If you were Roy Moore, what would you do?

[Baptist Believer]

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.

Amen C4K!!

 

[Dale-c]

I don't accept that any "government" or "state" must acknowledge God.

Please read Psalm 2.
Actually, I will save everyone the time:

1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying , 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. 6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter' vessel. 10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss 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.

 

[Dale-c]

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.

Many people forget that he used private funds for the monumnet, and I might add that prayer before court doesn't really cost anything unless it is a paid chaplain.
In short...there is nothing to tax payer money in acknowledging God, that is in the very way they carry out their job.

f 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."

Wait just one minute! First of all, where in the Bible does it say it is ok fur rulers of government to acknowledge other faiths such a the Muslims?
Furthermore, where in the Constitution of the State of Alabama does it invoke favor of Allah?

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

I agree...but I want God over both.
Since when did Moore mix church and state by acknowledging the source of law, the one True and Living God?

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

I think that these kinds of events, in which Christians come down hard in favor of religious symbolism in public places tends to alienate non-believers. The cause of Christianity would be much better served if all of us talked to one person on our block about our faith. Non-believers, in my opinion are not led to accept Christ by putting a monument to the Ten Commandments in front of the courthouse. They are led to the faith every time they see a Christian perform an act of extradorinary kindness to someone in need. What is our objective? To will a philosophical and political battle or to win the lost to Jesus Christ?

 

[Dale-c]

I would acknowledge God, no matter what. 8 53.33%
I would acknowledge God, unless a court ordered me not to. 0 0%
I would not acknowledge God 0 0%
None of the above. 7 46.67%

It seems the people that would continue to acknowledge God are finally outnumbering the ones that wouldn't.

 

[Dale-c]

What is our objective? To will a philosophical and political battle or to win the lost to Jesus Christ?

As for me, this is my answer:

And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
(I Samuel 15:22)

 

[Dale-c]

BTW, I might add that Roy Moore's stand HAS been a witness for God and many people have awakened and have been challenged to greater service for God (me included)

Our job is the obey God. Our job is not only to witness where it does not cause conflict, it is our job wherever we go.

BTW, if William Tyndale had taken the position that many here take, then I doubt that the Bible would have ever been translated into English.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Dale, I'm having problems with your attitude. Just because a person chose the fourth option in your poll DOES NOT MEAN THAT PERSON WOULDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE GOD!!! To imply differently is insulting.

 

[Dale-c]

mean that if you side against Moore and say he should not have prayer in court or that the ten commandments is wrong to have in public buildings or that the constitution is higher than the opinion of a judge then you are siding with atheists.

I got this mixed up. I meant that if you believe that the judge is higher than the constitution, that is wrong.

I believe the law is first, and all judges must submit to the law.

 

[Dale-c]

Dale, I'm having problems with your attitude. Just because a person chose the fourth option in your poll DOES NOT MEAN THAT PERSON WOULDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE GOD!!! To imply differently is insulting.

I knew people would not like it if I left the first three questions as is. I put the 4th in there so that you could explain. No one has, they just say Moore was wrong.
One person said that even prayer in court was wrong. Prayer is one of the things that Moore mentioned that he would continue to do, even though he would not force the issue and replace the monument.

So far...I gave it a while and no one said what they WOULD do.

I am not trying to be insulting to anyone here.
I am not trying to be arrogant.
Please, tell me what WAS the right thing to do?
If you answered none of the above...there really is no other answer.
Please explain what else you would do?
Please. I am not trying to be confrontational, though I can see why you might think that.

There is a battle against Christ going on here and I don't intend to back down.

I am urging Christians not to side with those that would rid us of all Christianity.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

I would acknowledge God, no matter what.
I would not acknowledge God.

What in the world is "None of the above."?

 

[Dale-c]

I would acknowledge God, no matter what.
I would not acknowledge God.

What in the world is "None of the above."?

That is what I am trying to figure out.
I put it in there because I see in so many polls where people are unsatisfied with the option.
They are then to explain just what they WOULD do.
No one really has except one that said that even prayer was wrong in court.

BTW..this is my 1000th post! And I only started with this account in May just to ask prayer for his election.

I had no idea all this would come up!

 

[menageriekeeper]

Quote:
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."

Actually Dale, I did explain what I would have done/liked to have seen Moore do.

Sue, none of the above is for those of us who don't believe Moore should have started the monument business in the first place and/or should have taken responsibility for mistakes he made along the way. (such as not filing an appeal to stop the monuments removal)

 

[Dale-c]

Actually Dale, I did explain what I would have done/liked to have seen Moore do.

Sue, none of the above is for those of us who don't believe Moore should have started the monument business in the first place and/or should have taken responsibility for mistakes he made along the way. (such as not filing an appeal to stop the monuments removal)

Yes, you did, however, if you recall, judge Moore didn't say he would cram anything down anyone either.
He said he would merely continue to open with prayer.
He would continue to save "God save the State and this Honorable Court"

Of course, a court without God is NOT honorable.
So, what you should have posted MK, was the second option...not if you were told not to.

 

[menageriekeeper]

It's already in my first response. If I couldn't have reconciled my religious beliefs with the rules of my employment I would have tendered my resignation.

 

[Dale-c]

It's already in my first response. If I couldn't have reconciled my religious beliefs with the rules of my employment I would have tendered my resignation.

So, why didn't you select the second option? I gave that very option but no one selected it.
The acknowledge God unless ordered not to option.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Dale, it's like this: If you believe drinking is wrong are you going to accept a job with Jack Daniels?

If Moore believed that it was wrong for him to not blatantly acknowledge God acknowledge God in this manner, why did run for a job where he KNEW such blatant acknowledgement was going to present a problem? After his first go around with the courts, he knew, knew, knew, what he was in for when he placed that monument in the rotunda.

Now, I've got this job offer at Jack Daniels and I accept it, but it would be wrong for me not to blatantly acknowledge that God considers it to be a sin to be a drunk. So just what do you suppose management is going to do with me when I get up on my whiskey crate and begin to rant on the evils of drunkeness? Just exactly what the State of Alabama did to Roy Moore when he blatantly acknowledged God by sticking that monument where it had no business being according to the laws of our country.

Roy Moore has a problem with authority. If he can't submit to earthly authorities on a matter that God has no opinion on, how then can he be the example of submitting to God? Let me give you a scripture:

Tit 2:9[Exhort] servants to be in subjection to their own masters, [and] to be well-pleasing [to them] in all things; not gainsaying;Tit 2:10not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

Do you really believe that what Moore did was a good representation of this scripture?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Oh, I failed to answer your question.

I didn't choose the second option because Moore was not asked to stop acknowledging God in his private life. He could have stood outside the courthouse on the sidewalk and preached the word all day long and it would have been his right to do so. But when he walked into that courthouse as Judge Moore, he was supposed to set aside his preaching long enough to his job. If he thought it was wrong to do so, he shouldn't have been in the job in the first place. Same with the monument. There is plenty of land in Montgomery that is for sale. He should have found a suitable place and placed that monument there, all the while publicizing that he was providing the funding for it. But the minute he placed it in that rotunda and was ordered by the authorities to remove, he crossed the line.

 

[Dale-c]

Roy Moore has a problem with authority. If he can't submit to earthly authorities on a matter that God has no opinion on, how then can he be the example of submitting to God? Let me give you a scripture:

No, it is YOU that have a problem with authority. You do not understand authority.
Roy Moore understands that his first allegiance is to God and his second is to the constitution.

I didn't choose the second option because Moore was not asked to stop acknowledging God in his private life.

This has nothing to do with his private life.
No man has a right to commit idolatry in public OR private, even if he is told to by a federal judge.

Tit 2:9[Exhort] servants to be in subjection to their own masters, [and] to be well-pleasing [to them] in all things; not gainsaying;Tit 2:10not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

Yes, this is exactly what he did! He was not the servant of the federal judge, he is a servant first of Jesus Christ and cannot deny Him.
Second, he had his oath to uphold the constitution. He was in a way, a servant to his oath. He upheld his oath and his God.

on a matter that God has no opinion on

God doesn't care whether we acknowledge Him as God huh?

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 10:33)

 

[menageriekeeper]

When did idolatry come into this conversation?

Tit 2:9[Exhort] servants to be in subjection to their own masters, [and] to be well-pleasing [to them] in all things; not gainsaying;Tit 2:10not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

Yes, this is exactly what he did! He was not the servant of the federal judge, he is a servant first of Jesus Christ and cannot deny Him.
Second, he had his oath to uphold the constitution. He was in a way, a servant to his oath. He upheld his oath and his God.

Actually I think it is you that has a problem interpreting the plain teaching of the Word. Was the writer of Titus talking about servants of God? I don't think soooooo. But let me go back and recheck my context: Hmmm, Paul is speaking of old men, women, young women, young men and telling how they should behave generally. Oh, and here it is, SERVANTS, doesn't say servant of God, the SCRIPTURE says servants, plain old ordinary workers. And then Paul tells them to what? be in subjection

Good try at scripture twisting though.