Judge Roy Moore for Governor of Alabama

[menageriekeeper]

The question C4K is whether God is the supreme law or whether man is(in this case the judge in charge of the case). I've heard this arguement before. We back to should we obey God or man.

But Rbell has already answered that question when he said that Paul and the apostles were still subject to and suffered the consequences of defying the laws that kept them from worshipping God. Unfortunately, martydom does not always mean the maryter would make a good governor!

 

[KenH]

The latest poll I have found shows Riley ahead of Moore by 49 points - 69% to 20% - http://tinyurl.com/lv2gg .

 

[KenH]

By the way, it appears that Governor Riley has no interest in cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens:

"Riley has secured federal training for state troopers so they can arrest illegal immigrants, but he questions Moore's plan to crack down on business."

- http://tinyurl.com/qghbg

 

[Dale-c]

The question C4K is whether God is the supreme law or whether man is(in this case the judge in charge of the case). I've heard this arguement before. We back to should we obey God or man.

So what is your answer?

But Rbell has already answered that question when he said that Paul and the apostles were still subject to and suffered the consequences of defying the laws that kept them from worshipping God. Unfortunately, martydom does not always mean the maryter would make a good governor!

Ok, so again, what is your answer? Are you saying Paul and the apostles were wrong or what? Are you saying it DISqualifies you for public office?
If that is the case then all of the founding fathers were not qualified for public office because they disobeyed King George.

Please answer directly.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The question C4K is whether God is the supreme law or whether man is(in this case the judge in charge of the case). I've heard this arguement before. We back to should we obey God or man.
!

GOd of course, but most of the time, like in this case, the choice has nothing to do with obeying God, except that He said to obey civil authorities.

 

[Dale-c]

GOd of course, but most of the time, like in this case, the choice has nothing to do with obeying God, except that He said to obey civil authorities

Actually I was getting at the law vs the judge. As in we have a written law in the constitution and if a judge makes an order that is not consistent with the constitution, which is to be obeyed by a judge that has an oath to uphold the constitution.

We are not talking about an individual here. We are talking about the highest judicial position in the state of Alabama. He was SWORN to uphold the CONSTITUTION so if a judge ordered him to violate the constitution, which is to to obey?
The judge or the constitution.

It is a given that we must always obey God no matter what.

We have a constitution so that we can avoid dictators. We all have contempt for Hitler and the like but we now have a virtual brotherhood of dictators that wear black robes.

So again I ask, in a matter not specifically and directly spoken of in the Bible, but if there is an issue where a judge (not you and I but an elected, sworn judge) comes into conflict with the constitution and a court order, who/what must he obey?

That still has not been answered directly.

 

[Dale-c]

By the way, it appears that Governor Riley has no interest in cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens:

"Riley has secured federal training for state troopers so they can arrest illegal immigrants, but he questions Moore's plan to crack down on business."

- http://tinyurl.com/qghbg

Hey this is just a side note but this shows something up. This is an area where Moore plans to obey the law that says illegal aliens are...guess what??? Illegal!
Moore wants to obey the LAW not the whims of activist judges who try to legislate from the bench.

By the way, I haven't done a lot of research into Riley's position on the immigration issue so if he is strong on it that is fine and I am not going to argue about his position on that because I am not knowledgeable about that.

 

[rbell]

I guess my primary concern in the matter are those folks (and dale-c, you're not one of them :thumbsup: ) in our state that consider it blasphemous that someone like me wouldn't vote for Moore, no matter whom the opponent was.

My reason for not voting for Moore (see 2 pages ago) has less to do with his stand on the Ten than my belief that he would make a poor governor because of his personality and skill sets.

Is Moore a one-trick pony? Possibly...but less so than Don Siegelman, the possible democratic nominee, who would likely have to run Alabama from his jail cell anyway. (His one trick is the state lottery--the end all, be all answer to all of Alabama's woes).

 

[Dale-c]

I guess my primary concern in the matter are those folks (and dale-c, you're not one of them ) in our state that consider it blasphemous that someone like me wouldn't vote for Moore, no matter whom the opponent was.

My reason for not voting for Moore (see 2 pages ago) has less to do with his stand on the Ten than my belief that he would make a poor governor because of his personality and skill sets.

Is Moore a one-trick pony? Possibly...but less so than Don Siegelman, the possible democratic nominee, who would likely have to run Alabama from his jail cell anyway. (His one trick is the state lottery--the end all, be all answer to all of Alabama's woes).

I certainly respect that opinion. I also do not believe it to be blasphemous not to vote for Moore, though I support him. I do think it blasphemous for judges to think that they are the final word in law.
In this case, you have two Baptist running against each other as I understand.

Hey, I will tell you what....send the Baptist that DOESn't win up here to Indiana. We could use one.

But back to the topic, my first point in this post was just that Christians pray for a man who stood for God's law in the election. It may not be GOd;s will for him to win, but I think we should pray anyway.

WHen I started to get responses like "lawless" and "rogue" I was appalled!

So I am still trying to get an answer to who is a judge supposed to obey, the law or another judge, if they are in conflict?

 

[menageriekeeper]

They are supposed to obey that which has authority over them, be it judge or law. In the example given, Moore should have filed the appeal and then filed another appeal if needed(this would have brought him to the Supreme Court) and then if he still didn't have satisfaction he should have lobbied Congress to make changes in the law so that it becomes more clear what the intent of the law is. That is how things are supposed to work in this country!

Now if you have a circumstance where both Congress and the Judiciary are directly ordering a Christain to do something that God has specifically ordered us not to do, then defiance is in order. But, you better be prepared to suffer the consequences of your choice.

 

[Dale-c]

They are supposed to obey that which has authority over them, be it judge or law.

I know but that is what I am asking, do they swear to the judge or the law?

But, you better be prepared to suffer the consequences of your choice.

You keep saying this like he didn't.

But Rbell has already answered that question when he said that Paul and the apostles were still subject to and suffered the consequences of defying the laws that kept them from worshipping God. Unfortunately, martydom does not always mean the maryter would make a good governor!

I am not sure what you are getting at here other than "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

That is how things are supposed to work in this country!

That us how things are SUPPOSED to work in this country. But our judges are lawless. The highest court in our land says murder is legal and all of the lower courts say that they are bound by that decision which is totally false. A court opinion is binding at best only for the particular case in question.
http://theamericanview.com/index.php?id=423

Now if you have a circumstance where both Congress and the Judiciary are directly ordering a Christain to do something that God has specifically ordered us not to do, then defiance is in order.

Ok, so if he had gone through all of the steps as you outline, and all appeals were rejected as they most certainly would, then what? Would he then have him acknowledge God or not? Remember, they didn't just say he couldn't have a monument, they said he could not acknowledge God as the source of our law and government. Can't you see that this is what it's all about?
The courts hate God and any one who says that He is the final ruler.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Okay from the top, Dale, since I haven't figured out the quote feature yet and don't have time to this morning.

Moore swore to neither the law nor superior judges but to the PEOPLE.

Moore has not suffered anything as his book deals and media coverage have more than covered his salary. (not that he was poor to begin with) Something you may not know about AL is that if you are poor you don't run for office and if you don't have a law degree or sufficient experience with the law you certainly don't run for a judgeship. This $192,000 salary you keep harping about is a drop in the bucket compare to all the free publicity, book money and lecture monies that recieves now(and much less stressful).

What I'm getting at is that Moore and a good many of his follower seem to believe that he should have been exempt from being tossed from office for his actions.

Lawless judges? Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black? Wasn't it MOORE who blatantly disregarded a court order? Two wrongs don't make a right. And as far as abortion goes, it's Congress that should be tackling that problem either by passing laws that allow for states to make their own laws regarding this or by making the practice illegal. Congress can't do that because the majority of Americans don't agree that abortion is wrong. Congress represent everyone, not just the minority of Christians who do believe that abortion is wrong. (The solution to that is for Christians to get busy preaching the Word and bringing folks to Christ. Then and only then will the Holy Spirit convict of sin and lead to repentence of this awful practice)

No they didn't. The first court said that he had to remove the monument because it crossed the line between church and state. The next court said he had to obey the order and couldn't appeal it to the Supreme Court because he DIDN'T FILE THE STUPID APPEAL when he should have. The courts said nothing about his acknowledgement of God on his own time only in a taxpayer supported public building.

Christians must stop trying to force nonChristians to conform to our way of thinking! We may lead them to it, but it can't be forced. Only the Holy Spirit has the power to actually change the way a person thinks and feels. For us as Christians to think we can force our ideas on people and make 'em like it is pure arrogance.

 

[jet11]

Paul Hubbard runs this State period....

I am voting for someone who I think will stand up to Paul Hubbard and the AEA. Riley has already proven he won't do it. Does anyone remember the Tax increase proposal? We must pass this Tax Increase to save our schools. It was soundly defeated, and now we have a surplus (I guess you could say Riley lied). The Democrats have never put up a candidate who would do it (Although not convicted, Seigelman has been indicted by a grand jury and Lucy Baxley refuses to take a stand on any issue).

That leaves Loretta Nall and Roy Moore. I can't vote for Loretta Nall based on her drug legalization stance. While I might be in favor of legalizing drugs, I would have to hear a great deal more about the plan and how it would affect me as a taxpayer if this person became incapacitated due to his choices.

Then that leaves Roy Moore. As rbell stated, he is not willing to compromise on issues he believes strongly in. I look at that as a positive. Too many times we place people in power who have no backbone or will to do the right thing, no matter how hard that is. I don't know if I will vote for Moore or not, but I have not ruled him out.

If Riley is such a lock as many people think, why is he afraid to debate Roy Moore. He first agreed to debate Moore, then he had a scheduling conflict (convienient). Maybe, it is smart for him not to debate Roy Moore, because he may lose ground. It is still cowardly.

 

[KenH]

I can't vote for Loretta Nall based on her drug legalization stance. While I might be in favor of legalizing drugs, I would have to hear a great deal more about the plan and how it would affect me as a taxpayer if this person became incapacitated due to his choices..

I found this incident to be fascinating:

Tuskegee Sheriff Candidates "Nall Right on Drug Policy" ​

On May 21, 2006 I was invited to attend and speak at the Candidates forum hosted by The National Coalition of 100 Black Women in historic Tuskegee, Alabama.

I was the only gubernatorial candidate to show at the event. Lt. Governor Lucy Baxley did not show due to laryngitis. I had a touch of it myself but refuse to let such things stop me from addressing any crowd of Alabama voters who are kind enough, fair enough and interested enough to bother extending an invitation to the Nall for Governor campaign.

There were other candidates there for state and local office. Three of these candidates were law enforcement officers and their presence there worked so heavily in my favor by the end of the day that I am still somewhat speechless....

The incumbent sheriff was up next and some brilliant attendee in the back submitted the following question to him.

"Just how exactly will you completely eradicate drugs from Macon county?"

The whole room giggled at that question and I spoke up and said "I swear I had nothing to do with it."

The sheriff gets to the mic and stands there for a minute looking at everyone, me included, and then he sighs big, shakes his head and says for all to hear, "It can't be done. Drugs cannot be eradicated from Macon county or anywhere else. Even if we put our military on the borders to stop "those Colombians" from bringing their junk in, even if we had missiles that could fly down people's chimneys we would never be able to eradicate drugs from anywhere."

Then he sat down.

His opponent was next up to address the question. Mr. Warren looked at the audience and then at me and he said, "No matter what else you might think of Mrs. Nall's platform she is absolutely RIGHT on drug policy. It has filled our prisons to bursting, and it's YOUR KIDS who are taking the hits and getting sent to prison or shot down in the streets. We need to address drugs with treatment cause it ain't a problem for law enforcement. We got to do this different and I will do it different. If we want our courts to work, our prisons to work and our communities to be safer then we have to address drugs from a different perspective focused on treatment for those who need it. Prison is no place for a drug addict."...

Afterward the veteran of the Narcotics task force made it a point to shake my hand and wish me luck. The two candidates for Sheriff were engaged with other folks, they looked like they were discussing the sudden shift in drug policy and I thought it best to leave them to their constituents, and so I did not get the opportunity to speak with them. I will, however, be publicly endorsing Mr. Warren for Macon County Sheriff and I will be getting LEAP to send both of these gentlemen some literature.

So, yeah, maybe I do live in a trailer and I possess nothing more than a GED but I see the fruits of my labor pay off in a way that makes me richer than any person I know. There is no reward greater than success when your goal is justice for all."

- more about this available at Loretta Nall's website.

 

[Dale-c]

jet, glad to see someone giving Moore a chance on here.
Thanks for chiming in on some of the particular issues going on down there. I am from Indiana so I don't have the time or the reason to follow all the details of the state there.

My point has been to defend Moore in his defense of the Acknowledgment of God.

Then that leaves Roy Moore. As rbell stated, he is not willing to compromise on issues he believes strongly in. I look at that as a positive. Too many times we place people in power who have no backbone or will to do the right thing, no matter how hard that is. I don't know if I will vote for Moore or not, but I have not ruled him out.

I absolutely agree. The problem is that when someone DOES have a backbone, others who are not willing to have the same courage feel guilty and are afraid to stand. They then have to come up with ways to discredit those that DO stand.
This is what Riley did in the Ten Commandments case.
And to an even greater extent, it is was PRyor did in prosecuting his case.
It was very clear that he had great potential for promotion but he would lose that if he didn't prosecute Moore.
The feds couldn't get Moore alone, they had to swing the other state officials against him as well and they did that by threat of fines etc.

If Riley is such a lock as many people think, why is he afraid to debate Roy Moore. He first agreed to debate Moore, then he had a scheduling conflict (convienient). Maybe, it is smart for him not to debate Roy Moore, because he may lose ground. It is still cowardly.

Probably because Riley IS afraid. He is afraid that if Moore gets to tell his side of the story, it will expose the fact that Riley didn't stand when he should have and that RIley betrayed the oath of office to the Constitution of Alabama in not standing with Moore.


I am not even in Alabama but this issue affects all americans. If the federal courts go unchecked, then religious freedom will soon be nothing.
That, and that issue alone is why I am supporting ROy Moore. There may be many other points as well that he is solid, in fact I know there are but they are ALabama issues, the one that affects me is the tyrannical and blasphemous courts.

 

[Dale-c]

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

Ask yourself, has Roy Moore followed this or has he disobeyed this and how so?

 

[tragic_pizza]

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

Ask yourself, has Roy Moore followed this or has he disobeyed this and how so?

At what point did Scripture become God? Or, to be precise, when did heavily edited Scripture engraved on a tombstone-like hunk of granite become God?

Back in his just-a-judge days, I heard old Roy say -- firsthand, now -- that
he would not use the Big Ten controversy as a stepping stone to higher office. He lied, and the run for governor makes it twice he's lied.

There's a bumper sticker, all right, and I will get and display it proudly: "No Moore."

 

[Dale-c]

At what point did Scripture become God? Or, to be precise, when did heavily edited Scripture engraved on a tombstone-like hunk of granite become God?

Back in his just-a-judge days, I heard old Roy say -- firsthand, now -- that
he would not use the Big Ten controversy as a stepping stone to higher office. He lied, and the run for governor makes it twice he's lied.

There's a bumper sticker, all right, and I will get and display it proudly: "No Moore."

That big rock is just that, a big rock.
Those that can't get past the physical details of the case will never realize that even judge Thompson did not have a problem with the monument itself. The problem was that it was an acknowledgment that the "God of the Holy Sciptures" was the moral foundation for Alabama law.

Those who are afraid to stand with him will point to the big rock and try to avoid the real issue and that is acknowledgment the Sovereign God of the universe as the rule of our law. the ONLY true source of law.

 

[tragic_pizza]

That big rock is just that, a big rock.
Those that can't get past the physical details of the case will never realize that even judge Thompson did not have a problem with the monument itself. The problem was that it was an acknowledgment that the "God of the Holy Sciptures" was the moral foundation for Alabama law.

Those who are afraid to stand with him will point to the big rock and try to avoid the real issue and that is acknowledgment the Sovereign God of the universe as the rule of our law. the ONLY true source of law.

Nice way of avoiding the question.

Is the Bible equivalent to God? Yes or no?

 

[Dale-c]

Nice way of avoiding the question.

Is the Bible equivalent to God? Yes or no?

I wasn't trying to avoid the question. I apologize if I did so.

Or, to be precise, when did heavily edited Scripture engraved on a tombstone-like hunk of granite become God?

This is not God nor have I or anyone I know stated that it was God.
Even Roy Moore has stated that it wasn't the monument itself that was the issue but the Acknowledgment of the author.

BTW...just for consideration....

John 1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 ¶ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: