Roy Moore continued. Who are the law breakers?

Ha! Even the Law that was handed down by God to Moses was in the end perverted by men. How on earth do you think a law made by men could ever stand when God's own Words didn't stand! (Of course I believe God will correct that in the future)

Thompson wouldn't have been the last word if Moore had filed that appeal! (we're going in circles)

The soldiers in Germany were not held accountable for their actions by the World Court, only the leaders. (do you actually read history for yourself?)

I fully realize you weren't talking about swearing. But now you are implying that if talk about God but don't mean it in the way Moore does than we are taking God's name in vain? If so, you are going from bad to worse!

You and I are talking in circles. So as not to offend my brother in Christ I am hereby stepping out of this conversation.

 

Dale-c

At the risk of being accused, as you began the other thread, as one who would gas Jews, my response:

First of all, I am convinced that the monument Chief Justice Moore placed in the courthouse was not a violation of the First Amendment. There is no way that it was an establishment of religion or even close to one. Those who believe it was should go back and read some early American and English history to see what an established church was.

That is where my agreement with Moore ends.

Judge Moore, in the specific action was told to remove the monument from the courthouse, not told not to acknowledge God. He was removed from the bench because he disobeyed the order of a federal judge. I believe that judge was wrong in his view of the Constitution, but his authority was to uphold Constitutional law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, who have the authority to pass on the validity of laws. I also disagree with current Supreme Court jurisprudence, based on the wrongly decided Everson v. Board of Education, that the First Amendment applies to the states.

Though I think that the opinion was incorrect, the judge had the legal authority to do so. In doing so, he did not violate C J Moore's or anyone else right to free exercise of his religion.

Judge Moore was also dishonest to argue that the Alabama Constitution required that he place the monument. It no more required it than the U.S. Constitution prohibited it. Had it been required, it would have been done a long time ago, unless Moore is so prideful as to claim that all Alabama public officials since the 1901 Constitution went into effect were derelict in their duties and that he was also the first devout one.

His primary duty as a judge is not to do avoid doing anything against Scripture, it is to interpret the law and judge cases. In any case, Scripture did not require that he place the monument there any more than the Alabama Constitution.

He was wrong to defy the court order. If I remember the chronology of the case correctly, he missed the opportunity to ask for a continuance or a stay of the order arguing that he wasn't aware of the time limit. Had you or me been standing in front of Judge Moore's bench and argued that we're entitled to be forgiven a breach of the law because we "didn't know about it", he would have properly struck the gavel on our heads before he hit the bench with it. He was either incompetent, stupid, or dishonest to say he didn't know about it and he should have known better than to make such an argument.

 

Dale,

He did say that he placed the monument because the Alabama Constitution required that he acknowledge God and that the monument was in pursuance of that requirement. Not spin. I didn't listen to spin from either side of the debate but read his book and read the court documents. We may be saying the same thing slightly differently, though.

It's a good point but the difference is that the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution and inferior judges are not free to disregard such previous judgements. If state judges or state officials were free to pass judgement on the orders of federal judges we would face numerous constitutional crises every time the Supreme Court was in session. Someone has to have the final voice in passing on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and its applicability. There are a couple of options under our Constitution: impeachment (though I don't believe that some misinterpretation of the Constitution rises to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor" under the meaning that term was passed down in English (from whence the term originated) history; plus opening the use of impeachment to such uses would make Constitutional interpretation even more of a political football than it is now) and appointment of judges.

As I said before, that doesn't mean I believe SCOTUS is right all the time. I disagree with current Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Establishment Clause, incorporation (by which the Bill of Rights is applied to the states "through" the 14th Amendment), Roe v. Wade and it sickening progeny, some recent death penalty decision, the view of substantive due process by which the Court passes on legislation in addition to simple criminal procedure, eminent domain, etc., etc.

His oath (“I, [Roy S. Moore], solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue to be a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God.”) didn't require that he place the monument, nor did the U.S. Constitution or the Alabama Constitution. Federal judges are superior to state judges, as the U.S. Constitution is supreme over state constitutions. If someone stood in Judge Moore's courtroom after Moore had unconstitutionally taken his property and Moore had agreed with that taking, that individual would have the right to appeal, not to take the law into his own hands. Moore had the right to appeal and he lost.

 

Dale, under our system of government, the people are sovereign. Not vox populi vox Dei, but nonetheless sovereign as affects political issues.

 

Mr. Moore.....buh bye!

From MSNBC:

 

A riduculous statement. God will continue to be acknowledged whenever, like Parker and Moore, the Name will bring recognition and the participaion of the Far Right. Riley has used the Name unabashedly, as have about all the other candidates in the primaries.

 

Dale, in answer to your questions to me, did you read the middle paragraphs of my 12:02pm post from June 5?

As to Tom Parker, he wrote ONE opinion in his term on the bench. In addition to the right values, I also expect competence. Yeah, yeah, I understand he has other duties, but I expect him to do his primary job as justice, and, IMO, that includes writing more than one opinion in the many that are written.

 

Hyperbole reigns supreme, eh?

Painting with a broad brush means one is generally completely wrong. Most Christians
do not hide God away in their private lives; there are, however, those of us who see no correlation between the god of political hopefuls and the God who is manifest in Jesus Christ.

Just because someone doesn't vote [pb]your[/b] way doesn't make them a "bad Christian." You should apologize.

 

Good bye Roy. And good riddance to your glory-seeking ways. Unfortunately, many so-called christians are actually gullible enough to think he was right in what he did.

Maybe criminal Roy will start something productive. Perhaps he can start looking for that ever elusive clue.

 

It's politics, Dale. Roy stuck it out there, and he got it cut off of him, simple as that.

You equate a vote against Moore as a vote against Christianity. I find that insulting, since I am a Christian, yet I can safely say that Roy Moore does not speak for me.