Valentine's Day is a special occasion when we express our feelings for those we love. But imagine that we lived in a world governed only by our "feelings," a world where the law provided recourse to sue whenever someone else's manner of speech, mode of dress, or anything else offended us. Of course, that would most certainly be a very litigious society with everyone suing everyone else just to avoid being "offended," a chaotic system governed by the sentiments of that old love song: "Feelings, nothing more than feelings." Obviously, our emotions should never – and could never – be a "rule of law" to govern our behavior.

The law has always required an actual injury, not just an affront to our feelings, to bring a civil action against another. At least that was true until justices on the United States Supreme Court decided in their own questionable wisdom to create a right not to be offended by public religious expressions of a belief in God under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In fact, no other area of the law provides a remedy for those with nothing more than hurt feelings.

(Column continues below)

In 1984, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor introduced a new rule in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly: that a person made to "feel" like a political "outsider" by another's acknowledgment of God could suffer an actionable injury under the First Amendment. Today those buzzwords, "political outsider," are frequently thrown around by the ACLU and other liberal organizations to justify suits against state and federal entities that recognize the sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian God.

Just last week the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Dixie County, Fla., for a courthouse display of a monument depicting the Ten Commandments of God. It is no surprise that the ACLU takes offense at absolute moral standards that govern our behavior. The recognition of God's sovereignty has always been a "stone of stumbling" and a "rock of offense" to wayward men.

But this case illustrates quite well just how far the ACLU will go to prohibit the public acknowledgment of God's sovereignty and law. For months the ACLU threatened to bring suit as they frantically searched Dixie County for at least one individual who would claim to feel offended by the monument. The ACLU now claims to have found such an individual, but refuses to divulge his or her identity and will likely ask the court to allow its "shadow plaintiff" to proceed with the lawsuit anonymously.

Across the country in Las Cruces, N.M., residents filed a suit against the city because the official symbol of Las Cruces is a depiction of three crosses. Plaintiff Paul Weinbaum and others claimed that they were "constantly forced to view the Las Cruces symbol," which of course they want removed – regardless of the fact that "Las Cruces" is Spanish for "the crosses" and the symbol of three crosses has been used by the city since 1946.

The trial court in the Las Cruces case wisely upheld the city's use of the symbol, and the "feelings" of a few individuals did not overcome common sense, history or the law. The case is now on appeal (and the Foundation for Moral Law will be filing a legal brief in support of Las Cruces in March).

When courts allow plaintiffs to bring suit based solely on what offends them, or when judges base their rulings on their own opinions, we no longer are governed by a "rule of law." Instead, the Constitution becomes a mere lump of clay in the hands of judges who, as Justice Benjamin Curtis wrote in his Dred Scott dissent, "for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what they think it ought to mean."

Under such subjective reasoning, not only will religious symbols be prohibited, but the names of various cities like Las Cruces, Corpus Christi ("Body of Christ"), Santa Cruz ("Holy Cross") and others may have to be changed to appease the ACLU and its overly-sensitive plaintiffs. Los Angeles County recently dropped a tiny cross from its city seal to appease the ACLU. What will they go after next, the city name? After all, Los Angeles means "The Angels."

In the case of Dixie County, nobody is forced by anyone to look at anything. The county officials are simply recognizing the source of our moral law and the basis of our constitutional republic. They should be commended, not criticized – and certainly not sued! It is strange indeed when the law allows a civil action to proceed based upon the feelings of individuals who say they are offended by the very mention of God or a public display of His law. Ironically, it is that God Who gives us our freedom and the One upon Whom our nation is founded.

When God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses and the Israelites at Mount Sinai, "there were thunders and lightnings" so that all the people "in the camp trembled." (Exodus 19:16) While there was no thunder or lightning when Dixie County placed that Law on public display at their courthouse, it obviously still caused the ACLU fear. They may be offended, but that does not mean they can misuse the law just to soothe their hurt feelings.

---

Related special offer:

Read Judge Moore's own story about fighting for the Ten Commandments