of homosexual behavior.

We might as well just be blunt about what's happened. According to our
renegade courts, the government is not just forbidden from endorsing the
Christian religion, it must now disavow its Judeo-Christian heritage. It
must bastardize itself.

Sadly, chillingly, it's all based on a lie: that the Framers intended to
create an impregnable wall of separation between religion and government.
But whatever the Framers believed, they certainly didn't intend to
bastardize government from its biblical parentage the instant it was
spawned. What sense would it have made for them to build our Constitution

the solid, immovable rock of biblical principles, then immediately uproot
that foundational anchor?

The courts are making quite clear their disenchantment with this wonderful
document we call our Constitution, as they dismantle it bit by bit. If the
prescient John Adams was correct that our Constitution is made only for a
moral and religious people, perhaps before too long it will not be

for us.

COPYRIGHT 2003 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

David Limbaugh can be reached at doclim@charter.net.
--
CB
When a governmental practice has been "deeply embedded in the history and
tradition of this country," such a practice will not violate the
Establishment Clause because the practice has become part of the "fabric

our society." See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 786 (1983). The Ten
Commandments played a significant role in the development of American law.
The incorporation of the Ten Commandments in law and policy pre?dates the
Constitution. This intermingling of the Ten Commandments into American law
and government was long before the appearance of legislative prayers. The
drafters of the First Amendment would never have dreamed they were
abolishing the Decalogue.
--The Ten Commandments in American Law and Government
By Mathew D. Staver www.lc.org


"The Courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be
disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequences would be
the substitution of their pleasure for that of the legislative body.
--The Federalist No. 78