Judge Roy Moore for Governor of Alabama

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Your judgement that to vote for Judge Mooore is to take "God's side" is very biased and judgemental.

How can one possibly determine that Judge Moore is God's man?

You cannot determine who God's man is in this election - that is His job, not yours.

Just because a man disobeys a federal judge does not qualify him as God's man.

Of course his book is going to sway people's minds - that os why it was written.

 

[Dale-c]

Your judgement that to vote for Judge Mooore is to take "God's side" is very biased and judgemental.

How can one possibly determine that Judge Moore is God's man?

You cannot determine who God's man is in this election - that is His job, not yours.

Just because a man disobeys a federal judge does not qualify him as God's man.

Of course his book is going to sway people's minds - that os why it was written.

I have not said that voting for Moore was to take God's side. I did however ask for prayer for his election in the first post, not having any idea that there would be such hostility for him, especially from his own state.
I have said that taking the side of the ferderal judge is not taking GOd's side.
The ACLU is a Godless lawless bunch and when the courts side with them on matters like these they become just as lawless.

You cannot determine who God's man is in this election - that is His job, not yours.

If that is true, then you can't determine that either. How has God told you who to vote for? God doesn't go on the six o' clock news and endorse "His" candidate. He has given us HIS word and told us to "but judge righteous judgment."

Just because a man disobeys a federal judge does not qualify him as God's man.

I would quite agree with that statement. Who said that disobeying a court oder qualified you for office?

Of course his book is going to sway people's minds - that os why it was written.

With that line of logic, we shouldn't read the Bible either.
Not to mention the fact that main stream news "sways peoples minds" that is their job too.
The question is, are you going to be swayed by the unGodly propaganda of those who hate our Lord or are you going to be swayed by the results of your own study of BOTH sides of the matter.

Without reading his book, you have judged this man without giving him the opportunity to account for his actions.

 

[Dale-c]

Just because a man disobeys a federal judge does not qualify him as God's man.

And just because he stands for the sovereignty of God doesn't DISqualify his either.

Have you at least watched the cross examination videos?

I think the problem is here that a man has lost his job for his stand for Christ.
If other Christians follow, they might come into conflict as well.
It isn't enough to simply support a man like that, since no one is willing to support him, he has to be discredited so others don't look bad in running away and turning their back on principle.

 

[KenH]

Hey, Ken are you on the American View forum as well?

Occasionally I will check in on that forum and throw in a post or two.

 

[KenH]

The ACLU is a Godless lawless bunch and when the courts side with them on matters like these they become just as lawless.

I don't care much for the ACLU but you are assuming that the ACLU is always on the wrong side from a limited government perspective. That is not always the case.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Hey Dale, doesn't it tell you something when the people of the man's home state don't support him? We live here and lived through the events surrounding the monument. We have a better idea of what went on because of personal experience.

Moore simply didn't follow the rules until there were no more rules to follow, before deciding that defience/rebellion was the way to go. He didn't give the Supreme Court much chance to rule because he didn't follow the rules/correct path to get there.

The real problem is: HE SWORE TO UPHOLD THE LAWS AND THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT! Then he didn't do it! And he drug the State of Alabama through politcal and courtroom mud because of it. We the people didn't deserve that, but possibly would have supported him if he had appealed the original decision all the way up the line instead of choosing to defy the courts TWO STEPS before the Supreme Court.

I'm sorry but he can't get around not following the rule of law! I don't care if he does present himself as "upholding the Word of God". The word of God tells us that governments were appointed by God for the rule of law, it does not tell us that the govenment must have a copy of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state courthouse!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I suppose us Alabamians should just do as we are told by an outsider.

Judge Moores' illagal stand was not a stand for God. I have not said it yet, but I contend it was a stand for his political future.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I agree C4K. I believe that after the flack about his original court battles over displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom he figured out that this could be the hot button to push in order to climb the polical laddar.

Too bad he jumped the gun in defying the court order without appealing it to the end. He might could have kept some credibility.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'm sorry but he can't get around not following the rule of law! I don't care if he does present himself as "upholding the Word of God". The word of God tells us that governments were appointed by God for the rule of law, it does not tell us that the govenment must have a copy of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state courthouse!

A perfect summation of the issue.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I agree C4K. I believe that after the flack about his original court battles over displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom he figured out that this could be the hot button to push in order to climb the polical laddar.

Too bad he jumped the gun in defying the court order without appealing it to the end. He might could have kept some credibility.

Exactly! The problem is that there are many simple-minded people who will continue to support this law-breaker no matter what happens.

 

[Dale-c]

The real problem is: HE SWORE TO UPHOLD THE LAWS AND THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT! Then he didn't do it! And he drug the State of Alabama through politcal and courtroom mud because of it. We the people didn't deserve that, but possibly would have supported him if he had appealed the original decision all the way up the line instead of choosing to defy the courts TWO STEPS before the Supreme Court.

I was planning on asking you this but you said it so you beat me to it.

That is the fundamental difference.

He did NOT sware to uphold court orders, he swore to uphold the constitution for Alabama and the US, that is the law.

Ok, so here is my question: If he was ordered to violate the constitution, which you don't think he was, and you are entitled to you opinion. But let say he was ordered to violate the constitution for either Alabama or the US constitution, both of which he swore to uphold, swore before God no less.
Since he did that and if he was ordered by a federal judge to do so, what is he to do?
Is he to violate his oath?

Again, I realize that you don't think he did have to go against his oath but what if he was ordered against his oath?

Please answer this honestly as it will help me understand you point of view.

If you believe that he must obey any and all orders of a federal court, which he would if he made that oath, then our difference will be quite clear.

Exactly! The problem is that there are many simple-minded people who will continue to support this law-breaker no matter what happens.

Again, please quote me the actual LAW he broke. Not the court order but the law. The judges are bound by law just like everyone else. They do not have the right to just say whatever they please.

I don't care much for the ACLU but you are assuming that the ACLU is always on the wrong side from a limited government perspective. That is not always the case.

I do agree with you on this Ken. Overall I do not like the ACLU but they are on the right side of some cases, I am not sure they are there for the right reasons but I do agree with your statement.



PLease , Roger and others, if he is bound to uphold the court rulings AND the constitution, what is he to do if there is a conflict?
I know you think that there wasn't a conflict, (I do) but if there were, what would you have him do, what would you have him follow, the court or the constitution?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Ah, but Moore also swore to "faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter" Defying a court order was not discharging his duties faithfully. The duty of his office was to follow the order of a superior court.

 

[rbell]

Many folks are making this an "either-or" situation. Without going too far, let me just say that I am personally familiar with several folks in the 10 commandments monument fracas. Here are some things I gathered...

-Richard Cohen and his cohorts at the Southern Poverty Law Center ARE pushing an agenda: they have a great disdain for Christians, and a hatred of Judge Moore. Most of this is based on the Christian view of homosexuality as sin. They definitely are on a witch hunt.
-HOWEVER, Judge Moore did defy a court order. In scripture, when folks were punished by authorities, they took the punishment. They (as Paul did) would exhaust legal avenues of appeal, but ultimately would serve the sentence. Though Judge Moore didn't have to "serve time," his removal was an act of our justice system. Disagree or not, the fact remains, he was removed.
-My reasons for not voting for Moore? (being careful here--some inside info is privy to me, but I don't want to go too far) He has not consistently shown an ability to work with people. He can be rather abrasive and difficult. He is not skilled at all at the art of compromise--I'm talking in terms of political, NOT right/wrong. He has hand-picked justices to run for the Alabama supreme court who have VERY questionable alliances (including one with ties to white seperatists!). This tells me that he might not be a great judge of someone's motives. Now, Mr. Moore might be a great interpreter of the law, but for the governor's office--I don't think he's suited for it.

 

[Dale-c]

Ah, but Moore also swore to "faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter" Defying a court order was not discharging his duties faithfully. The duty of his office was to follow the order of a superior court.

Yes but please answer my question, if there is a conflict, who is he to obey?
Put another way, what is the supreme authority, the constitution or the court?

There cannot be two heads. One has to be over the other.

Many folks are making this an "either-or" situation. Without going too far, let me just say that I am personally familiar with several folks in the 10 commandments monument fracas. Here are some things I gathered...

rbell, that is a pretty decent opinion though I am not sure if I agree with it but I do in principle. Just because he is right in the Ten Commandemnts case doens't make him a good governor. I will agree to that.
I would not make a good governor and neither would over 99% of the population.

I personally think that he would but that is not the main point of disagreement.

The main thing is can a judge EVER disobey a court order, or another way, is a court order LAW?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Dale-C, I feel that Moore is using these events for personal gain. You, however, do not have to agree. You can continue to support him. I, on the other hand, am comforted by the belief that this man will go nowhere in his quest for political office.

 

[Dale-c]

Dale-C, I feel that Moore is using these events for personal gain. You, however, do not have to agree. You can continue to support him. I, on the other hand, am comforted by the belief that this man will go nowhere in his quest for political office.

If that is your true belief then you are certainly entitled to that. You are correct that I don't think that he did it for political gain because it cost him too much.
A high paying salary, retirement benefits and a lot of hassle. Just not something you do for political gain I wouldn't think.

But again, I wish someone would please answer my question, show me where I am wrong.
If there is a conflict between the Constitution, either state or federal, and the order of a judge, what is to be obeys, the constitution or the order?

No one has answered this yet in a clear manner.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It is nearly an impossible question to answer. It depends on ones interpretation of the Constitution - as do the judge's orders. We have decided to let the the courts interpret the Constitution, it is not open to every man's own opinion.

If I think a ruling is unconstitutional do I have an inherent right to disobey it? If I think the Constitution gives the right to have two wives (under the free exercise clause), do I have to obey a law or court order prohibiting that?

 

[Dale-c]

It is nearly an impossible question to answer. It depends on ones interpretation of the Constitution - as do the judge's orders. We have decided to let the the courts interpret the Constitution, it is not open to every man's own opinion.

If I think a ruling is unconstitutional do I have an inherent right to disobey it? If I think the Constitution gives the right to have two wives (under the free exercise clause), do I have to obey a law or court order prohibiting that?

Ahh...there we are, so what you are saying is that the law is whatever the judge SAYS the law is. Therefore the judge becomes the law and is the supreme. If he is supreme we have no law or rights and he becomes God.

Ok, I anticipate you won't like that answer so I will put it really easy for you.

For instance: A federal judge makes a ruling. In that ruling he says that Islam is the new state religion in the US (respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion) and says that anyone who practices Christianity is breaking the law.

Ok, if a judge says that, according to what you have said in your last post, we must obey that. If a lower judge refuses to enforce it, he is wrong according to you.

Please tell me, what is the supreme law, the Constitution or the judge?

 

[Dale-c]

By the way, I hope everyone understands that I believe that any disobedience in this manner is a very serious thing and should never be taken lightly.

We do not have the right to pick and choose what we will obey based on what we feel like.

When a government official takes an oath, he is duty bound to keep that oath even if he is ordered to break it or if it is politically damaging to resist.

There were great consequences, I don't think he took this lightly.

Dale

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What is the supreme law, the Constitution, the judges, or each individual's interpretation of the Constitution?