If you were Roy Moore, what would you do?

This athiest charge is harsh and offensive.

Christians who voted against Judge more did not side with atheists in the way that you imply.

Saying that people must think like you or they are siding with atheists is not edfiying to the body of Christ. It is adivisive and judgemental statement.

 

The Christian faith trancends what any piece of material that is on this earth is worth. It's like how the church isn't the building, it's the people.
If all the church buildings disappeared tomorrow, the church would still exist.

 

I know you meant this statement in the worst possible sense, but there is some truth to it:

The United States government is a secular government. It does not seek to concern itself with religious affairs. It rightfully leaves that its citizens. The Constitution (the foundation of our government) makes no references to God or religion except to forbid religious tests for office and the First Amendment, which separates church from state.

The United States government is a humanist government. It is concerned with the welfare of human beings. But one should not jump to the conclusion that the government requires the belief that humankind is “the measure of all things.”

The United States government is a “Godless” institution only in the sense that the government takes an institutional stance of neutrality toward all citizens, whether they believe in one or many gods, or no gods at all.

If he wants his professional role to be a Christian judge, then he should try to find employment within the church. If he wants to be a judge within our government system, then he needs to respect and follow the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I know it well, but I’ve wondered if you are familiar with it:

“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me." – Exodus 20:2-3

Has the United States been led “out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery?” Obviously not. The only “human” government that was divinely sanctioned to hold its citizens accountable to this commandment was the theocracy established by God through Moses at the time the commandments were given up to the ministry of Christ.

When God established the church at Pentecost, the old model of theocracy was shattered and the Kingdom of God (composed of the New Testament church and believing Israel) became the new way God works in the world. Instead of using the power of the sword (that is, government force and/or influence), Christians use the power of the Spirit, the example of their lives, and the testimony of scripture and personal experience.

A government is not a person.

God calls people to choose and does not allow neutrality.

Governments, as institutions composed of laws, procedures and resources, are not called by God to choose for or against Him because they have no power to choose – they are not persons.

The God of scripture is not impressed with written declarations in official documents, nor religious practices motivated by anything but a believing heart responding in love.

A government cannot believe.

That’s written to humankind. Not non-persons.

A human government has no power over the human freedom to choose or reject God.

Your bizarre premise that being obedient to and participating in a religiously neutral government is somehow committing idolatry has no scriptural support.

Think about Roman soldiers serving the pagan empire of Rome:

When Roman soldiers asked John the Baptist how to respond to his message, he told them "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages." - Luke 3:14 (for the full context, see Luke 3:7-14)

Please notice that he did not tell them that serving the interests of a pagan government was wrong or somehow amounted to idolatry!

And Cornelius, an Italian centurion of the Roman Army, was the first Gentile to receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:1-48) Did Peter tell him that serving the interests of a pagan government was wrong or somehow amounted to idolatry? No!

So where do you get the idea that a Christian serving the interests of a religiously neutral government is somehow idolatry? Especially when that interest, separation of church and state, is congruent with the explicit teaching of Jesus?

God has given humankind the right to make laws that serve the public interest. Whether or not individual citizens recognize that God is the ultimate life-giver / law-giver is a matter left to individuals, not government officials.

 

C4K in view of the above comment, why do you now charge Dale with being offensive? Or do you practice the "Do as I say, not as I do" philosophy?

I am not trying to be argumentative, but your comments on divisiveness and offensiveness seem misplaced in view of your earlier comment.

 

I try to do that with my work ethic, my attitude, my character, my words, and my actions.

I don’t have the luxury of being neutral or biased at work. My job is to help the technical staff express their views and the views of the firm.
On my own time, what I write comes from my personal perspective.

But if I were a judge, it would be my responsibility to make wise decisions based on the canon of law and the Constitution... NOT “legislate from the bench” what I believe to be true. (Strange, but I always though “conservatives” did not like judges who legislated from the bench, yet they seemed to embrace Moore when he disregarded the law!)

No, but I have read many of his own statements and followed him in the media. Furthermore, I assume that you are an accurate reporter of his position.

I don’t think I’ve actually judged his motives except where he has stated what he claims them to be. I’m mostly judging his actions and the position that you have taken (which I have assumed to be in conformity with Moore’s).

If you believe you are an unreliable source, I can search for a used copy of his book and read it in the coming months.

 

We need MORE Christian judges - not less. Are you saying we should not have Christian presidents, congressmen, senators or lawyers either?

Are Christians who are not ashamed of the name of Christ only supposed to work in the confines of the church or some other capacity and stay out of the government?

The government should work for the people - not the other way around.

If people in power would stand up for what's right, we wouldn't have some of these inane laws passed in the first place...

 

I’m sorry I didn’t make myself clear:

We certainly need judges who are Christians, but we don’t need Christian judges (that is, judges who try to rule by their version of Christianity instead of the law).

Not at all. No Christian should be ashamed of the name of Christ. But not being ashamed of the name of Christ does not mean acting like Roy Moore has acted.

That’s right. And the government should work for all the people, not just those who are followers of Christ.

Actually, if the voters would stand up for what’s right, we would get better government. We get the government we deserve.

Back in the late 18th century, Baptists led the fight to get church separated from state in the new Constitution – they got what they rightly deserved. Today there are many so-called “Baptists” who are attacking the things that our forebearers struggled centuries for. Unfortunately, they may get what they deserve and throw away the precious gift of religious liberty that God has allowed our land.

 

When "acknowledgment of God" is leading people in prayer in the courtroom or slapping a 5,400 granite monument in the middle of the government building, then yes, it is wrong to "acknowledge God" in that way as a public servant.

As a private citizen and when he is outside the courtroom on his own time, not officially representing the government, he can acknowledge God any way he wants.

It is also a common tactic for the Religious Right to attack those that don't go along with their agenda as "atheists." That's why so many of us find your continued use of that slur irritating. There's a unspoken/unwritten context to that charge that all of us understand, and its dishonest.

But you're trying to take that incident out of the context of the years-long fight over the Ten Commandments monument and his conduct in the courtroom where he just claimed to be "acknowledging God."

That expression is loaded down with a bunch of implications which certainly includes a 5,400-pound monument.

 

Dale acknowledges that he sides with atheists in this way - he accuses those who did not support Moore of siding with athiests in a whole different manner, as joining them in their opposition of acknowledging God.

No one ever said in any regard that Moore should not acknowledge God, it is unfair to catagorise Christians with athiests because they did not support Moore's actions.

That is why I wanted a clarification of what Dale meant by "siding with atheists."

 

THose who did not support Moore did no such thing, and you know that Dale.

Your comments are pure and simple sensationalism. Supporting or not supporting Moore is hardly a test of ones faith our spirituality. You are setting an unbiblical litmus test for who is a compromiser and who is not.

 

The First Commandment is for Israel (and those of us who have been grafted in).

The First Commandment is not for the United States government.

If you want to do it, but it would be grave sin. But it is not for the United States government to tell you either way.

 

- deleted -

 

Care to explain that allegation using scripture and reason?

 

I don't accept that any "government" or "state" must acknowledge God. He is acknowledged in the hearts and lives of His people are they partake of life in the government or the state. Judge Moore had every right in the world to acknowledge God - the question is does he have the right to use taxpayer money to do so.

If so, then a Catholic official can erect a statue of the Virgin Mary to acknowledge his "faith" and a Muslim official can have the calls to prayer read from government buildings to acknowledge his "faith."

I'd rather have no state in the church and no church in the state than the mess created by state imposed religion.