As placing the monument to the Ten Commandments. In the state judiciary building. Why did you do it. Initially i was decorating that. I realize that god was a the source of the moral law. I decided to put that it was not to force anybody to believe certainly but to acknowledge god in the entire law. That is one of the greatly misconstrues concepts. I find it coming from the bible. And the kings of the tribe of judah. Throughout the scriptures you see where god kept separate those things which blonde to civil government. In the things that belong to his church. You can tell a lot of religious conservatives today. They think the separation of church and state is wrong. I think it is going to an extreme that is not right. I think thats what reverend falwell is referring to. They had been deceived. Or they are adopting the common ordinary you believe in separation of church and state. We should not establish an official religion in this country. Congress you will make that. Being the first part of the First Amendment. I agree with that 100 percent. About religion and god are not synonymous. It was defined by the United StatesSupreme Court. As the duties to which we owe to god. And you dont deny that the monument to the Ten Commandments is a religious monument. That is a reason the court said i could not display the monument because it have a religious purpose to acknowledge god and this is something we did not deny throughout the trial. There is no law. Respecting that. There is a lot respected the establishment of religion. If you believe in separation of church and state and you dont think we should establish one religion over another. And you plant a religious monument. You have violated the constitution of the United States. It does not mean god the first thing our forefathers did when they wrote the First Amendment they asked the president of the United States to declare a day at a public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts. Especially by affording them an opportunity to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness. The first act was to knowledge god. I think the people fail to understand today is that god is the author of our religious liberty. It was he that gave us the right to believe what we want. A federal court in alabama said you are wrong. They said you were wrong. The Alabama Supreme Court your colleagues said you are wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States said you are wrong. The Republican Attorney attorney general said youre wrong. And the governor of alabama said you are wrong. Are you saying theyre all out to lunch. And you guys were all out to lunch here. Let me approach each one of those people. The federal judge said he did not know how to define the word religion. It was dangerous and unwise. He put himself above the law. The United StatesSupreme Court declined to consider the matter. I didnt say i was wrong. The attorney general himself asked on the court of the hearing would i continue to knowledge god even if officials tell you you cant. Every state acknowledges god. They said that we establish justice these people retain their jobs perhaps by accepting in order of a Federal District judge. We have to understand that every order of a judge is not law but when you had judges. Looking at as an outsider. That certainly means that they. Dot the court was in the law. It looks like you put yourself above the law and i said i know the law better than anyone else and thats what i meant to do. The Words Congress they have meaning. And you have to define those words. As a monument law. Does it for bid you to do anything doesnt mandate you doing anything. Is it the establishment or the recognition of one religion over another and the answer according to most of the courts is yes. Thats because the courts are not going by law they are going to buy the First Amendment does not forbid the announcement of god. It didnt when it was written. It doesnt today. In fact if congress does not make a law how can the Supreme Court interpreted a law that congress cannot make. What theyre doing is making laws to withdraw from a Public Square any acknowledgment of the sovereign god which is completely improper. Like 1931. In the u. S. Versus mecca trust. In both the majority and minority opinion said that it comes from an obedience to the well of god. If the unites states Supreme Court recognize god why cant god. Whoever try to stop you. Will you continue to acknowledge god as you said you would today even officials tell you you cant. It was all about the acknowledgment. You put your hand on the bible did anybody stop you. The only time they said that you said they stopped it is when you put this monument in the state rotunda. Took knowledge that does not mean that you can do anything you want and does it meet you can tell people how to think or believe. But the point is a monument really recognizes that theres a god. What do they do. They took under god out of the pledge. What are the courts doing when the Supreme Court of the United States opens with god save the United States. And then says that children cant pray in school. What are they doing. There were people coming in to the rotunda. They were kneeling and praying. You turned that rotunda into a religious line. That is a acknowledging rule of god. When people come and theyre there in there theyre free to do what they want. The god of the holy scriptures. The god which is founded. As is the buddhist god. No its not. This is judeochristian god. Im sure theres a Buddhist Community in alabama they went up a statue in the rotunda of the state building. If the buddhist was a chief justice if there was a chief justice and the desire to put the monument there. Nothing in the lot would stop it. Because he has not established religion. Youre saying what i support. It shows whether or not your consistent and i think it gets to the fallacy in your argument which is you say youre not favoring one got over another impact you are. Theres only one god. There is one got on which this nation was founded. It was not the muslim god. It was a god of the holy scriptures. I can take you back to history and i can show you that. Everybody believes that. There is a young hindu man. And he was there to talk about this issue which was recently before the Supreme Court. He said when he walked in and saw that monument he was offended because that bible and that Ten Commandments now and his faith at all. It Means Nothing to him at all. He sees a the state saying you believe in this or you are unamerican. Doesnt that register with you. But being offended is not a constitutional violation. That doesnt make it unconstitutional. Where does it say that you can press and push your religion on another person. The acknowledgment of the judeochristian god is not a legit and religion and no one is forcing it. Besides that no hindu note buddhist or anyone would say that this nation was founded on anything but the Christian Faith. We will get back to that in a second. You do make a lot of the fact that you think in the book here. The First Amendment requires you as an elected official to a knowledge god. There would be no god who gave us freedom of conscience. Is protected from interference. So without the acknowledgment of that got there would be no First Amendment to the United States constitution. You say in this book that the front understanding if you understand whats the First Amendment gives. You would acknowledge that there is a god. So the First Amendment requires you to acknowledge god. For basic understanding of what it secures you must acknowledge god to understand that. It doesnt say that you are going to be prosecuted for not acknowledging god. Let me show you the elementary catechism that was put to the schools in 1828 by stansberry in the schools. And this was the question regarding the First Amendment. It said what was the subject of the First Amendment. The answer was the subject of religious freedom. The right everyman has to worship god in a such a way he thinks that without being called out for his opinions. Is it a secret right. Which ought to be guarded. Got a god alone is the judge of our no one is denying your religious freedom. You say that it requires you to acknowledge god. He didnt care whether his neighbor believed in 20 gods or no god he doesnt have to knowledge got to be an american. Thomas jefferson was talking about religious freedom. Let me tell you what he said in the bill for religious freedom which i had right here. Except my point yes or no. Thomas jefferson said in a head too. The First Amendment does not require you to acknowledge god. He have to understand that is right. I would like to talk to you about the Ten Commandments because you say that they are the purpose of the law. Any talk about Thomas Jefferson and what he believed. There is that bill for religious freedom in the first sentence it says will aware that the opinions and beliefs of men depend not on their own will but their mind that all mighty god has created the mind free and manifested its supreme will by making it all together its acceptable of restraint. That does not support putting the could christian i disagree with you. I think putting a monument to knowledge that god has been acceptable throughout her history and is not permitted by the First Amendment. There is a test that the Supreme Court generally uses they cant address the law and what they say im in a tell our viewers. First of all secular purpose neither enhances nor institutes of religion and thirdly tell me what it means. Your monument fails that test. And does not had that. You have criticized people have you not that say i agree with that 100 percent. Im not feeling the First Amendment. Can you tell me what religion is. I can define any word you want. I want the legal definition. Im not a judge. The Federal District drug he did not have the expertise to define the word religion. I know you make a big deal of that. The fact is you got caught but every judicial level in this country ive been wrong you had defied them you put them above the law you made yourself a god and a sense and they are all wrong. So you can cripple about some definitions. I didnt put myself above the law. He denied the purpose and intent of the First Amendment. The United StatesSupreme Court. James madison and all of them to include george mason. Who i had right here as a Supreme Court justice for 34 years. It was defined as the duties we owed to the creator the definition itself recognizes god and they dont want to define the word because they cant recognize god. And they dont want to define the word because they cant recognize god. You are saying that they are preventing you from acknowledging god. Nobody has done that. I do every day. For example we have an aggravation of the president of the United States. You cannot send out there with the huge banner on the capital stop and say jesus as lord or whatever you want. You could say while they are preventing me from acknowledging god. It is what all of the courts said about your monument in alabama and that placed it which was pushing one got over the other. Its not the acknowledgment of god its where is where and when you acknowledge god. So help me god they cannot operation do the monument. I will come to come back to the Ten Commandments. Our laws are based upon the Ten Commandments. Which version. Or the third version in deuteronomy five. You want to divert the issue. Let me finish. The federal judge in this case did not go to different versions of the Ten Commandments the monument to the Ten Commandments was not necessarily wrong in the and the public building he said when you acknowledge the Judeo Christian got from once they came. The point is in this case it was removed because it acknowledged god not because there was a different version of the Ten Commandments. I would have no problem with that. This is the basis of our law. Im talking about whats in the rotunda. You tell me this is the basis of our lot which frankly i dont believe i have to know just like you wanted to know my definition im a catholic. My catechism doesnt give me the same Ten Commandments that your protestant bible might. Who decides which version is the basis of our law. There is no unauthorized version of the Ten Commandments. If you disagree with the federal judges opinion which i can tell you right here. It was about the Ten Commandments. Let me ask you about the fight. My faith is not in question here. You ask about the establishment of this country on god. Do you believe it was not established on the scud. See mckay believe it was established on the natural law and we have come from who we are. That is my belief. Should you recognize that god to guarantee those rights . No one is stopping you. The question is nothing to do with the rotunda. What you contend. Lets just take them. This is from my catholic catechism. You should not take the name of the lord your god in vain. None of those apply to todays law. They are the first table of the law. Theyre called the duties you owe to the creator and the manner of discharging it. You will let me finish my answer. Thats why weve got the First Amendment. Without an understanding that they had duties that we owe to god. And they are discharging those duties. Its a very basis of the First Amendment. Let me make sure that i am making myself clear. Im asking you where in american law in our law as americans that we are bound to obey not what we might believe from this book the bible as americans where is any reflection of the first three. The First Commandment of the table of the law which restricted government from interfering with it. That is the basis of the First Amendment is an understanding that there are duties that yo to god in the manner of discharging those duties is outside of government interference. Can you show me any of this. Honor thy father and a mother. My mother. Can you quote me any law that americans have to obey by any city council anytime that says no we should do the law that set we had honor the laws of every say are built upon this. Obeying your parents. Parental authority. Thats where we get parental authority. Thats where we get the right appearance to supervise education. And as a whole point of this. Is to recognize what was fundamental in the law. As far as laws enacted. Weve all kinds of juvenile laws. Absolutely. Im talking about Honor Thy Father and mother. If they cursed them out. They dont care for them against the law. The basis of all the juvenile laws. There is a connection there in our law. I would certainly grant that. The same with the next one. Again wrong thing to do. Most people consider it immoral is not against the law. Throughout our history there were laws against this. Since the courts have taken away in the understanding they have taken away that. It was a foundation of laws against adultery even in the city of alabama we have a civil divorce by which they consider adultery and it was recognized throughout the history. We agreed thats agree thats not against the law. You should not be a false witness against your neighbor. In effect, there are only two out of the Ten Commandments that any relation to the existing body of american law. The Ten Commandments are the revealed divine law out of the holy scriptures. With the declaration of independence. We hold these truths to be selfevident. He recognize his creator god but the first sentence of his declaration said we are entitled to exist because of the laws of nature. Let me read to you a portion of the law that recognized that gods law and of the bible were a basis of natural law. This is an understanding of natural law. If you go and look up organic law of the United States that is a point that revealed by law the Ten Commandments were a part of the natural law. We call to reveal the divine law. And only in holy scriptures. These were revealed and what he took release of the totally disagrees. President john adams he wrote something at the constitutions of government in the United States. He would agree that john adams was there in philadel