Roy Moore announces candidacy in Alabama gubernatorial race

Thanks very much, y'all. I have wondered for the longest what the heck it meant.

 

I have my doubts that once Moore supporters found out I thought he was a loon and violated the establishment clause with his 2 ton rock would really care to have lunch with me, but you never know, could make for an interesting tuna sandwich.

Please note: How far you have come is not an accurate indicator of how far you need to go.

 

Give it a rest, G2C, we're long past your effort to derail the discussion.

 

Marcia,

Rom 13, is a challange for sure. 1 Pet tells slaves to submit to good and harsh masters alike. That is a challange, should the black americans still be slaves? Or should they have refraind form civil disobedeance? And titus 3 just seems to be saying that we should try to be good citizens even in trying times.

There are several ways I could answer, but I'll try a unique approach. It is built into our constitution that we can resist tyranny. Therefore, the founders and the constituion overrule any one who would try to take away our freedom. If I resist a tyrant, I am being true to an authority greater than the tyrant, even if he is a gov official, because his authority comes from the constitution. Therefore, if he is clearly in opposisition to the constitution he no longer has any real authority. Therefore, I would not be disobeying the civil authority, as it were. Our founding documents say all men are created equal. So when the civil rights blacks risisted the laws that said they had to be second class citizens they were not resisting the civil authority, as it were, because the ultimate authority was the founding documents in which the nation was founded and on which it is supposed to be governed. I reserve the right to resist a supposed authority who has no authority by vertue of being in violation of the constituion and the intient of our founders.

Ie if a sheriff is going to ship me to Mexico I can resist because he has no such authority, and is not a true civil authority in this instance if he trys to do such a thing.

I don't know if I worded that well, but I think that is a good argument.

 

Hey you were the one "offended" not me (read first page). I tried to get the thing back on topic but you and CK4 had to get the last word in and then run to the holier then thou high ground of "getting back to the topic on hand".

 

OKay - you have the last word G2C. Can we stick to the topic now?

Since Judge Moore has proven that he cannot obey the law I have no interest in him as my governor.

 

CK4,

But when he is your governor, I am glad to know you will be a good citizen and support him. Just wanted to rub it in a little. LOL. Unless, something bad crops up, I have a feeling he will win. I don't know enough about him to know if he is a wise choice, but I think he made a proper stand on the monument. Because I don't see the legal grounds the other judge had to make him remove it. Therefore, I don't see how he disobeyed a law.

But to carry your logic farther, you would have to have a problem with our founders and our entire nation to since they rebelled form their civil authority. Unless, of course you think he was just completely wrong with the monument thing. But if he was how so?

 

Bunyon,

But when he is your governor, I am glad to know you will be a good citizen and support him.

I know this was directed toward C4K and not to me, but "support" would be a strong word. I would continue to obey the law. And, to the extent that I agree with him, I would support him.

But to carry your logic farther, you would have to have a problem with our founders and our entire nation to since they rebelled form their civil authority. Unless, of course you think he was just completely wrong with the monument thing. But if he was how so?

For me, at least, this is an easy answer (and I expect for C4K, too, though his may differ): I strongly agree with what the Founders did but they did not do it from the ambition of attaining political power, as I believe Moore did. Further, in the early part of the Revolution, our Founders objected to Parliament's breaking of the law, "a long train of abuses and usurpations" that was spelled out in detail in the Declaration. They were abuses against the "rights of Englishmen" to begin with. Again, Moore took his action as a public official and disobeyed the judge's order as a public official. Both points distinguish Moore's actions from the Revolution (yes, I recognize some parallels on the first point); the second one is part of why I object to Moore (besides the fact I don't trust his motive of gaining higher political office)

 

Do you think he will win? And I wonder if the courts will try to force him to take the ten commandments off the wall of the executive mansion? That will be an intersting battle to watch. The executive branch going head to head with the judicial brance.

 

The Founders had no choice - they had virtually been alienated by the King. I essence, after they were proclaimed to be in rebellion in December 1775 they had no government to be subject to. Their declaration seven months later merely acknowledged a fact.

If Judge Moore become governor I will submit to his authority as my governor. I will pray for his, but I will not support him politically.

 

I'm afraid he will. If the ten commandments are already there I don't think they will force him to take it down, and he might have an argument, under current law, that it is his residence and that he should get a little more deference there.

 

A point of historical correction and clarification: "the long train of abuses" charge was directed at the King. The early period I referred to was the Stamp Act and Intolerable Act period.

 

"If Judge Moore become governor I will submit to his authority as my governor. I will pray for his, but I will not support him politically"------------------------------------------------------

I know, I'm just picking on you.

"that it is his residence and that he should get a little more deference there. "------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought the building, like the White House, was a public building that happened to have residence within it. For instance the Foyer area where the public is recieved.

 

And that will be the argument on the other side. You're right that it is a public building but Moore may get a little more deference in that it would be his residence, especially if he put it in the private, living quarter area. Which he won't do--he'll tack it to his front door, or have the monument moved to the foyer (though I don't think he'll actually have access to the monument).

 

We will see. But I think he could just ignore them, because the judicial system relys on the executive branch to carry out its edicts. And he could just chooe not to enforce their edict. And as long as a repub is in the presidents chair, hopefully, the fed courts wont be able to push and edict on him either. If nothing else, moore has woke a lot of Chsritians up to how overzelous some powers are at making sure no Christian overtone is ever seen in public. And the growing dictitorial power of the courts.

 

Bunyon,

If nothing else, moore has woken a lot of Christians up to how overzealous some powers are at making sure no Christian overtone is ever seen in public.

On that we're agreed.

 

Not at all. Moore's monument was placed for a primarily religious purpose, thuse respecting an establishment of relision, thus violating Amendment I.

You're right. It requires only the preventing of governmental respecting of an establishment of religion.

The intent ot the monument was religious in nature, and Moore said so publicly.

No it doesn't. In this case, it constitutioes a respecting of the establishment of religion. It should therefore go, and it did.

It did not. It had the KJV Protestant version of the Ten Commandments on the top, and the words from the DofI "The Laws of natuer and of Nature's God" on the side. It was clearly religions in nature, which Moore affirmed, and was hence a violation of Amendment I.

When the Government starts respecting or endorsing religion, even if that religion is yours, then the erosion process upon your right to free excercise thereof begins.

 

"When the Government starts respecting or endorsing religion, even if that religion is yours, then the erosion process upon your right to free excercise thereof begins."---------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure what you are talking about my friend. We have always prayed before every senate and house meeting, and and swore to God in our courts. Always! Just who do you think we were acknowledging all of those years? We don't establish a state church, that does not mean we can't recognize our God in public places and in our govenment. We have even had a Christian chaplin in our senate forever.

And yet we are the freest society that has ever existed. The folks who feel like you do, are a strange lot. Concerned that the same old practices the we have always done, are now all of a sudden a threat to our freedom, when in fact they have always been done, and we still became the freest nation on Earth.

Jonv, now is the time you should ask yourself just where does freedom come from, and who is it exactly that insures it?

 

I wasn't talking about a governing body deciding for themselves to open a session with prayer. And, we aren't required to swear to God in our courts. In fact, many Christians, such as the Shakers, don't (citing scripture caling for yes being yes and no being no).

Moore's 10C display went beyond simply recognizing God. It was respecting the establishment of religion.

No problem there, since the Senate does so voluntarily for themselves and themselves alone.

I'd hardly call holding to COnstituonal rights for all as a strange lot.

You're addressing a matter of faith. I'm addressing the matter of law. Do you want your government respecting the establishment of religion? Yes or no? I'm not talking about displays that recognize our religious history (those are permissible, and SCOTUS has ruled so several times). I'm not talking about a governing body voluntarily opening theri session with prayer. I'm talking about the respecting of and establishment of religion.

Getting back to the topic of discussion. Roy Moore violated Amendment I. Period, plain and simple. Why anyone would consider him fit for office is beyond me, as he has demonstrated a lack of respect for the law.

 

"- The 5,280-pound granite monument at the center of controversy involving Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore contains more than just the Ten Commandments. As shown below, it also displays the national motto -- "In God We Trust"-- as well as words from the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Judiciary Act."

A matter of law, Indeed!

Well Jonv, it does in fact have other historical pharses from our documents, including the charter of the state of Alabama. So it sould have past the litmus test. But in the acidic solution of antichristian judicial activism, nothing with any hint of Christ will be tolerated. The folks in D.C. need to get a mask to protect them form all the marble dust that will be in the air if they ever decide to get rid of all the Ten Commandmant depictions and other Christian references in that place.

The strange thing is folks like you are so threatened by things that are common in our history and our heritage. The ten commandmants have been hung in schools, courts, and other gov buildings since the birth of our nation, now we are supposed to believe all of a sudden it is a threat to our freedom, when it has always been apart of who we are. We are the freest nation on Earth and now the very things that have always been common place are threatening to cause us to loose that freedom. Illogical!

"It was respecting the establishment of religion."--------------------------------------

Moore did nothing to establish or fund a church or denomination. You don't understand the constitution.