Roy Moore announces candidacy in Alabama gubernatorial race

But the question is. Would Jesus obey an unjust law? So you would have to follow that logic and tell all the black people who refused to be put on the back of the bus that they should have obeyed the law. The civil rights marchers broke all kind of laws. Would you say to them that Jesus was not a law breaker and that they should have obeyed the laws so as to be Christ like? Are you saying no one should ever break a law? If you would allow the blacks of the civil rights days to break the law, then you can't be absolute about Moores refusal to obey a ruling he thought to be unjust and prejudiced against Christians and their heritage.

 

Can anyone point out how it where Judge Moore would have had to violate the word of God by obeying the law here?

This is what he had in mind all along.

 

I agree with you Benjamin.

 

If you look at his whole difficulties it is a constitutional issue that was wrongly decided. It doesn't require the erasure of all things Christian/Jewish from the courts of our land. Know original intent. Having a block of marble chisled with the 12 Commandments doesn't constitute a federal religion, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

hillclimber,

Having a block of marble chisled with the 12 Commandments doesn't constitute a federal religion, by any stretch of the imagination.

Exactly!

 

Roy Moore did not beak a law technically. As there is no law that say you can't have such a display. Only court precedent. He disobeyed a Judges order. The travestie here is not that moore placed a display that happened to have the ten commandments on it. The travesty is that the powers and principalities put so much effort into trying to squash anything that might have a Chirstians overtone. The aclu has attacked some towns who have had crosses in their seal for over 100 years. Do you really think it is ok for the aclu to go after towns that have had crosses in their seal for over 100 years without complaint. This is what Roy Moore is trying to stand against. He is not trying to shuve Christiantity down anyones throat. He is trying to counter that form of persecution that would try to wipe any vestige of Christianity from public view.

 

And don't forget that the display had other documents on it too. It was not just the ten commandments. Put the pc police are so rabid the if the ten commandmants are given any prominence at all, they are going to take it down.

 

A judge disobeyed another judge's order and wants my sympathy--and my vote. No way.

 

Fromtheright,

Imagine a world gone antichristian, can you see yourself obeying all judges orders? Should Deniel have bowed to the golden statue or eaten the kings food? You can disagree with his particular dicision to do it in this instance. But you seem to be saying disobeying a Judge is always wrong. Are you? Should all the black folks in the civil rights movement have obeyed all the laws and Judges? Sometimes one has just got to take a stand. Right or wrong, I think this is how Moore sees his actions.

 

Bunyon,

You definitely raise a good point. There are several profound differences:

This judge did not require Moore to worship another God.
He did not require that Moore do something in violation of his and my religion.
He did not require Moore to do something in violation of another's religion or another's rights.
Further, Moore's actions were not those of a private individual; he was acting in an official capacity and only in an official capacity.
Obeying the judge's order would not have caused him to lose any of his individual rights.


Should all the black folks in the civil rights movement have obeyed all the laws and Judges?

No, but they took the punishment the unjust law required and they thereby caused the laws to be changed.

But you seem to be saying disobeying a Judge is always wrong. Are you?

Definitely not, but disobeying the law--and a judge's order--carries penalties with it.

Sometimes one has just got to take a stand. Right or wrong, I think this is how Moore sees his actions.

If I gave him the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions and motivations I would agree with you, to a small extent. As an official acting in his official capacity, with the judge's order having no impact on his own religious liberty, though, he is not nearly the martyr he would like us to believe.

 

Thanks for the clarification. But the precedent was that one could display the ten commandments if other historic legal documents were displayed with it. The monument had the other documents on it. Just becasue the ten commnandements were hightligted and because it was Moore, the Gov came after him. You don't have a problem with this? Also, I think the ten commandmants are more important to our legal system, so I don't see a problem with them being on top or in the middle. The whole thing seems to be a knee jerk reaction to a Christian making an expression which was within the bounds of the supreme court ruling on such displays. What exactly did he do wrong? If he did nothing wrong, then why would we not support his resisting a Judge. If a judge comes after you without proper legal precedent, he is a persecutor, and should be resisted.

Considering the abuse of power the Judges have displayed by not allowing prayers at football games, and not allowing validictorions to thank their savior, not allowing christian clubs on campus, and such, alot of people see these things as an assult on their constitutional religious liberties. I think Moore's stand will do some good. Our constitution and state charters as well as our money acknowledge God. If this is our constitutional heratage, then it is tyranical for Judges to take it away. In this light, I see Moores stand as a solid one and I see his point..

 

Bunyon,

But the precedent was that one could display the ten commandments if other historic legal documents were displayed with it. The monument had the other documents on it.

We definitely agree, and I've said many times, Moore's actions were completely Constitutional. I don't believe it was in accord with the Lemon test, though, the Court's current general standard, but that test is hosed every which way from Sunday. Under, the recent 10C cases, which of course followed this case and weren't "the law" at the time of this controversy, I don't think Moore's monument would pass, especially the Kentucky case (religious purpose being the key there). I'm definitely not defending that decision, just my interpretation.

Just because the ten commnandments were highlighted and because it was Moore, the Gov came after him.

"Gov"? Governor or government?

If he did nothing wrong, then why would we not support his resisting a Judge. If a judge comes after you without proper legal precedent, he is a persecutor, and should be resisted.

The judge was wrong, but that does not make him a persecutor. I don't know that he was wrong as a matter of Supreme Court precedent either, which is what he was apparently looking at. Though the effect of Judge Thompson's ruling (backed up by the Circuit Court, by the way, IIRC) was a further secularization of the public square, it was not a violation of a private individual's religious liberty. Restraining a public official's actions as a public official, however, is not persecution and, though I know it's not your intent, IMO comparing it to such dishonors private Christians who truly have suffered persecution. Even in the U.S. I don't think actions (that I'm aware of at least, and I've read David Limbaugh's book) that have taken place against Christians by judges have constituted persecution, though I would definitely label them harassment and unconstitutional. Ask Christians in North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, or China about persecution and they can tell you what that word truly means.

 

"Ask Christians in North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, or China about persecution and they can tell you what that word truly means"----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course I agree with you, but a persecution starts somewhere. Although the "persecution" of American Christians is, In a way, insignificant as compared to other hot persecutions around the world, it is of the same spirit. And who was it that said, "all it take for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing". It is better that we stand up now , than wait for the sword.

Being familiar witht the hot persecutions in the nations you are refering to only makes me more determined to try and stop it before it gets started. What we see happening is the necessary first step towards a real persecution. Change the Chrisitan history of this nation by revisionism, silence christians in the public square, marginalize them with propaganda, and then................well I don't want to find out. So I see Moore's action as doing more good then harm. But I think he will be your Governor, so we will have a chance to see what he is really about.

BTW, what does IMO and IMHO mean?

 

Bunyon,

what does IMO and IMHO mean?

"In my opinion" and "in my humble opinion". I wish someone could tell me what ROFL stands for.

Although the "persecution" of American Christians is, In a way, insignificant as compared to other hot persecutions around the world, it is of the same spirit. And who was it that said, "all it take for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing". It is better that we stand up now , than wait for the sword.

I definitely agree that it is born out of the same spirit and desire: secularization of society.

Hey Bunyon, I just want to add that I'm thoroughly enjoying debating this with you. It is a wonderful thing here to debate someone and stick with the issues and not turn to attacking one another. You're a scholar--and a gentleman.

 

Thank you, I have enjoyed it too.

 

What about Rom. 13.1-7, 1 Pet. 2.13-14, and Titus 3.1? They are God's word for us to obey civial authorities and give no exceptions for disobeying unjust laws. In fact, Rom. 13 says that resisting the civil authority is resisting the "ordinance of God."

This is a lot of questions. Why don't you start a thread on this? Also, not all blacks in teh civil rights movement broke laws. Some of them demonstrated peaceably and were attacked.

 

FTR,

ROFL - Rolling On the Floor Laughing

 

ROLF: Rolling On the Floor Laughing
LOL: Laughing Out Loud (just in case you didn't know that one)

 

Marcia,

When I read the history of the civil rights movment I see rampant law breaking (I would have broken them to). Sitting in the wrong part of the bus, having illegal marches without a permit, eating in white only areas, drinking from white only fountains. All city and state ordenances. Civil authoritiy. I am just saying if you are going to make it an absolute that a Christian can't beak a law, than you have to condemn the civil rights activist and leaders. I don't condemn them and I don't condemn Moore. If there is a reason why he was wrong, it is not simply that he disobeyed a Judge, otherwise the whole civil rights movement was wrong.

I think we should make every effort to obey the civil authorities, and there are times when we can't resist. But I think there are times when a higher authority take precedence. I think this is how Moore and his supporters see it.

 

Bunyon, you did not answer my question re Rom. 13, 1 Pet. 2, and Titus 3. It's not me making an absolute -- it's those scriptures. You can't say it's okay to go against God's word by using the civil rights movement as an example.