Roy Moore continued. Who are the law breakers?

[Dale-c]

I started a post a few days ago asking prayer for the Alabama primary election and Roy Moore in particular with the assumption that most Christians would support him.
Was I in for a surprise!
Not only do people not support him, he was called thing such as a rogue, lawbreaker and liar to mention a few.

HE was said to only have stood for the ten commandments for political gain.

So the topics discussed were:

• Was Judge Moore right or wrong to defy the court order
• Was he asked to do anything directly against scripture when asked to never acknowledge God as part of his duties?
• Was his oath, and first duty to the law(constitution of US and Alabama) or to judicial orders?
• What does a judge obey when their is a conflict between the written law and judges orders.
• Even if he is right, is he still qualified for office?


These were the basic discussions that came out of the other thread. If you happen to remember others, feel free to put your 2¢ worth in.

You can read the original post here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=9993

Dale

 

[tragic_pizza]

• Was Judge Moore right or wrong to defy the court order

Wrong.

• Was he asked to do anything directly against scripture when asked to never acknowledge God as part of his duties?

Was he specifically, in those words, asked that?
Let's say you work for a secular, multinational corporation, that in its employee handbook restricts the display of religious icnography, jewelry, and texts. Are you doing anything against Scripture by working there?

• Was his oath, and first duty to the law(constitution of US and Alabama) or to judicial orders?

The law. So?

• What does a judge obey when their is a conflict between the written law and judges orders.

There was no conflict in the written law, merely in the interpretation thereof. In this specific case, since the subject of the order was that particular judge, and the order did not require Moore to renounce his faith in Christ -- merely his dependence upon a heavily-edited excerpt of Mosaic law as inscribed on a tombstone -- I mean, monument -- Moore should have obeyed the order, pure and simple.

• Even if he is right, is he still qualified for office?

No. I dislike populists, and Moore is one to the core.

 

[Dale-c]

Was he specifically, in those words, asked that?
Let's say you work for a secular, multinational corporation, that in its employee handbook restricts the display of religious icnography, jewelry, and texts. Are you doing anything against Scripture by working there?

He was asked specifically if he would continue to acknowledge God.

Check this link out. http://vbuttons.com/ec/6064/index.php?em_id=4382104
It is pretty clear!

As for working at a place like that, no, I don't think I would work there.
And that is NOT the law of our land for our public officials. in fact the Alabama constitution itself acknowledges God quite clearly in the preamble.
"We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution."
Doesn't look like Alabama is a "secular multi national corporation" does it?

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
It is quite clear that the job of government is to punish evil and not good.

Was he specifically, in those words, asked that?

Pryor: "And if you resume your duties as chief justice after this proceeding you will continue to acknowledge God? As you have testified you would today? No matter what any other official says?"

How can it get more clear than that?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Is this the same Alabama Constitution that was written to bolster Jim Crow and that contains embarassingly racist language? That Constitution?


So. OK, you wouldn't work for a company like the one I describe. Are those who do going against Scripture?

 

[Dale-c]

Is this the same Alabama Constitution that was written to bolster Jim Crow and that contains embarassingly racist language? That Constitution?

You avoided the question. Did you watch the video? Was he not asked what I quoted?
I could equally come back with "federal judges..you mean the ones that say that you can kill babies and that God is not allowed in schools or in public life?

So. OK, you wouldn't work for a company like the one I describe. Are those who do going against Scripture?

That would depend on the exact circumstances and that is their business. It is also off topic.

 

[tragic_pizza]

You avoided the question. Did you watch the video? Was he not asked what I quoted?
I could equally come back with "federal judges..you mean the ones that say that you can kill babies and that God is not allowed in schools or in public life?


That would depend on the exact circumstances and that is their business. It is also off topic.

No, it's on topic. Moore was hired by the people of Alabama to do a job. He chose, instead, to follow a populist agenda.

 

[Dale-c]

No, it's on topic. Moore was hired by the people of Alabama to do a job. He chose, instead, to follow a populist agenda.

Ok, put that way, he was ELECTED not just "hired" and with that election came an oath. The oath was to UPHOLD the constitution of both Alabama and the US.
WHen something came into conflict with that, he had to stay true to his oath.

Would you rather that he deny his oath and deny his God in order to appease men and uphold the rule of man?

 

[Dale-c]

to do a job.

And just what do you think that "Job" was?

 

[Daisy]

He was asked specifically if he would continue to acknowledge God.

Check this link out. http://vbuttons.com/ec/6064/index.php?em_id=4382104
It is pretty clear!

Not really as the context is missing. Where is the complete transcript? It looks as though Pryor's questions were deliberately slanted to be as sensationalist as possible to generate sympathy for Moore.

The question was, "And your understanding is that the Federal Court ordered that you could not acknowledge God, isn't that right?"

So Moore was NOT asked if he was so ordered in those words, but only if that is how he interpreted the order. Big diff and a bit deceptive.

Pryor: "And if you resume your duties as chief justice after this proceeding you will continue to acknowledge God? As you have testified you would today? No matter what any other official says?"

How can it get more clear than that?

Was Pryor there as defender or prosecutor? What is clear to me is that there is are many ways to acknowledge God, most of which do not involve defying his superior's orders in placing a statue, pert near a graven image, in a secular, public courthouse.

 

[Dale-c]

Not really as the context is missing. Where is the complete transcript? It looks as though Pryor's questions were deliberately slanted to be as sensationalist as possible to generate sympathy for Moore.

The question was, "And your understanding is that the Federal Court ordered that you could not acknowledge God, isn't that right?"

So Moore was NOT asked if he was so ordered in those words, but only if that is how he interpreted the order. Big diff and a bit deceptive.

I have thought of this myself and I understand what you are saying but consider this:
It was never contradicted. If they had said, well that is not why you are here, then you would have a point. But the fact is, they DIDN't say that.
They went on to ask if he would continue, and he specifically stated the ways in which he would continue and none of them had anything to do with the monument.

Was Pryor there as defender or prosecutor?

Are you asking that? He was the prosecutor and very active in pursuading behind the scenes for the judges removal.

What is clear to me is that there is are many ways to acknowledge God, most of which do not involve defying his superior's orders in placing a statue, pert near a graven image, in a secular, public courthouse.

Note that you said MANY. That is certianly true. But it only takes ONE way of acknowledging God that is taken away from us for us to stand and cry foul.

pert near a graven image, in a secular, public courthouse.

This shows a very legalistic understanding of idolatry. Tell me, do you have pictures in your house? do you have any figurines? Do you worship them?
If you DO worship then you are guilty, if you do not worship them, as I would expect that you don't, then there is no problem.

The monument is a destraction for the real issue. I will try to find the quote from the judge that said the monument itself was ok but the purpose of aknowledging the God of the Bible was the reason for the problem.

 

[tragic_pizza]

And just what do you think that "Job" was?

Hearing cases, and participating in the process o deciding said cases.

 

[Dale-c]

Hearing cases, and participating in the process o deciding said cases.

That was the practical side of his job, yes but his oath was to uphold the contitution. Also, what slips by a lot of people was that the decorating of the building was also part of the "job" so to speak. And since it was a relatively new building, it hadn't had much done to it yet.
His oath was to a constitution that invoked the favor of Almighty God. his monument reinforced the constituion that he took an oath to.
he did NOT have the right to post the communist manifesto or anything else that violated his oath. He did have a duty to decorate with things that complimented his oath and that is justwhat he did.

 

[Daisy]

Ok, put that way, he was ELECTED not just "hired" and with that election came an oath. The oath was to UPHOLD the constitution of both Alabama and the US.
WHen something came into conflict with that, he had to stay true to his oath.

Would you rather that he deny his oath and deny his God in order to appease men and uphold the rule of man?

He was specifically charged with violating his oath of office - which is to uphold the rule of man, ie. civil & criminal laws put into place by the legislature.

...The JIC alleged that Chief Justice Moore violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics in (1) failing to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary; (2) failing to observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary might be preserved; (3) failing to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; (4) failing to respect and comply with the law; ( 5 ) failing to conduct himself in a manner promoting public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; and (6) failing to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to bring the judicial office into disrepute, and the case was thereby presented to the Court of the Judiciary.

<snip>

The general rule is that courts interpret preambles as statements o fgeneral purpose and intent and not as sources of authority for the government. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905). Further, the oath taken by Chief Justice Moore commands him to support both the United States and Alabama Constitutions. In the event of conflict between the constitutions of Alabama and the United States, the Constitution of the United States must prevail.
We respect and hold in high regard the right of every American citizen to express his or her views. However, when an individual, especially a judge, undertakes a position of civil authority, that person must conform his or her conduct in the exercise of public duties according to the established rules of law and accepted rules of ethics. If a judge, or any other person, disagrees with a determination by a governmental body, that person has every right to seek legal redress. When one exhausts all legal remedies, one must refrain from conduct adversely affecting the impartial and objective carrying out of one's official duties. Chief Justice Moore sought legal redress by appealing to the limit of judicial review; he was bound by, and had the duty to follow, the rulings of the federal courts .
<snip>
This court has found that Chief Justice Moore not only willfully and publicly defied the orders of a United States district court, but upon direct questioning by the court he also gave the court no assurances that he would follow that order or any similar order in the future. In fact, he affirmed his earlier statements in which he said he would do the same. Under these circumstances, there is no penalty short of removal from office that would resolve this issue. Anything short of removal would only serve to set up another confrontation that would ultimately bring us back to where we are today. This court unanimously concludes that Chief Justice Moore should be removed from the office of Chief Justice.

Source: Alabama Judicial State Documents: Final Judgement (linkie - pdf)

 

[rsr]

I have thought of this myself and I understand what you are saying but consider this:
It was never contradicted. If they had said, well that is not why you are here, then you would have a point. But the fact is, they DIDN't say that.
They went on to ask if he would continue, and he specifically stated the ways in which he would continue and none of them had anything to do with the monument.

That's not what the trial transcript shows.

HON. VOWELL: If you return, what, sir,would you do with the monument?

CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: Well, I certainly wouldn't leave it in the closet out of the view of the public. I certainly wouldn't -- wouldn't hide the Word of God when it's an acknowledgment of God. Exactly what I would do with it I haven't decided.

HON VOWELL: If you ordered --

CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: It wouldn't stay in the monument -- I mean, in the closet, I will assure you that.

HON. VOWELL: Would you put it back in the rotunda from which it was removed?

CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: I wouldn't -- I haven't decided what I would do with it.

HON. VOWELL: Well, I think you should let us know that. It seems to me a very important issue as to

whether if you would return to office you would obey the Court order to remove it.

CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: Obeyance of the Court order was to remove it from where it was. It has been removed. There would be nothing to obey. Now, what I would with the monument I haven't even thought about it, quite frankly, except I would not leave it in a closet. I have not entered any ideas in my mind of where I would put it or what I would do with it.

HON. VOWELL: I see.

CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: But I would not leave where it is.​

​

 

[Dale-c]

He was specifically charged with violating his oath of office - which is to uphold the rule of man, ie. civil & criminal laws put into place by the legislature.

In what way did he violate that, in other words, what LAW did he violate. you state:

e. civil & criminal laws put into place by the legislature.

Just what law by the legislature did he violate?
A court order is not a law. There must be a law to back it up. A court can't just make up law as they go, even though they have been doing this unlawfully for years. (ex. Roe v. Wade)

 

[Daisy]

I have thought of this myself and I understand what you are saying but consider this:
It was never contradicted. If they had said, well that is not why you are here, then you would have a point. But the fact is, they DIDN't say that.
They went on to ask if he would continue, and he specifically stated the ways in which he would continue and none of them had anything to do with the monument.

You have the transcript of what all was said? Would you post the link then?

Are you asking that? He was the prosecutor and very active in pursuading behind the scenes for the judges removal.

Would you provide some sources for that? I don't know much about Alabama politics and infighting, but this sounds interesting.

Note that you said MANY. That is certianly true. But it only takes ONE way of acknowledging God that is taken away from us for us to stand and cry foul.

Nonsense. He can acknowledge God any way he likes on his own time as a private citizen.

This shows a very legalistic understanding of idolatry. Tell me, do you have pictures in your house? do you have any figurines? Do you worship them?
If you DO worship then you are guilty, if you do not worship them, as I would expect that you don't, then there is no problem.

I don't present them as acknowledgements of God or anything sacred.

The monument is a destraction for the real issue. I will try to find the quote from the judge that said the monument itself was ok but the purpose of aknowledging the God of the Bible was the reason for the problem.

The Final Judgement in the case states at the beginning, "At the outset, this court emphasizes that this is a case concerning only possible violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. It is not a case about the public display of the Ten Commandments in the State Judicial Building nor the acknowledgment of God. Indeed, we recognize that the acknowledgment of God is very much a vital part of the public and private fabric of our country. Moreover, this is not a case to review the judgment of Judge Myron Thompson nor the actions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or the United States Supreme Court. This court does not have the authority or jurisdiction to reexamine those issues".

 

[Dale-c]

Wow, RSR, we must have posted at the same time.

Thanks for posting that part of the transcript. I will go back and read all of that this evening. I don't want to get the facts wrong.
However, even at that, it is obvious that what the monument stood for was what was the problem.
And there was nothing wrong with the monument itself.

 

[Daisy]

Are you asking that? He was the prosecutor and very active in pursuading behind the scenes for the judges removal.

Terry L. Butts, of Cervera, Ralph & Butts, James Eldon Wilson, and Michael E. Jones petitioned for the recusal of Pryor from the case because:

1. Attorney General Pryor and his office have previously and consistently defended displays of the Ten Commandments not only in the State of Alabama, but also in other states. (See Brief for the State of Alabama et al., as Amici Curiae, Supp. Pet. For Cert., City of Elkhart v. Books, 532 U.S. 1058 (2001)(No. 00-1407)).

2. Attorney General Pryor and his office vigorously supported and defended the propriety and the right of then-Circuit Judge Roy S. Moore to display a wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments in then-Circuit Judge Roy S. Moore’s courtroom in Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama. (See Ex parte State ex rel. James, 711 So. 2d 952, 954 (Ala. 1998)).

<snipped for brevity>

13. The Attorney General has previously been so overwhelmingly involved in the defense of Chief Justice Roy S. Moore and his right to display the Ten Commandments monument, that Attorney General Pryor’s present and subsequent representation is a complete change of his positions. Attorney General Pryor’s obligation to his client, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, under the Rules of Professional Conduct, is to decline subsequent representations involving positions adverse not only to his present client, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, in the appeals presently pending before the United States Supreme Court, but also to avoid a position adverse to his former client, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, in defending Chief Justice Roy S. Moore’s right to display the Ten Commandments in his then Circuit Judge’s Courtroom. Attorney General Pryor’s previous representation of Chief Justice Roy S. Moore involving the Ten Commandments issue is substantially related to the issues for which Attorney General Bill Pryor is representing the Judicial Inquiry Commission in prosecuting charges now pending in the Court of the Judiciary against Chief Justice Roy S. Moore. Further, Attorney General Bill Pryor continues to advocate and explain in writings, in speeches, and in the media, his interpretation of his oath as Attorney General. The Attorney General’s interpretation of his public oath is in juxtaposition to the same public oath taken by Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, the client of Attorney General Pryor in the Ten Commandments case on appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Thus, the Attorney General is in the conflicting position of subjectively interpreting his own public oath as Attorney General, in such a manner that allows him to prosecute Chief Justice Moore for subjectively interpreting his public oath differently than Attorney General Bill Pryor.

14. THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS APPARENT AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IS OVERWHELMING.

For the foregoing reasons, Attorney General Bill Pryor and his office should be required to recuse themselves or the Court should disqualify them in the instant case

Link to Source (pdf)

Still, if you have evidence of behind-the-scenes manuvering against fellow theocrat Moore, please post.

 

[Dale-c]

Would you provide some sources for that? I don't know much about Alabama politics and infighting, but this sounds interesting.

It comes from a quote from Morris Dees of the SPLC. I will try to get you an exact quote if possible.

Nonsense. He can acknowledge God any way he likes on his own time as a private citizen.

But he must leave God out when judging is that it? Seems to be the main point and the point I am having a problem with.
Consider Psalm 2:
10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

I don't present them as acknowledgements of God or anything sacred.

You wouldn't for a picture of your family etc. ANd you wouldn't worship them either.
By the way, what was the original media used for the ten commandments? I mean as Moses wrote them down?

If you recall it was STONE!



By the way, I am still learning the facts of the case. There were a lot of things stated etc but the bottom line is that it was an attack against Almighty God and I take quite offense to that.
There are also a lot of contradictions.

"At the outset, this court emphasizes that this is a case concerning only possible violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. It is not a case about the public display of the Ten Commandments in the State Judicial Building nor the acknowledgment of God. Indeed, we recognize that the acknowledgment of God is very much a vital part of the public and private fabric of our country. Moreover, this is not a case to review the judgment of Judge Myron Thompson nor the actions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or the United States Supreme Court. This court does not have the authority or jurisdiction to reexamine those issues".

So what was the point then? again inconsistent.



By the way, court order aside, do you think it to be wrong to Acknowledge the Christian God by any public official?

 

[Dale-c]

We seem to be posting at the same time. Actually I am aware of Pryors prior (no pun intended) actions in defense. The problem was it cost him politically and a federal nomination was at stake and he could not continue to support Moore if he was to ever get anywhere politically.