MP3 audio

Alan Keyes
October 1, 2003

It's great to see all of you tonight. And I have to say that, seeing you and what I have seen in the course of the last several weeks, when I went down for the rally that Rick [Scarborough] talked about in Montgomery, Alabama, I went in the frame of mind of one who knew that this was duty and obligation. But once I had been there and stayed there for a moment, I went away with the spirit of one who understood that I was seeing one of the blessings of the Lord our God working His will upon America. And I am seeing it here tonight.

But in order to understand the significance of what brings us together, we have to look squarely in the face the truth about where we are right now as a people--and that truth, I fear, ought to chill all of us to the very depths of our being.

I believe deeply that, as a nation, we stand as it were looking over into the deep abyss of our own destruction. Hard words to hear, but they ought to be easy words to understand, and I know a couple of years ago we understood them well enough.

I was thinking about that on the commemoration of September 11th. I was watching all of the different things that were going on as people remembered that terrible day. And they remembered the terrible attack, and the terrible destruction, and the terrible loss of life; and they remembered the grief; and they remembered the families that suffered and were torn apart by that heinous act of murder; and they remembered the heroism of the firefighters and the policemen who, at the very cost of their lives, went back again and again to save whom they could.

They remembered all those things, but I couldn't help but think that on that day itself, when we were all watching these things unfold, we didn't remember the violence on that day, we watched it. We didn't remember the deaths on that day, we felt them as they occurred. We didn't remember the grief of the families as they were struck by this blow, we cried with them and mourned with them that day. We didn't remember the heroism of the police and the firefighters, because we were watching it, and our hearts were uplifted with an unwanted sense of pride.

No, on that day of tragedy and horror and mourning and grief, we didn't remember all those things (I remember, though, myself). What we remembered that day, in the midst of all that destruction, in the midst of all that grief, on that day we remembered God!

And we did not remember Him as individuals only. On that day, throughout the length and breadth of America, wherever there were Americans drawing breath, we remembered God as a people, we remembered God as a nation.

And we called on Him then, and we called on Him in the weeks after. Everywhere you turned it seemed, "God bless America." People were singing it and saying it and calling down His blessing, and lifting up our hands and hearts in prayer for His aid.

Strange, isn't it? That's what occurred that day. And I couldn't help but think throughout that whole process, as I watched the political leaders gather at the prayer meetings, as I watched the prayers that were taking place that day, that we lived in a country in which, until that day, for year after year and decade after decade, we have been told that as a people, as a nation, as citizens, we no longer have the right to lift our prayers to God.

Our children no longer have the right to pray to Him in the schools. Our leaders no longer have the right to invoke His name from the public platform in their speeches. And this, despite the fact that when you turn the pages back to the very beginning of our nation's life, what do we find right there inscribed on the foundation-stone of this nation's existence, in the very first words that were spoken by us as a people, but an acknowledgment of His will and His power as the very source from which we obtain our rights.

How can a nation that was founded on the belief that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator--not by our courts, and not by our Constitution, and not by the Bill of Rights, and not by any presidents, and not by any legislatures, and not by any judges, but by God Almighty we are endowed with our rights!

How can a nation, founded upon such a principle, how can a nation that derives its liberty, that derives its sense of justice from such an acknowledgment of God--how can we have come to a day when we will submit to those who tell us that as citizens, as free men and women, we have not the right to acknowledge God in our public life?

Tell me, how did we get here?

That's what I want to talk about a little bit, you see, because I think that we are here as the result of one of the most sustained frauds in the history of our system of law and justice. We are here because of one of the most incredible thefts that has ever taken place in the life of a nation.

And what was stolen wasn't money; what was stolen wasn't goods. What was stolen is what may very well be our most fundamental right as a people: the right of this people to acknowledge God!

How was it done? How was it done? It's especially hard for me to understand it because you and I both know that we're supposed to have certain rights, and they're written down. We have a Constitution which governs us. What I'm about to get into, I have to preface it because, now that I'm standing here, I am put in mind of some of the folks I've talked to in recent days. And I've been talking to a lot of people--I've talked to folks up on Capitol Hill, and I've been out talking to conservative leaders of all varieties and stripes. Rick and I are doing our level best to see if we can't join with others to really energize a movement that will turn back all these years in which they have deprived this nation of their right to honor God.

But folks tell me that what I'm about to tell you is hard to understand, and that if I go through it, "Well, Alan, they say people just won't follow all of that," and so forth and so on. You know something? One of the things that has really deeply struck me over the course of the last several years, and especially in recent weeks: how dumb they think Americans are. No, really. They think we have become a benighted and stupid people. And yet, in this particular case, I've got to admit that even if we were as stupid as they think we are, I would find it hard to believe that we wouldn't "get" this one once we paid attention for a while.

See? Because, the courts, as we have seen in many episodes, and especially as we saw in the events that drew many of us to Montgomery, the courts have intervened in America's life in order to establish a venue where anybody in our public life--any politician, any public figure, anybody at all who dares to bring forward an acknowledgment of God in the public place--is being struck down and rebuked by them and told that this cannot be done. It's a "violation," they say.

And this is what happens. County commissioners--we were speaking to some in Barrow County expecting they'll get a little note from the ACLU that says, "You are in violation. You must remove the Ten Commandments from your courthouse." And when Judge Roy Moore decided that he would put a monument honoring the role of the Ten Commandments and the acknowledgment of God in America's life and the life of Alabama, there was a judge, Myron Thompson, his thunderbolt in his hand, to tell them, "No, you can't do that. Get it out because it violates" something or other.

And you know the first question I always ask? The first question I wish that you would ask, the first question everyone should ask, if you ever happen to be on a school board, on a board of county commissioners, on a town council or whatever, and you get one of these notices because you have dared to put in a public place an acknowledgment of God and His law, here's the first question I'd like you ask: "In violation of what? In violation of what law? In violation of what provision?" and so forth and so on. That's the first question that I have been trying to get folks to address in the case of Roy Moore and Judge Myron Thompson. I have folks, even folks who are friends of mine, who look at that situation where Judge Moore had the Ten Commandments monument and the federal judge comes in and says, "You must take it out."

Now, what did Judge Roy Moore do? He did something that so characterized by courage and integrity it has inspired people all over this land, and yet, in one sense, so simple that it captures the very spirit, I believe, with which this nation was founded. He was told that he couldn't acknowledge God, and, like Nancy Reagan and the drugs, he just said no.

"I will acknowledge God. To stand like Daniel, I will acknowledge God. You may tell me not to pray, but I will pray. You may tell me not to speak His name, but I will speak His name. You may tell me not to honor His law, but I will honor His law."

And I am going to go with Rick Scarborough and with others. We're going to go, if we can get there through the length and breadth of this land. We're going to try to gather people in towns and hamlets and counties and cities all over, so that to a man, people of conscience will be standing all over America, and when they tell us not to pray, and when they tell us not to invoke His name, we will just say no!

But I'm running a terrible risk here, and it's a bad risk for me because I, as you know, am well known as a conservative, and I came along and still somewhere in my heart of hearts I understand that term to distinguish me from radicals and bomb-throwers and people who are out to make trouble. No, we conservatives try to be law-abiding folks. It actually is kind of an uneasy situation for me to be standing here saying that if the judge says you can't pray, say no.

And there are those, as I was saying, among my friends, people I know--fellow conservatives, as well as folks who are not--who are characterizing what I've just said and what Roy Moore has done as "law-breaking," as "showing disrespect for law." Have you read about this? Have you seen this?

And here's where I have a problem, and where it is going to require that we think this through together for a minute. Because, we're Americans, right? And we live in a country where the great Declaration of Independence declared it as the principle of all American government--which is to say, all legitimate and just law--that such law must be based upon the consent of the people. We do remember that, don't we?

In other words, if somebody just happens to gain power by military means or superior force, or guile and fraud, and then turns around and starts ordering everybody about because they've got power, does that power justify their will? No, it does not. Because, according to the first principle of our freedom, no government can be legitimate, and no law is in fact just, if it is not derived from the consent of the governed.

Now, how do you do that? Well, in our society, it's pretty simple. We have a system of government in which there are two basic sources of law derived from the consent of the people. The first is our constitutions, which have been made in our states and at the national level by people who gathered together in conventions, chosen by the people to represent them, and they were then, in most cases, directly ratified by a vote of the people.

And then, pursuant to those constitutions, we elect and establish government with legislatures, and in those legislatures sit people who are elected by the people and who therefore represent their consent, and they make our law. And if the law is not in the constitutions, and if the law is not derived from the work of those legislatures, then it is no law.

And this is where I have a problem, because when the federal judge says to Roy Moore, "You're in violation," first question we need to ask is, "In violation of what law? What law?" And he's a federal judge, so it would have to be federal law, I think. Because, see, he's not a state judge. He's not dealing with state law. We have to find a federal law that somehow says that Roy Moore and anybody else in this country can't put the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Judicial Building, can't put the Ten Commandments on the wall of a courthouse.

Where is this law? Well, I have news for you. You can go through all the federal statutes you want anywhere in this country, and you are not going to find it. Do you know why? Well, because the supreme law of the land has in it the First Amendment, and in the First Amendment are some words.

Now, I know because they think we're so dumb, they honestly believe that we can't read it anymore and therefore won't understand it. But I have read it over and over again, that First Amendment to our Constitution, and in its first words I see a very clear statement, no part of which is hard for me. See?

First, they say, "Congress . . . ."

That's the first word of the First Amendment to our Constitution, "Congress." Well, most of us know what the Congress is. We don't understand what it does half the time, but know what it is. And we even know one or two people whom we've sent there to participate, thinking that they might help to straighten the place out! Boy, were we wrong.

But anyway, it says, "Congress," that body composed of the House and the Senate that makes laws at the federal level, "shall . . . ." "Shall" is fairly easy, right? Well, that's one of those nice words that implies an action with a kind of future orientation.

"Congress shall make . . . ."

Well, that's all right. Make pies, make cakes, make cars, make things. We have that one pretty much under control.

"No . . . ."

Well, now that's difficult. I do occasionally have to say to my kids, "Which part of the word 'no' do you not understand?" But somewhere along the way, after a few years we do get it. It might take a while, but usually no more than maybe six months to a couple of years. (Well, actually maybe three. The twos are pretty difficult; takes a while.) But you get to know that word "no," right?

"Congress shall make no . . . ."

That means there won't be any. It means you stop there. No more.

"Congress shall make no law . . . ."

Those things by which we are governed. The rules that are the government of our policy.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Hmm. Now, I suppose that could cause us some difficulties. But an establishment of religion--well, religion, even though the judges have a very hard time understanding it, most of us still do. And so we pray and we go to church, and we understand where we have certain relations and obligations to God. As James Madison said, those things that have to do with those relations and obligations and our acknowledgment of Him, that's religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting . . . ."

Now, that could be a difficult one. A matter of fact, my friends, this is where the difficulty has arisen. Because, by and large, the ACLU and all the people on the Left and all these folks on the federal bench, they act as if that word "respecting" isn't there. They read those first words as if they say, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion," and you see, that's not what the First Amendment says. But, under the rubric of reading it as if that's what's there, they have acted as if what that says is that Congress can't establish by law any religion, impose by law any religion. But that's not exactly what it says. Read it:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

What does "respecting" mean? Well, you go to the dictionary, you look it up, and respecting means: concerning; regarding; having to do with; dealing with. Hmm. That's very interesting. See?

That First Amendment doesn't say that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. It reminds me more in its true import, of course, of those signs I used to see in New York when I was posted there with the United Nations. And you'd drive down the street, because it's very hard to get parking in New York, so if you happen to have been silly enough to drive a car into the city, you won't find a place to put it unless you pay, oh, the equivalent of three months rent in any normal part of the country.

And so, people would often dart into any place they saw on the street, and this would take up the space of folks who were residents in the apartment buildings and such. And so they would post signs, and one of them that I'll never forget was, "Don't even think about parking here."

And you know what's interesting? Those words of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law" concerning, dealing with, having to do with, in regard to "an establishment of religion," they have the same significance. Those words tell the Congress of the United States that this is a subject they are not to touch, they're not to get involved with it, they're not by law to put their hands on it.

And here is where I have the problem. If Congress can't make a law on this subject in any way--see, they can't make a law establishing a religion, but by the same token, since they can't touch it at all, if there happens to be an established religion somewhere in America (as there were in almost all of the original states of the United States, just, by the by, at the time that the amendment was passed)--this also means Congress can't touch them, Congress can't change them, Congress can't make decisions with "respect" to those things.

And here's where I have the problem. In one way it's a problem, in another way it alleviates the problem. It's a problem because when somebody says that you're in violation if you put the Ten Commandments in your courthouse, you read the words of the First Amendment, and you realize, wait a minute. This Federal judge derives his or her authority from two sources: either the laws of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States. Now, in the Constitution we read these words, and the effect of these words is that there can be no federal laws on this subject. Hmm.

Therefore, if a judge says you've got to take it out, it can't be based on the law--because there are no laws! There can be no laws at the federal level! None! It's forbidden by the Constitution!

Then, the Federal judge will pat me on my head and say, "Well, obviously you know nothing about these arcane matters because we base our authority on the Constitution, on that First Amendment, on the Establishment Clause."

Excuse me, judge. The Establishment Clause is what we just quoted, and the Establishment Clause says that there can be no lawful basis, there can be no law whatsoever for any part of the federal government to say or do anything about this issue of establishment. How on earth will you tell me that these federal judges derive an authority to interfere with the states from the very words that say that there can be no lawful authority in the federal government to interfere with these matters at all?

This is the lie, this is the very heart of that fraud that for forty and fifty and sixty years has been perpetrated against the people of this country. And, as if it couldn't be any clearer, if you didn't understand the implication of the First Amendment (and the Founders knew that there would be some people who might not, or in the course of our history would forget), just in case you might have been confused about what its effect was, they put in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. And the Tenth Amendment says very clear words that are not at all hard to understand, that any power that is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states is reserved to the states respectively and to the people. Isn't that amazing? Those are powerful words.

I can't for the life of me understand why in America we have forgotten those powerful words. Because what that means is, if the Constitution doesn't give a power to the federal government and doesn't forbid that power to the states in its clear explicit terms, then it is reserved to the states respectively, and to the people.

Now, think about this, in the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Constitution not only doesn't give a power to the [federal] government, it explicitly prohibits it that power, the power to deal with the issue of establishment. Whoa. So what does that mean?

That means that that power is reserved. Now, haven't you ever reserved a hotel room? If you show up at the hotel and they tell you they've given that hotel room to somebody else, doesn't that mean they don't understand the meaning of "reserved?" But, if the Constitution says that the power to deal with the issue of religious establishment is reserved to the states respectively and to the people, you tell me how that power has ended up in the hands of the federal judiciary. Where did they get it? How did they come by it? There is only one way! They stole it from us!

Now, could be, though, that we're charitable folks. Maybe we don't mind. No. I'm serious. Not everything that's stolen from you in life upsets you. Sometimes you feel kind of sorry for the thief. But at the same time, you know, that all other things being equal, maybe you don't need it anymore. Maybe you have no particular use for it. You offer it up to God and say a prayer in the hope that, by His grace, they'll be led to betterment through their [unintelligible]. Do you think that's what we ought to do in this case?

Well, let's make a judgment about this, see, because partly that would depend, wouldn't it, on what they've done with this stolen power. If we were just going to be all nonchalant about it--we shouldn't be, I'm not saying we should, but if we were going to be, we would want to look at what they'd been doing with it. And what have they done with it?

Well, since they got their hands on it by fraud and theft, they have used it to drive God from our public schools. With the consequence of what? A rising tide of crime, and violence, and drugs, and indiscipline, and poor performance in those very schools from which they have driven the name of God.

They have used it to say that even at our games and festivities we cannot invoke the name of God. That even before they play, they cannot pray to God Almighty, with what consequence? That even our sports are not spared the scourge of corruption that afflicts our nation far and wide. What have they done with this power?

They have sought to drive from every precinct of our public and political life any reference to God or to His law, with what consequence but the corruption and the lawlessness of politicians and of business people that besets us day by day, and year by year, until we no longer know whether the land in which we live has any integrity.

And every one of these trends, documented time and again, began to take off steeply once they had stolen this power and used it to drive God from our schools and our public life. Even if we were not disposed, simply on grounds of constitutional integrity, to call them to account for this fraudulent theft, then on the grounds of our children, dead and in despair; on the grounds of our schools, destroyed and in moral ruin; on the grounds of our businesses, despoiled of their integrity; on all these grounds, we must stand now and take back what they have stolen!

And please bear in mind as you do and as you listen to the inevitable argument of some who will come against you, as they have come against Roy Moore, they'll call you "lawless," they'll say, "You must obey the judge." Uh uh! Sorry about this, but that's not quite true.

When the judge is interpreting the law and his decision is made on the basis of that law, when the judge is interpreting the Constitution and his decision is made on the basis of that Constitution, then the judge acts lawfully and his word is law. When the judge, however, acts in disregard of the clear plain language of the Constitution and usurps to his personal use a power that belongs to the states and the people of the United States, then that judge acts according to his personal whim, that judge acts according to his lawless will, and his word is not only not law, it is the lawless destruction of law and order in our land.

Time and again, our Founders said that they had established a government of laws and not of men, but if the mere fact that a black-robed judge says it, without any regard to law or Constitution, is now to constitute for us law, then we no longer have a republic. We no longer have liberty. We have a dictatorship of the judges, and we are free men and women no more!

And I know there are going to be some people who hear that and suggest that I'm just engaging again in a flight of rhetorical fancy, but, you know what the problem is with those folks, they apparently can't read the Constitution. Because Article IV, Section IV, of the Constitution says that the United States--that is, the national federal government--shall guarantee to each of the states a republican form of government. See?

That means a government based upon consent; a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If the federal judges are now substituting a dictatorship of the judges, then they place the national government in violation of that fundamental provision. They subvert the form of government which that Constitution has established, and they bring us to the point where we face now, or in the future, the prospect of its dissolution. There can be nothing graver than the crisis that they have bought on this land!

But, before we entertain images of terrible dissolution, I think we ought to remember that our Founders were, in spite of all the nasty abuse that is levied against them in some quarters these days, they were actually very remarkable people, and they brought to their work and they put into the Constitution of the United States, I think, less perhaps by their own wisdom than by the providence of that same God, the right to honor Whom we are gathered here to defend. I think they thought about this.

Matter of fact, I know they did, because many of them wrote about what would happen if you let judges substitute their personal whims for the law, and they spoke of the tyranny of the judiciary and warned against it, but they also provided against it in the Constitution. Foreseeing the problem, they provided the remedy. And what is the remedy? Well, the remedy is very clear in Constitutional terms, because right there in the article that establishes the federal judiciary, they say that that judiciary shall have original jurisdiction in these and these cases, and appellate jurisdiction in all other cases arising out of the Constitution and laws of the United States, "with such exceptions and under such regulation as the Congress shall make." Think about that.

There are folks, and most of them are lawyers--I wonder why. Why do you think the lawyers would be the ones telling us that the judges now make the law? Hmmm. Could they possibly have just a slight professional interest in this power? Could it be that having the bench at the end of their career aspirations, they see the prospect of unlimited, dictatorial power in the hands of judges just to their liking?

Maybe that's why the lawyers have tried to pretend that the law is what the judge says it is--when we all know that, according to our Constitution, the only thing that's law is what the legislature says it is. That's right. See? But, no, they don't want us to remember that. But, thankfully, our Founders remembered what it means to be governed by consent, and they allowed as how, if the judges start to steal powers that don't belong to them, if they cross over the boundaries that separate their judicial power from the law-making power that is in the hands of the representatives of the people, then the representatives of the people can stand up and take that power away from them! See?

Now that's what we've gathered here for tonight. This is not one of those cases where we come together to lament the terrible thing that's happened, and to look at the devastation that it's caused, and to feel sorry for ourselves because they've stolen our liberty. They want to put us in a country where, from top to bottom, in every area of our public life, there will be a uniform, national regime of atheism that will be enforced by the law and by the whims of dictatorial judges.

But we didn't come just to lament this and cry about it. No. We have come together because as free citizens, in a free land, founded under a Constitution that was written by people wise enough to foresee the danger, there is a remedy. And we have come together now in order to remember this remedy, and to join together here as we must join together with people all over this land, to stand up and with one voice demand that the representatives of the people stand now to defend the right of the people to honor God according to the Constitution of the United States.

Now, I've gone through all of this so that we can understand our situation, understand the remedy, but we must also understand, I deeply believe, what is our motive in seeking this remedy. And that's a different thing than the problem itself, you see? Because deep down, my friends, the true motive here is our understanding of that fundamental truth which was, in fact, enshrined in the beginning of our nation's life. A simple truth that we forget at our extreme peril, and that is this: without faith, there is no freedom; without God, there is no liberty.

So, we understand, don't we, why it is that the Founders put the defense of this right of the people to decide how they would reverence God--they put the defense of that right as the first one protected in the Bill of Rights. Isn't that remarkable? They did it for a reason. They did it because they knew and remembered the heritage of this land from its very beginning.

Sometimes you'll hear these speeches made and they'll claim the Founders came over and they wanted to escape persecution in Europe as individuals. They talk as if that was it, see? Because you couldn't go to the church you wanted, or have the beliefs you wanted, or follow the rituals you wanted, praising God, and so forth and so on, and that's why folks came to America, because they were seeking the rights of individual conscience. Do you realize that that's not true?

In point of fact, let's take the most famous example, the folks who came over on the Mayflower--known throughout the country, celebrated still, more or less, on Thanksgiving and so forth. Where did they come from? Well, they were originally from England, but they didn't come to the United States from England. They came to the United States from Holland, because they had fled, as a community, to Holland, in order to escape persecution, at that time, in England. And what did they find in Holland? They found in Holland a regime of tolerance. They could build and worship as they chose. They could act in life and economics without stigma, or burden, or oppression, or persecution. And yet, though they grew in that context to be wealthy folks, a lot of them with many goods and fine houses, they decided to give it all up and embarked, if you've ever seen them, in these little boats where you couldn't even stand up between decks, and stayed on it for three and four months, to come to a new world they knew nothing about, full of all kinds of unknowns and harsh possibilities.

Why?

Well, it was clear in their initial declarations. They came so that they could establish communities in which the laws would reflect their faith. They came because they knew that freedom of religion is not just about what you think in here. It's about what you can do in your life, and on your streets, and in your community, and in your politics, and in your laws, and in your public life. It's about whether or not you can honor God, who is sovereign in your hearts--and through your sovereignty as a people, make Him sovereign in your land. That's what it's about.

Our Founders also knew the history of Europe. They had seen the terrible wars between sects and denominations, when national sovereigns tried to impose their will on people and force them to follow their religion against their will, so they wanted to provide a country in which there would be no such effort at the national level, but in which people, in their states and localities, would have the right to honor God in and through their public institutions, according to their constitutional choice. That's what they did.

And, my friends, it is that regime of liberty, it is that country in which we are free, not just to honor God in our hearts, and in our churches, and in our consciences, but in our lives as citizens! It is that right that these judges have stolen away and trampled under foot, in order to turn this nation into a nation in which conscience shall be enslaved in the people. We must join together, as the Constitution provides, to put an end to this slavery.

And I think we must do so, because, you see, there are vital links between our ability to apply the fruits of our religious faith and conviction to our laws and policies--a vital link between that liberty and our ability to protect institutions and practices and moral norms that are vital to our decency.

I don't think it's an accident that the ACLU has put on this big push to pretend that you can't honor the Ten Commandments in the courts and in the laws. You know why? I think it's very simple, because they want to intimidate us with the belief that it's somehow illegitimate to apply the fruits of our faith and our moral convictions to our laws. It appalls me sometimes how far they have succeeded at that already. They have succeeded at making the people believe that "you can't legislate morality." A more nonsensical statement I've never heard in my life.

Every element of the criminal code involves the legislation of morality. Every element of the welfare system involves the legislation of morality. Every element of the civil code that guarantees that there shall be good faith in contracts, and respect for property, is the legislation of morality. All you do in a society is legislate morality!

So, how have they gotten away with telling us this lie? Well, they know, good and well, that you must legislate morality, but what they're really saying is, "We're not going to allow you to legislate Christian morality. We're not going to allow you to legislate Biblical morality. We're going to tell you the lie that you must separate church and state. You must separate God from country. You must separate faith from law, so that we can drive from this nation all those things that depend upon the insights and truths that have come to us through the revelation of God."

It is those insights and truths that support our sexual integrity. It is those insights and truths that support the institution of monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and it's no accident that they wish to drive from American life the last shred of our respect for God's code of law, and, standing behind it, their campaign to put an end to every institution that depends upon our respect for those laws. These things are linked.

There are people today who are fighting for the Federal Marriage Amendment. There are others who are fighting against those who seek to establish a normalcy of homosexuality. There are those who are fighting against those who wish to suggest that there are no moral norms that must be observed in our sexual lives. But you see, there's no way we can win any of those battles if we lose the fundamental battle over whether or not it is, in fact, legitimate in our land to acknowledge God in our laws and policies.

Now, according to our Constitution, it's not only legitimate, it is reserved to us, in our states and in our localities, to do just that. I think that, myself, that if you look it over, that's one reason that in the United States marriage was a state business. It wasn't a business for the federal government. Why? Because it was at the state level where people had the right in their government to implement, in policy and law, the fruit of their moral and religious convictions. That's why. Because the Founders understood you can't separate faith from policy, faith from law, faith from politics. You can't.

At the end of the day, there is no grounds for conviction in a moral people if they must check their reverence for God at the door of public life. If we wish to save these vital institutions, if we wish to restore the integrity of the moral fabric of our land, then I believe that our first step has got to be to end, once and for all, the lie that we are constitutionally obliged to separate church from state, God from our country. There is no such constitutional provision. The constitutional provision that is there gives us the explicit right to act on our religious conscience as a people, in and through our public institutions in our states.

Our Founders, I think, understood what we would call these days the "big picture." And they knew, in the largest sense, that there can be no vision for a life in freedom that does not have at the end of every vision a remembrance of our God. It is our right to remember Him, in our hearts and in our families, in our schools and in our streets, in our businesses, and in our law--it is that right which we gather here to proclaim and to defend.

It is my prayer tonight that we will become part of a mighty national movement in which we shall join hands together in His name and with respect for His law, in order to bring them out of the darkness and confusion of this lying fraud in our courts, and back into the light and liberty of our willing heart as a people.

If we are, in fact, ready to do this, to act with understanding, and to act with conviction, and to act despite all the false arguments of lawlessness that are brought against us, then I have felt in the past few weeks a sense of hope for this country that I haven't felt in a long time.

That's not to say that I have acted without hope, no, because I always hope in God, don't you? I always hope in my Lord Jesus Christ, don't you? Yes, I do. But we do know, don't we, that countries come and go, countries parish. Not one jot and tittle of His word will pass away, but America may pass away. And all the things we consider so mighty and so wonderful, they may pass away--and they may be passing away, crumbling, as did the Twin Towers, right before our eyes, seemingly mighty and then just gone. Our breath was taken away, but not our faith. No, I think on that day in the face of that reality, we remembered that the only things that remain are the things of faith, are the things that reflect our relationship with God. And if we truly love our country, then is it not those things we wish to strengthen as well for the nation that we love, knowing that it shall last as long as they do, and no longer?

Now, I have been, as a lot of you may know, a strong advocate of the pro-life movement. I still am, and I will do everything in my power to overthrow Roe vs. Wade and get us back where we belong in the acknowledgment of God. But I have made a conscious resolve, in the face of the great opportunity that I believe God has given us, starting with the integrity and courage of Roy Moore in Alabama, spreading, I hope, through other people of integrity and courage throughout this country, because this is what I know. If we are killing our babies today, it is not just because of our lust, and not just because of our indifference, and our [unintelligible] desire to achieve our agendas at every cost and indulge our own satisfaction and give in to our own fears. No. If we are killing our babies today, it is because somewhere in the midst of this dark night of confusion we have turned our back on the Lord, our God.

And there it was in Montgomery, suddenly in front of me, the ability not just to address this part of the problem, or that part of the problem, but to get at what I know and you know, and what pastors have said, and what leaders who care morally have said, time and again. What is the real root of our moral problem in America? What is the root of the problem with our families and our sexual lives? What is the root of our willingness to tolerate abortion? What is the root of unbridled greed and a lack of compassion? What is the root but that we have turned our back on our God?

And here we have in this great movement, raised up, I believe, by His hand and by His providence--here we have the opportunity, not to address this leaf or branch of our difficulty, but to get to the very root it and to bring this nation's heart back to God, to bring this nation's laws back to God, to bring this nation's conscience back to God Almighty.

Can there be for us in this time a more important cause? As a people of faith, He hands us now by our history, by our Constitution, by our prayers and by His will, the opportunity to call our nation home. Will you stand in that cause? Will you pray in that cause? Will you work in that cause, until the sound of our heart is heard from here to Washington, D.C., and they know that we must have back, once and for all, our right to honor God Almighty?

If you will, then we know His promise. We know it. And by our words and actions, having turned the heart of our nation away from its sin, He will hear our prayers. And not by our strength, but by His grace, He will heal our land.