Other Columns by Christopher G. Adamo
Christopher G. Adamo Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

The Real Goal of Church/State Separationists
By Christopher G. Adamo
November 17, 2003

At this writing, the fate of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore hangs precariously in the hands of the state's court of the Judiciary. Moore faces disciplinary sanctions, including his possible dismissal, for refusing to obey a Federal Judge's order to remove his monument to the Ten Commandments from public display. Incredibly, all of this is actually transpiring in America. It is altogether dangerous to be fooled or otherwise pacified by those who would assert that the actions being taken against Moore are solely a result of his disregard for the Federal Judge's edict.

This controversy isn't merely some benign effort at achieving spiritual "neutrality" in government. Could anyone doubt that if, in lieu of his Ten Commandments monument, Judge Moore had instead posted a tribute to "diversity," "gay pride week," or "earth day," the situation would have played out in a very different manner? This despite the fact that so many such popular "causes" are as fraught with precepts of blind faith, and as lacking in tangible benefits to non-adherents, as any deistic religion. Every liberal legal establishment in the country could nonetheless be counted upon to fight fiercely against any judge who might have attempted to infringe on Moore's right to do so.

Furthermore, can anyone honestly dispute that, for a long time after the founding of this nation (but prior to the days of gang-rapes by youths in Central Park and serial killings in the public schools) Moore would have been universally regarded as a moral giant, a hero, and a defender of liberty and justice for all Americans?

Despite suggestions to the contrary, the legal pursuit of Moore is not about maintaining the established legal order in American society. Rather it is a test of whether or not the courts will, once and for all, cement themselves as the absolute and iron fisted arbiters of "Constitutional Law." A country that chooses to uphold its constitution on such a basis is a country that no longer has a constitution, but is instead ruled by an appointed monarchy. And that monarchy holds to the decidedly anti-Christian philosophy that also permeates most every governing institution, from the small towns to the Nation's Capitol.

A Christian couple in Tucson Arizona recently won the necessary legal battles in Federal Court to affirm their right to access public facilities on an equal basis with secularist organizations that had freely done so for some time, regardless of bizarre underlying philosophies ascribed to many of them. And while a celebration of victory by the couple is entirely understandable, it begs the question of why they had to engage in such a contest in order to be guaranteed the same legal standing as other citizens. Certainly, no army of ACLU lawyers fretted over the attempted infringement of their rights by Tucson officials.

A visit to virtually any public library throughout the nation can provide further evidence, as if more is needed. Just let some citizen attempt to erect a Nativity Scene out on the lawn during the Christmas season, and watch what happens. Everybody from the American Library Association to the liberal/activist judges infesting the state and federal courts will rant about "separation of church and state" in a fixated effort to obliterate such symbols from public viewing.

Meanwhile, only a few feet away inside the library, pedophiles and pornography addicts are enabled to indulge in their cravings for indescribable perversity over the Internet, at public expense, on the library's computers. These abominable actions are routinely perpetrated with the full blessing of those same individuals who would be so vigilant to protect the library grounds from some dangerous vestige of a Christian holiday.

In light of all this, a particularly ugly picture of America emerges if the recent filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees by liberal Democrats in the United States Senate is allowed to succeed. Of primary concern to them is that not a single judge be confirmed who believes in upholding the United States Constitution. By recognizing the Constitution as a framework of limitations intended to constrain the actions of legislators, those judicial nominees represent a grave threat to the leftist belief in its inherent moral and social superiority.

Neither are a sufficient number of Americans persuaded to accept such thinking. If liberals are to remake America according to their utopian ideals, they must operate from a position of uncontested power. The courts are their last best hope of doing so.