Actually, federal empoyees have guidelines that address the topic, some of which have been upheld legally. Federal employees are allowed a reasonable expectation of religious expression. For example, wearing religious jewelry, a bible on one's desk, your favorite verse on your monitor, etc etc. The practice is limited where it infringes on the job function, or imposes religion on others. Additionally federal employees are not forbidden from discussion of religious subjects in the same manner (infringement of job function or imposition on others).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Judge Roy Moore
- Thread starter Jailminister
- Start date
John, I did not suggest they were displayed for any purpose other than what you posted - to display how important the law has been to people in history. I take it then that all these should be limited to display for such purposes. Then would it follow that any persons taking offense at any such displays find validity for their complaint based on for what purpose the display was made. For example, if Judge Moore (or anyone else) displays the Ten Commandments (or some such document) in the rotunda of the ASC building for the purpose of acknowledging God, then the fear of any non-Christian/Jew/Muslim persons that they cannot receive a fair trial in the Supreme Court of Alabama is valid? If Judge Moore (or anyone else) displays the Ten Commandments (or some such document) in the rotunda of the ASC building for the purpose of recognizing the historical important of the Commandments in foundations of western legal thought, then the fear of any non-Christian/Jew/Muslim persons that they cannot receive a fair trial in the Supreme Court of Alabama is not valid? In the case of displays of long historical standing (such as Moses in the SCOTUS), would the validity/invalidity of the claim be based on the original reason for erecting the display or the current theory of why the display exists?
Reading some of these ideas, it appears some believe that if this judge had broken one of the commandments and lied about his reason placing the monument in the jucicial building, it would be allowed. If intent is what determines its legality, that is all that would be necessary.
Actually, federal empoyees have guidelines that address the topic, some of which have been upheld legally.</font>[/QUOTE] So do you agree that religious expression is a privilege dispensed by the government and not a immutable right?
What is "reasonable" for you is obviously not "reasonable" to me. I find nothing unreasonable about the way Judge Moore has chosen to decorate the rotunda of the Alabama court.
Which is an entirely subjective, not objective, matter. To some, any religious display would be objectionable. To others, a shrine would be fine.
All of this goes to a single point. Employees have a certain amount of liberty and authority over their work environment. Judge Moore's work environment because of his position was the whole building.
Glory Bound
New Member
It is my understanding that Judge Moore didn't have permission to install the statue. And I also understand that he was not the only judge there. It's not his building to decorate as he pleases. His choice of decoration displeased the other judges so he should remove it. He was out of line.
Jailminister
New Member
Glory bound said:
I am sorry to inform you but your understanding is wrong. Judge Moore ran on this platform and was elected by 70% to do exactly this. & out of the other justices support him as well as the Governor and the Atty General. He was in line with what he was elected to do and the federal judge was out of line to usurp authority over a state, where the constitution forbids him to do.
The constitution is a federal document, for a country built upon a federal union (one nation), governed by federal agencies, etc.
The feds do have the right to interpret the constitution, even if you and I disagree with their conclusion.
Bottom line is that you still haven't dealt with Romans 13 or Peters instruction to obey even the wicked authorities. You just keep dancing around it and telling people to wake up. Clever, but wasteful.
Jailminister
New Member
I thought we dealt with Romans 13 already. Maybe it was with someone else. Anyway, the best way to bring understanding on Romans 13 is to ask, "Who was Apostle Paul writing to at Rome?" The answer is found at Romans 1:7. Paul was writing to all in Rome who are beloved of God and called to be saints. He was not writing to the general population at Rome. He was specifically addressing the "called-out ones," the body of Christ.
If Apostle Paul was advocating obedience to the "law of the land," then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul killed if Paul was promoting "obedience" to civil authorities?
The world loves its own. If Paul belonged to Caesar, Caesar would not want to kill his own. If Paul was promoting, "Be subject to Caesar," why behead him? You don't destroy the very instrument that advertises for you. It does not make sense.
The Truth is that Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.
The apostate church likes to promote Romans 13 as meaning, "Obey Caesar," or "Obey the law of the land." How else can they interpret it? They have yoked themselves with Caesar through State incorporation. Their very life comes from the State. If they do not obey Caesar, Caesar will withdraw their corporate charter, lose their 501C-3 status, and they will die. State incorporated churches have only one choice if they are to survive - promote obedience to the State.
If Romans 13 does not mean, "Obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Obey those that have the rule over you" (Hebrews 13:17). Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the ministers of God to thee for good. Unlike worldly rulers, godly rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Therefore, do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same.
Oh by the way, I assume since you believe Romans 13 means we must obey everything the government says, then you must believe that slavery should have never been abolished. You see not only did the church get involved in that, but also some in the government rebelled against the majority.
If Apostle Paul was advocating obedience to the "law of the land," then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul killed if Paul was promoting "obedience" to civil authorities?
The world loves its own. If Paul belonged to Caesar, Caesar would not want to kill his own. If Paul was promoting, "Be subject to Caesar," why behead him? You don't destroy the very instrument that advertises for you. It does not make sense.
The Truth is that Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.
The apostate church likes to promote Romans 13 as meaning, "Obey Caesar," or "Obey the law of the land." How else can they interpret it? They have yoked themselves with Caesar through State incorporation. Their very life comes from the State. If they do not obey Caesar, Caesar will withdraw their corporate charter, lose their 501C-3 status, and they will die. State incorporated churches have only one choice if they are to survive - promote obedience to the State.
If Romans 13 does not mean, "Obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Obey those that have the rule over you" (Hebrews 13:17). Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the ministers of God to thee for good. Unlike worldly rulers, godly rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Therefore, do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same.
Oh by the way, I assume since you believe Romans 13 means we must obey everything the government says, then you must believe that slavery should have never been abolished. You see not only did the church get involved in that, but also some in the government rebelled against the majority.
newlady3203
New Member
Our country was founded on "In God We Trust". We are "One Nation Under God". Under God, following His will and His law.
I am ashamed to consider Judge Thompson a fellow American let alone a judge.
No matter what anyone says or claims, we will ALL have but ONE GOD to answer to. Judge Thompson has placed himself in the same place as those law makers and "so-called" Christian leaders who made it alright for gays to marry.
We as Christians, doesn't matter the demonination, are supposed to live by HIS will and HIS law. It is about time that we have a Christian uprising. We should be defending God, not hanging our heads!!!!!!!
In the end, God will gain all the glory and the final victory. I just pray that those poor souls who have decided to turn away from God's law, turn back before His final judgement. THE ABSOLUTE SUPREME LAW IS THE LAW OF GOD, period.
Those who don't like the Ten Commandments don't have to look at them. However, they too will be judged by His law. He is the supreme God and the only God, no matter what others think and feel and someday, hopefully soon, He will prove that very thing.
I am ashamed to consider Judge Thompson a fellow American let alone a judge.
No matter what anyone says or claims, we will ALL have but ONE GOD to answer to. Judge Thompson has placed himself in the same place as those law makers and "so-called" Christian leaders who made it alright for gays to marry.
We as Christians, doesn't matter the demonination, are supposed to live by HIS will and HIS law. It is about time that we have a Christian uprising. We should be defending God, not hanging our heads!!!!!!!
In the end, God will gain all the glory and the final victory. I just pray that those poor souls who have decided to turn away from God's law, turn back before His final judgement. THE ABSOLUTE SUPREME LAW IS THE LAW OF GOD, period.
Those who don't like the Ten Commandments don't have to look at them. However, they too will be judged by His law. He is the supreme God and the only God, no matter what others think and feel and someday, hopefully soon, He will prove that very thing.
1. Paul was beheaded from proclaiming the "Christ is Lord" message.
2. (in stunned silence that such an interpretation is put forth...) So, you have equated elder in the church (Heb. 13:17) with Romans 13.
Excuse me a second.
No, it is actually more like:
So, in Romans 13, where Paul says that these leaders are to protect the innocent and punish the guilty and that it does not bear the sword of execution in vain (Paul believed in capital punishment, btw), that this is the church.
3. I respectfully decline your invitation to chase other rabbit trails here.
Remember when Peter said that if you suffer as an evildoer that it is not suffering for righteousness' sake? You break the law, you are a criminal. You have a severe problem with authority.
Actually, this nation was founded on the issue of "No Taxation Without Representation".
IN GOD WE TRUST, designated as the U. S. National Motto by Congress in 1956, originated during the Civil War as an inscription for U.S. coins, although it was used by Francis Scott Key in a slightly different form when he wrote The Star Spangled Banner in 1814. (the final verse reads And this be our Motto - In God is our Trust!)
Our use of the phrases "In God We Trust" and "Under God" have been codified since the 1950's, when they were added to the pledge and as our motto. While they recognise humility for a higher power, they do not establish a belief in a specific higher power, and as such, are not vilations of the Amendment I establishment clause.
1. Such thinking is clearly unbiblical. In fact, Peter and Paul and John were so concerned about pagan Rome, that they are SILENT on being politically active.
A "christian uprising"? What are you going to do, shoot someone, vandalize property? Yes, evangelism is all about force and compulsion. Nice Islamic theology mixed in with Christian ideas.
2. That is done by evangelism and by demonstrating the limitless worth of the riches found in Christ by persuading others to believe in Him.
3. Turning to God's law never saved anyone. Nice to see the connection again between God and this idol, errr, carved rock. Is this America or another exodus from Egypt?
Jailminister
New Member
Gunther said:
2)Well, The Romans thought Paul was trying to establish a government. The threat was there. Ignore that fact if you want. Before you sit in your high place and pass judgement on me(which you probably will some day anyway), You might consider the fact that if a law violates what is right, you had better follow evry jot and tiddle of the law or you are a hypocrite. By the way how do you justify the legality of slavery?
WAKE UP!!!!
1)Good, good bye.
2)Well, The Romans thought Paul was trying to establish a government. The threat was there. Ignore that fact if you want. Before you sit in your high place and pass judgement on me(which you probably will some day anyway), You might consider the fact that if a law violates what is right, you had better follow evry jot and tiddle of the law or you are a hypocrite. By the way how do you justify the legality of slavery?
WAKE UP!!!!
ScottEmerson
Active Member
1)Good, good bye.
2)Well, The Romans thought Paul was trying to establish a government. The threat was there. Ignore that fact if you want. Before you sit in your high place and pass judgement on me(which you probably will some day anyway), You might consider the fact that if a law violates what is right, you had better follow evry jot and tiddle of the law or you are a hypocrite. By the way how do you justify the legality of slavery?
WAKE UP!!!! </font>[/QUOTE]THERE IS NO SPIRITUAL LAW BEING VIOLATED BY THE TAKING DOWN OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN MONTGOMERY!
Phew, sorry for the yelling. I usually try to refrain from doing that.
newlady3203
New Member
No one considered the "rock" as you call it an idol.
No, the ten commandments and God's law never saved a soul. However, once you have received the gift of salvation from God, He fully expects us to live FOR HIM IN HIS WILL!
THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WHAT DENOMINATION WE ARE. AS CHRISTIANS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LIVE ACCORDING TO HIS WORD AND HIS LAW AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL "GOOD NEWS" OF SALVATION.
WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ASHAMED TO STAND UP FOR OUR BELIEFS AS CHRISTIANS. LET US NOT BE RAINY DAY CHRISTIANS AND ONLY READ THE PARTS OF THE BIBLE THAT ARE EASY TO LIVE BY.
THE LORD WILL DEAL WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, AND I PRAY THAT IT IS SOON, BUT AS CHRISTIANS WE NEED TO STAY FIRMLY, AND NARROWLY IN HIS WILL.
No, the ten commandments and God's law never saved a soul. However, once you have received the gift of salvation from God, He fully expects us to live FOR HIM IN HIS WILL!
THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WHAT DENOMINATION WE ARE. AS CHRISTIANS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LIVE ACCORDING TO HIS WORD AND HIS LAW AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL "GOOD NEWS" OF SALVATION.
WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ASHAMED TO STAND UP FOR OUR BELIEFS AS CHRISTIANS. LET US NOT BE RAINY DAY CHRISTIANS AND ONLY READ THE PARTS OF THE BIBLE THAT ARE EASY TO LIVE BY.
THE LORD WILL DEAL WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, AND I PRAY THAT IT IS SOON, BUT AS CHRISTIANS WE NEED TO STAY FIRMLY, AND NARROWLY IN HIS WILL.
Jailminister
New Member
Scott E yelled:
WAKE UP!!!!
Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the NATIONS that forget God.
WAKE UP!!!!
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the NATIONS that forget God.
WAKE UP!!!! </font>[/QUOTE]And taking the Ten Commandments down makes us forget God? Funny - if we need the Ten Commandments to have us remember God, then we're very, very bad off, and have ALREADY forgotten God.
Still no Scriptural principle is violated by the removal of the decalogue.
Jailminister
New Member
Still no Scriptural principle is violated by the removal of the decalogue.
Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the NATIONS that forget God.
Still no Scriptural principle is violated by the removal of the decalogue.
Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the NATIONS that forget God.
Still no Scriptural principle is violated by the removal of the decalogue.
Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the NATIONS that forget God.
Still no Scriptural principle is violated by the removal of the decalogue.
Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the NATIONS that forget God.
WAKE UP!!!!
Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the NATIONS that forget God.
Still no Scriptural principle is violated by the removal of the decalogue.
Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the NATIONS that forget God.
Still no Scriptural principle is violated by the removal of the decalogue.
Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the NATIONS that forget God.
Still no Scriptural principle is violated by the removal of the decalogue.
Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the NATIONS that forget God.
WAKE UP!!!!
