Roy Moore continued. Who are the law breakers?

[Dale-c]

The people of Alabama saw right through Moore's ambition to use the Lord for political gain

That is pure speculation and I have seen absolutely zero evidence of it. PLease prove your accusation.

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

No, who you vote for is your own business, Siding with the ACLU when they attack Christianity IS a "vote against Christianity" whether you realize it or not.

And good riddance to your glory-seeking ways.

Your accusation has no merit. PLease refrain from making such accusations without evidence!

 

[Dale-c]

He thought he could fool the people of Alabama with his "stand for God."

I think that is a disgrace.

And I think your ignorance of Biblical and historical law to be a disgrace. But the most disgraceful is when Christians side with the ACLU in an antiChrist battle!

 

[Gunther]

Dale, standing for the 10 commandments isn't a stand for Christianity. Your theology of salvation and sanctification is so pathetic, only your support for Moore eclipses it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Say goodbye to any acknowledgment of God in Alabama government.

It is obvious Dale that you are not an Alabamian. Virtually every political ad in the state highlighted the individual candidate's faith and acknowledgement of God.

Moore has no monopoly on faith in the great state of Alabama.

 

[Dale-c]

Thank you for your kind words my friend. I will not return cursing for cursing, or railing for railing, but instead a blessing. May the Lord honour and bless you as you strive to serve Him.

Look, I am not trying to be unfriendly here. Also, I know most politicians in Alabama claim to be Christian. It is after deep in the Bible belt.

Also, this isn't just about Roy Moore. It is just very frustrating to me that when a Christian in an elected position stands for God and righteousness against the ACLU he is called a disgrace, (remember you were the one that brought that term up)

Look, you may not disagree with him, your understanding of the Bible may be such that you think he is wrong. But did it ever occur to your that he might actually think he was actually doing his duty?
His first trial cost him almost $500,000 and he refused to take taxpayer money from the state.

I can't make you change your mind in the issue, but please stop making unfounded accusations about the man's sincerity.

I could easily say that you know he is right but are too afraid to admit it but that would only be speculation.

PLease, before you accuse me of cursing and railing, please back up this statement:

The people of Alabama saw right through Moore's ambition to use the Lord for political gain.

He thought he could fool the people of Alabama with his "stand for God."

There is simply no proof that I have seen, or even evidence to support any dishonesty on his part.

One last thing..

Virtually every political ad in the state highlighted the individual candidate's faith and acknowledgement of God.

Yes, but what will they do when they are called to act on it, and will they GOVERN Biblically and Lawfully?
We shall see.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Also, this isn't just about Roy Moore. It is just very frustrating to me that when a Christian in an elected position stands for God and righteousness against the ACLU he is called a disgrace, (remember you were the one that brought that term up)

No Dale, look back, you used the term "disgrace" first to refer to those of us who would not support Moore. It was your term, not mine. Here are your words

Roy Moore stood against tyranny and he is blasted by Christians and that I believe is a disgrace.

We will never know Moore's heart - I am very suspicious of a man who pulls a publicity stunt then runs for governor the next election. Moore is a politician.

 

[Dale-c]

Really, quickly and I dont' have much time, you are right, I did use the word drsgrace first.

As for your suspicions, they are just that. No proof.
No, if he had been a politician, he wouldn't have stood when it cost him.
Please do not call it a publicity stunt when you have zero evidence to back the statement up.
If you do, have evidence, please provide it, I would like to know.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Really, quickly and I dont' have much time, you are right, I did use the word drsgrace first.

As for your suspicions, they are just that. No proof.
No, if he had been a politician, he wouldn't have stood when it cost him.
Please do not call it a publicity stunt when you have zero evidence to back the statement up.
If you do, have evidence, please provide it, I would like to know.

Dale,

C4K DID state his evidence. Moore did a big publicity stunt (what else can you call it), then ran for governor in the next election. He loves attention. I also resent your calling your brothers and sisters disgraceful if they don't vote for Moore, and your comparing Democrats and Nazis. You seem to have lost all reason in regards to Moore.

How do you know the other candidates, including Governor Riley, are not devout Christians as well?

Putting the 10 Commandments on a giant tombstone in a state courthouse is not acknowledging God...it is using the power of his state office to promote his own religion onto all the good citizens of Alabama. Inappropriate and illegal, IMO.

May God bless the good people of the state of Alabama! They have apparently learned a lot since electing that racist, George Wallace.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Like many Alabamians, I told severla people after his little show that his next step was to run for Governor.

Hopefully he has that out of his system now.

 

[LadyEagle]

Dale-c, :thumbs:

 

[tragic_pizza]

Dale-c, :thumbs:

Another pithy and verbose assertion from LE...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Are there any Alabamians on the BB who supported Moore?

 

[Dale-c]

Moore did a big publicity stunt (what else can you call it)

I would call it doing his duty and standing for the acknowledgement of God.
Again, you have no proof of his motives.


By the way, why did you all vote for Riley when he put up a Ten Commandments display in the capitol? Or was it because he did it the "right" way, the way that doesn't say that God is sovereign?

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Yesterday, Alabama Gov. Bob Riley opened an exhibit at the Capitol that included copies of the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The Rutherford Institute said Pake posted the 11-by-14 inch copy of the Ten Commandments in 1994 and received no complaints until August this year, when the head of the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union was quoted in a newspaper story.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"It's a religious display in a state building that's not supposed to be promoting one religion over another, and it should come down," Rita Sklar, the chapter's executive director, said at the time.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Sklar said yesterday she had not contacted Pake nor viewed the display in the courtroom. She would not comment on whether the modified display should be taken down.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Riley's exhibit in Montgomery, Ala., represents a promise he made to supporters of Moore's massive granite monument removed by court order from the state judicial building. A federal judge held that the monument, installed by Moore two years ago, violated the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The plaque was given to Riley by supporters of the 2 1/2-ton Ten Commandments monument.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Just as the Ten Commandments are exhibited in similar displays in the U.S. Supreme Court and in our nation's Capitol building, I feel it is important to display them in our Capitol, as well," the Republican said in a statement.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Riley and Alabama's attorney general included other historical documents, including the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, in the display to make it more legally defensible than the Moore monument, the governor's spokesman said.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"We want the Ten Commandments to stay in the Capitol, and in order to achieve that goal, we had to hang them in a way that judges in court rulings have instructed," said spokesman David Azbell.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Richard Cohen, attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which sued to have the large monument removed, said the center would wait to see what statements Riley makes about the plaque before deciding whether to sue.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Teaching history by state officials is not unconstitutional," Cohen said. "Promoting religion is."[/FONT][/FONT]

What was the differnce between Riley's display and Moore's display?
I know the difference, but how do you as Christians justify that?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Are there any Alabamians on the BB who supported Moore?

Alabamians who support Moore aren't coherent enough to post on a BB...

:laugh:

KIDDING!

(a little)

:laugh:

 

[Gunther]

Who would have guessed that LE would rally behind the gullible and uninformed?

 

[Dale-c]

Who would have guessed that LE would rally behind the gullible and uninformed?

If I am uninformed, please inform me. BTW, have you bothered to read his book to get his side of the story?

I didn't start this post for name calling.
If there is info that I do not know that explains why Moore is so wrong, please let me know what it is.

Perhaps LE simply sides with Chistians like Roy Moore rather than Aithiests like the ACLU in battles for Christianity.

Again, I would like to know where I am "misinformed"

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Your constant unmerited charge that those who saw through Moore voted with the atheists is getting old Dale. The people of Alabama have spoken, and spoken rightly IMHO,


Time to get a new hobby horse friend.

 

[Dale-c]

Your constant unmerited charge that those who saw through Moore voted with the atheists is getting old Dale.

The unmerited charge that Moore was just a fake, in it for the political gain is an unmerited charge.

No one has answered why Rileys display was ok but Moores wasn't. Some have even implied that the display was wrong anyway, regardles of the judges opinion.


As far as a hobby horse....tell that to the ACLU as they try to eradicate all recognition of God.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Ah yes, all we wicked Alabamians have voted for the ACLU to eradicate all acknowledgement of God in our state.

Oh well, I guess we will just have to suffer the conequences.

BTW - I admire Gov Riley for the wisdom to display important legal documents in a way which is not going to bring about their removal. Alabama Republicans made the right choice.

Perhaps the next time Indiana holds elections we Alabamians should tell you how to vote and then condemn you if you don't do it our way.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

No one has answered why Rileys display was ok but Moores wasn't. Some have even implied that the display was wrong anyway, regardles of the judges opinion.

Dale,

The reason that Riley's display was deemed appropriate, where Moore's was not, has to do with a concept established by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Warren Burger. It is called the "Lemon Test". It is based on the principles in the Everson v. Board of Education case, and decided in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The test is worded thusly:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Subsequent cases have interpreted this to mean that a display of the commandments on public property are acceptable if they are part of a larger display of secular documents of historic significance, thus meeting the conditions of the Lemon Test.

Now, personally, I find that putting a few other documents with the commandments to make them palatable to be disingenuous, as it is usually used to sanitize them for display on public property, while the primary intent is still to promote religion. However, that is current case law, and it has been upheld in many cases.

To read more on the Lemon Test, Google it, or you can start with the link below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test

Hopefully this will answer your question.