If you were Roy Moore, what would you do?

[Aubre]

I can acknowledge God without erecting a stone monument to the Ten Commandments at my workplace.

Dale-c, are you going to erect a stone monument of the Ten Commandments at your workplace? Are people who fail to do this not Christians? I thought we needed to take the Lord Jesus Christ as our savior and ask forgiveness for our sins.

I personally feel that Judge Moore's actions turned his monument into an idol. I know that a lot of people will disagree with me but that's how I see it. I also think that when he was ordered to remove the monument he should have paid for the removal instead of making the state taxpayers pay to remove the idol aka Ten Commandments monument.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This is true. Only people within the government can sin.
That is why I do not believe one form of government over another is particularly right or wrong.

I agree. Obviously, there are forms of government that are much better than others, but they are all imperfect to a greater or lesser degree.

Personally I do not like monarchies but the Bible does tell us to submit to Kings.

Yes, but we should not be so woodenly literal that we restrict that teaching to only monarchies led by a male leader.

The ministers of God which is what Romans 13 refers to the officers of the state, are personally responsible to carry out God's law.

You just jumped the rails.

If Romans 13 was written within that last 225 years or so in the United States, your interpretation would be hard to dispute. But since Romans was written to subjects of the Roman Empire, living in and near the capital of that thoroughly pagan culture and government, you interpretation falls apart.

In Romans 13, Paul instructs the Roman Christians (and the rest of us as well) to submit to a pagan government and teaches us that even the pagan officials are ministers (that is, like the priests of the Jewish temple) of God in their appointed roles.

The Roman government “acknowledged” all sorts of pagan gods, and even eventually worshipped Caesar as a god. Furthermore, Christians were routinely and systematically persecuted in that culture, blamed for the burning of Rome. When Christianity was finally legalized by Constantine in the Edict of Milan in 313, it marked the beginning of a decline in the vitality of the church.

The rest of your assertions are built upon your faulty interpretation of Romans 13, so I won’t belabor the point by repeating myself.



"The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever...Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians." – John Leland, A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia

 

[pinoybaptist]

If I were put in a position that Mr. Moore is in, I would acknowledge and affirm my belief in God, no matter what the consequences. That was my answer to the poll.

That is what I would want to do.

Question is, can I ?

I don't know. Peter saw Jesus feed multitudes, walk on water, speak with Moses and Elijah, raise Lazarus from the dead, heal his own mother-in-law, yet at a critical time, he denied Jesus.

I guess what we can really say is we all need grace from God in situations like that so that what we say is from the heart and the spirit, not from the flesh and bravado.

But I admire Mr. Moore, nevertheless.

 

[Dale-c]

Dale-c, are you going to erect a stone monument of the Ten Commandments at your workplace? Are people who fail to do this not Christians? I thought we needed to take the Lord Jesus Christ as our savior and ask forgiveness for our sins.

NO where is scripture does it say that we must erect a monument with a portion of God's Law on it in our workplace.
Nor does it prohibit such.
Now, If I owned a company and I decided to do that at our office, then that would be my right.
If a judge ruled that I could not have that there and ordered it's removal, I would be wrong to move it.

The idol is when we say that judges opinions are higher than the law of God.

It was not required for him to install that monument but once it was there, it would have been wrong for him to back down and say than man's opinion trumps God.

End the end, the court even acknowledged the real point of the case...that acknowledging the God of the Bible was the main problem they had with Moore.

 

[Dale-c]

That is what I would want to do.

Question is, can I ?

That is the way I feel to.
There is a temptation for many to discount what Moore did to cover their own cowardice.

 

[menageriekeeper]

End the end, the court even acknowledged the real point of the case...that acknowledging the God of the Bible was the main problem they had with Moore.

Explain and document this please.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Dale: A resounding AMEN!

 

[Baptist Believer]

NO where is scripture does it say that we must erect a monument with a portion of God's Law on it in our workplace.
Nor does it prohibit such.
Now, If I owned a company and I decided to do that at our office, then that would be my right.
If a judge ruled that I could not have that there and ordered it's removal, I would be wrong to move it.

I didn't realize that Roy Moore owned the state judicial building. When did he purchase the building from the taxpayers?

 

[Baptist Believer]

That is the way I feel to.
There is a temptation for many to discount what Moore did to cover their own cowardice.

Those Christians who believe what Moore did was wrong are trying to cover their cowardice?

Obviously your argument has been discredited, so you have to resort to attacking those who disagree with Moore.

You're really killing your credibility here.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Dale: A resounding AMEN!

Would you also "Amen!" this teaching?

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar, and to God the things that are God's?"

 

[menageriekeeper]

How would you have answered this Question?

How about: "Being a Christian is such an integral part of my life that there are few times when I am not acknowledging Him. However if what you are asking is will I continue to blatantly force my beliefs on the citizenry by means of a monument in the rotunda, then I will not. I do believe that the courts were wrong in asking for it to be removed. I also believe that the court in question has no authority over how the state of Alabama acknowledges God. But I recognize my own mistake in not accepting the courts authority until the matter of authority could be thoroughly examined by those parties described in the law as having the authority settle such matters. I also take responsibility for not filing an appeal in the matter in a timely fashion.

If in the future, despite the best of my abilities, my actions result in a blurring of the line between Church and State and it cannot be resolved I will tender my resignation. My first responsibility is to God, but within that I believe I am able to perform the duties of Chief Justice without forcing my personal religious beliefs on anyone."

 

[rsr]

Interesting thought. Do you have any historical evidence to suggest this? It is an interesting concept, and our founding fathers surely acknowledeged God, but I don't recall anything saying that sepration of church and state only went one way.


Separation of state goes both ways, IMHO. There is no place for the church in the state or the state in the church. I am grateful the wisdom of our founding fathers in making it clear that these are separate entities to be "protected" from each other."

If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

— James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785.

The apprehension of some seems to be that Religion left entirely to itself may into extravagances injurious both to Religion and to social order; but besides the question whether the interference of Govt in any form wd not be more likely to increase than Control the tendency, it is a safe calculation that in this as in other cases of excessive excitement, Reason will gradually regain its ascendancy. Great excitements are less apt to be permanent than to vibrate to the opposite extreme.

Under another aspect of the subject there may be less danger that Religion, if left to itself, will suffer from a failure of the pecuniary support applicable to it than that an omission of the public authorities to limit the duration of their Charters to Religious Corporations, and the amount of property acquirable by them, may lead to an injurious accumulation of wealth from the lavish donations and bequests prompted by a pious zeal or by an atoning remorse. Some monitory examples have already appeared.

Whilst I thus frankly express my view of the subject presented in your sermon, I must do you the justice to observe that you very ably maintained yours. I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others.

— Madison, letter to the Rev. Jasper Adams, 1832

"Experience, the best teacher, has informed us that the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did."

— John Leland, quoted in Gaustad, A Disestablished Society: Origins of the First Amendment, vol. 11, A Journal of Church and State (1969), 414.

 

[Dale-c]

Dale: A resounding AMEN!

Thanks, I am glad I am not alone here! I thought I was but I took this to the general discussions and away from the politics page as this is a spiritual issue much more than a political one.

See, if you can get it to a political debate, it gives the atheists a leg to stand on. As a spiritual debate, it is much more clear.

And, no I am not calling anyone on here an atheist but I am saying that many are on the side of the atheist in this issue, like it or not.

 

[Dale-c]

I didn't realize that Roy Moore owned the state judicial building. When did he purchase the building from the taxpayers?

The decoration of the building was part of his job. Once someone else was elected, they could do as they please.

Those Christians who believe what Moore did was wrong are trying to cover their cowardice?

Obviously your argument has been discredited, so you have to resort to attacking those who disagree with Moore.

You're really killing your credibility here.

NOte that I say there would be the temptation. I didn't name any names and I didn't say anyone specifically was guilty of that, just that that is a tendency for some. If that doesn't apply to you then just ignore it.

As for my credibility, that doesn't make any difference.
The Bible says not to have any God before the God of the Bible and even if I am an idiot, that is still true and we are ALL bound to that, even judges.

 

[Dale-c]

Would you also "Amen!" this teaching?

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar, and to God the things that are God's?"

That is exactly what Roy Moore did.
He refused to give unto Caesar what belongs to God!
The acknowledgment of the highest source of law belongs only to God

 

[Baptist Believer]

The decoration of the building was part of his job.

Since the building was not his, and the decoration of the building was part of his job, then he was accountable to others and the law for how he performed that duty. Neither he nor you can claim that it was his to do as he pleased.

Once someone else was elected, they could do as they please.

So you wouldn’t have a problem if a Roman Catholic judge decided to place a huge image of the Virgin Mary in the rotunda, or a Muslim judge created a 5,400-pound replica of a passage from the Koran that claimed that Allah was the only true God and Islam was the only true faith?

I didn't name any names and I didn't say anyone specifically was guilty of that, just that that is a tendency for some. If that doesn't apply to you then just ignore it.

Well then, does it apply to anyone here or were you simply making vague charges against those who would never read what you wrote? If you mean to apply it to some persons here, then own up to your claim and be specific.

As for my credibility, that doesn't make any difference.

As a witness for Christ, yes it does. Why do you think that Jesus and the New Testament writers spend so much time talking about character?

The Bible says not to have any God before the God of the Bible and even if I am an idiot, that is still true and we are ALL bound to that, even judges.

Yes. But that has very little to do with Roy Moore’s claims, except that the Ten Commandments monument functioned as an idol for many Christians.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Thanks, I am glad I am not alone here! I thought I was but I took this to the general discussions and away from the politics page as this is a spiritual issue much more than a political one.

Fundamentally, it is a spiritual issue since the impetus to separate church from state came directly from the teachings of Jesus.

See, if you can get it to a political debate, it gives the atheists a leg to stand on. As a spiritual debate, it is much more clear.

Yes it is. The teachings of Jesus are the real issue here.

And, no I am not calling anyone on here an atheist but I am saying that many are on the side of the atheist in this issue, like it or not.

There you go again. Personally, I don't choose sides by looking to see what atheists do and then trying to do the opposite. I look to Jesus and study his teachings (as well as the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament teachings) to determine how to live my life. I also listen to the voice of the Spirit, guiding me to make wise and timely choices that fulfill the work of the Kingdom of God.

I'd rather be standing with Jesus for His principles and teachings among atheists than be in good graces with Roy Moore and His followers.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Those who did not support Judge Moore sided with the atheists in the same way that people who buys Fords or Chevies, or support the same sports team as an atheist, or watch the same television programme as an atheist.

Everyone alive sides with atheists every day. I'd say even our friend Dale sides with atheists every day.

 

[Baptist Believer]

That is exactly what Roy Moore did.
He refused to give unto Caesar what belongs to God!
The acknowledgment of the highest source of law belongs only to God

Except he does not acknowledge that our government was established as a secular government that is to be neutral toward religion. As a functionary of that government, his job is to represent the government in a neutral manner toward religion.

He did not.

He was removed.

He could not separate his desire to promote his religious beliefs upon others from the professional role he was being paid to fulfill.

For example, I am a technical writer for an engineering and architecture firm. I share my faith among my co-workers in a natural and productive way, but I don't write my religious beliefs regarding God's role in creation into technical documents for geotechnical or environmental services. I have a role to fulfill for our firm and if I don't like the oversight or play by the rules, then I should find another job or work for myself.

 

[Dale-c]

Those who did not support Judge Moore sided with the atheists in the same way that people who buys Fords or Chevies, or support the same sports team as an atheist, or watch the same television programme as an atheist.

Everyone alive sides with atheists every day. I'd say even our friend Dale sides with atheists every day.

You are right.
And if you go back to my first mention of that, I say as much.
I said that whenever I go to a baseball game, I am siding with atheists, no matter whose team I am going for.

Being on the same side in and of itself is not the problem..it is siding with atheists when they are trying to remove all recognition of the Christian God from public view.

Except he does not acknowledge that our government was established as a secular government that is to be neutral toward religion.

Thank God he didn't acknowledge government as a secular humanist, Godless institution.
He recognized his true role as as a Christian Judge.
Have you ever actually read the first commandment?
We do not serve a God who allows neutrality.
HAVE NO other God Before me.
Not, have no other God before me, well...except when "neutral government says it's ok"