Rule of Law vs. Rule of Man?

November 20, 2003

There is a constitutional battle raging beneath the surface in America today. It goes so deep the media is missing the story even as it devotes hours of coverage to some of the battle's key players. The battle cuts so deep it has even conservatives confused and divided. The story of Alabama Chief Justice Moore's struggle to display the Ten Commandments has confused the "rule of law" with the "rule of man" at the expense of the "rule of God". But what do these terms really mean? And what is at stake?
 
The real battle that is being played out is couched in the debate over the "separation of church and state". A debate framed in terms that are already convoluted and misappropriated. The discussion would more aptly be referred to as the "Congress shall make no law" debate. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in our founding documents, but the words "Congress shall make no law" does. The complete separation of church and state that the secularists are driving for is based on the First Amendment of the Constitution that reads in its' entirety, as follows,
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
 
This debate has been poorly framed through years of media bias and overreaching court decisions. It has become so convoluted that the Alabama Attorney General (too conservative for senate Democrats to vote on) argued for Chief Justice Moore's firing for his refusal to remove the Ten Commandments. Upon winning the case¸ Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor stated, "I think it was obviously the right decision, the decision I asked the court to make, I don't think they had any choice, and I think that we should be grateful to them and support them and we should pray for all of them.'' It's ironic that Pryor would call for prayer after winning a case to remove a judge for recognizing God.
 
Pryor and a number of conservatives agree on the matter and believe they are merely upholding the "rule of law." But what is this "rule of law" they are upholding? And what is this "rule of man" that has been referred to?
 
The court wrote in its' decision that, "Chief Justice Moore did not have the legal authority to decide whether the federal court order issued to him in his official capacity as the State's highest judicial officer should be obeyed; rather, he was constitutionally mandated to obey it." The fact is that the first amendment forbids the federal government from making law that prohibits the exercise of religion. The only part of the federal government that's supposed to make laws is the congress. The courts are to interpret the law. After years of courts overstepping their authority and using the action of one to justify that of the next they have built layer upon layer of decisions that in effect have become what others call the "rule of law". But this is precisely what is rightly referred to as the "rule of man." And it's being used in the battle to deny the "rule of God".
 
The federal government had no business in making a ruling preventing anyone from freely exercising their religion. The only position that should have been taken by the federal government was to protect Moore's right to place the commandments. By default this was truly a states' rights issue and a matter to be decided by the state of Alabama.

The rule of law, Pryor and others are referring to is not the supreme law of the land, namely the constitution. The US Constitution is crystal clear, "congress shall make no law…." The Alabama State Constitution begins with the following preamble. "We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama." It is these documents that recognize the "rule of God" and these documents that the chief justice was sworn to uphold. What Pryor and others are referring to is something completely different - the rule of man.
 
Chief Justice Moore stated that, "We've got to stop the hypocrisy in this country, We've got to stop courts that will open with 'God save the United States and this honorable court' and then say [we] can't acknowledge God. We've got to stop judges who put their hand on the Bible and say, 'So help me God,' and then go into court and ... deny the very Creator God upon which this nation and our laws are founded." Unfortunately, the secularists would be all too happy to end the hypocrisy by banning the mention of God in court and the act of swearing on the Bible.
 
The secularists have their sights set on banning "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, removing "In God We Trust" from our currency, and completely removing any recognition of God on public grounds. They have made great strides recently despite a very weak argument. They've done so by relying on ultra-liberal judges who echo each other's own over-reaching decisions that their willing accomplices in the media then refer to as the rule of law.
 
Conservatives who fall for the attractiveness of "the rule of law" terminology at the expense of recognizing the "rule of God" would be well advised to visit www.the-rule-of-law.com. There you will see clearly with whom you are siding. There it is the preamble to the UN Charter that is quoted not that of the Declaration of Independence. There; the association of Law Professors, do "reaffirm their faith" but it is in "fundamental human rights" without a recognition from where those rights are derived or why.
 
The rule of law actually should refer to a strict adherence to the constitution. The constitution is clear and so is the intent of our founders. In 1781 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "… can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."
 
Calling on Americans to pray for an end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln wrote that, "We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us. And have vainly imagined that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us."
 
A mostly quiet kind of civil war is being fought today in this nation between those who want to remove any appearance or recognition of God in the public arena and those who want a strict adherence to our constitution and a recognition that, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Tom Schneider