Roy Moore continued. Who are the law breakers?

[Dale-c]

Yes, the Lemon test. I don't agree with the Lemon test.
THe point is that if it is purely secualr in nature, then it is ok right?
That is my whole problem.
Riley then by making it "secular" thus made God's name vain, weak and powerless. Thus no threat to the ACLU.

That is my whole problem.
Courts don't make law. They make decisions based on the law.
Courts are to apply the law to circumstances.
If you steal, the judge doesn't decide if that was wrong, he only applies the law that stealing is wrong.
His interpretation only goes as far as whether or not yourv action was to actually steal. Not if stealing is wrong.



C4K: as far as Indiana, we have our own problems here where legislative sessions can't be opened in prayer, in Jesus name anymore. THey can still pray, but just not to OUR God.

To pray to anyone else would be idolatry. Now as far as I know, they just don't pray at all anymore.


As far as telling you what to do in Alabama, why don't you tell that to the federal judge? He was butting in to Alabama business where he didn't belong.
This is my business for two reasons, first the battle for Christianity is for all Christians, second, what they can do to Alabama, they have/will do to Indiana.
So you admire Riley for making the Ten Commandments purley secular in nature? Removing from them the acknowledgement of God?
And most importantly, doing it in a way that wouldn't cost him anything. Now who is the "politician out for political gain"?Who gained more from politics?
Riley is governor an Moore is without a job and you say Riley was the principled one and Moore was the dishonest politician?
Please, I would expect better discernment from you.
I

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Riley merely worked within the law, in no wise weakening God or his words. Displaying the commandments with other documents of historic law cannot harm them, or the other documents.

Whether or not you agree with the Lemon Test, it is how SCOTUS has interpreted the law for such displays, although they have been very inconsistent in the application of it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have to say that I am amazed that the non-election of a minor Alabama Republican to represent his party can be seen as such a threat to Christianity. Somehow I think Christianity in Alabama, and Indiana, will survive without Roy Moore.

 

[Dale-c]

The election is not the important thing. For that matter neither you nor I are neccessary to further the Gospel as God is not dependent on men.
As I have said before, it is up to you to decide who to vote for. I would have voted for Moore if I had been there. You did not. That is behind us now.
The battle that remains is the battle of God being acknowledged as the source of our Law.
MP doesn't seem to think that God should be the source of our law.
you on the other hand (C4K to avoid confusion) have seemed to have had great discernment in many of the other posts that you have made in other topics that I have read, this being one of the few exceptions.

The fact remains that Riley had to make his display "secular" and thus taking away any meaning from it that would acknowledge the Christian God over our laws.

The State is seperate from the Church and the Chuch is seperate from the Family but all are under God. All answer to God for the way in which they carry out their duties. None can carry those duties out without acknowledging who delegated that authority to them.

This statement is not taken lightly but Riley in reducing the ten commandments to a secular document acceptable to the federal courts and the ACLU has made the name of God to be in vain. That is he took the significance and substance out of the first commandment.

By the way, I am learning a lot from this discussion. It is forcing me to study. I originaly posted if you recall to ask for prayer for the campaign. I was not looking for a debate but that is what I got. I chose to stand my ground for what I belive is an affront against OUR God.
I do belive he is OUR God but that many Christians don't realize the attacks against Him.

I look forward to hearing back from you an please note that I am not in any way upset with or at any of you.
My intent is to only attack the issue and not people, if I have crossed that line I apologize.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Apology accepted Dale.

I trust we will see more of you.

I differ from many here in that in my study of US political history (which I have studied to some extent) our forefathers were careful to establish a sccular state. Based on Bible principles admittedly, but still a secular state.

I am a firm believer that separation of church and state goes both ways. No state in the church and no church in the state.

I am sure we will "cross swords" again.

 

[Dale-c]

IF my memory serves me correctly. didn't you supports Peroutka in '04?

I was thinking that you did.
THe thing is that he was one of the most vocal supporters of Moore.

That is where we disagree...I firmly belive that we did NOT have a secular government but one seperate from the CHurch.
ie, one that answeres to God and not the Church. It does work both ways, I agree.
BTW, how to you define secular
?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Dale,

There is no way the first 4 commandments can be secular, as they deal exclusively with God. Displaying them with other documents doesn't make God's name in vain. I would posit however, that a huge granite monument is a graven image.

I believe I have stuck to issues and hope I have not insulted you. However, I think your adoration of Mr. Moore, and questioning the faith of Gov. Riley, goes beyond reason. As I don't live in Alabama, this only concerns me as to the bigger issue of protecting the separation of religion and government, which has given the US one of the most diverse and vibrant exercise of faith in the world. I find it interesting that European nations with state churches, supported by tax dollars, are some of the most secular and atheistic in the world. Ever wonder why that is?

 

[fromtheright]

MP,

It's an interesting question but I think the answer is found in the French Revolution and the strong secular Enlightenment influences, not the state church. How many of them have state churches now?

I would also differ with you as to the extent of your point re separation giving us our diversity. As a general matter, yes, not having an established church very much allows that diversity to flourish, much as James Madison, in applying his Federalist # 10 argument re factions to religions, said it would. Where I differ with you on that point is that the modern, strict interpretation of "separation" has not benefitted society. Disallowing prayer at football games and an innocent prayer by a rabbi at a Baccalaureat (sp?) service, prayers that go back decades, or further in the case of Baccalaureat services (I would venture to guess at least as far as the 18th century), have done nothing to foster diversity; or even more strongly, prayers that certainly did nothing to raise a specter of establishment in the many years they were practiced.

 

[Dale-c]

I am all for seperation of Church and state, I am totally opposed to a state church. That is not at all what this is about.
I am simply stating that the state is under God just like everyone else

BTW, you have not offended me and besides, I don't get my feelings hurt easily. SO you are fine.

 

[fromtheright]

MP,

...and I'll throw in my two pennies on the Lemon test. You're right it is current law based on Supreme Court jurisprudence. But we are still free to debate whether it is a correct interpretation of the First Amendment. Early American history and the debate surrounding the Establishment clause in no way supports such a strict interpretation as stated in Lemon or even Everson v. Board of Education.

 

[Dale-c]

You're right it is current law based on Supreme Court jurisprudence.

It is only "law" if courts can make law which I have tried to get across that they don't make law.
They interpret and apply the law for specific instances.
They don't make law.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It is only "law" if courts can make law which I have tried to get across that they don't make law.
They interpret and apply the law for specific instances.
They don't make law.

And SCOTUS has duly interpreted and applied the law to instances of displaying religious texts on public property.

 

[Dale-c]

And SCOTUS has duly interpreted and applied the law to instances of displaying religious texts on public property.

Would that have been congress that was the offending party?
I seem to remember them being the one that couldn't establish a religion.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Would that have been congress that was the offending party?
I seem to remember them being the one that couldn't establish a religion.

Yes, Congress makes the laws, and the establishment clause of the1st Amendment to the Constitution prohibits them making a law respecting the establishment of religion. Then the 14th Amendment extends such prohibitions to the several state governments. Part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Which effectively prohibits state governments from infringing on any part of the Bill of Rights or any other part of the Constitution. This is only right if you think about it...how could a state be allowed to infringe on rights that are guaranteed under federal law? Could Alabama decide to renew slavery? Could they choose to raise the voting age to 21 again? Nope! The Constitution is superior to state law.

Therefore, since Congress cannot respect the establishment of religion, neither can the state government.

BTW, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is also why illegal immigrants can have so-called "anchor babies"...born in the US, you are automatically a citizen, per said section.

For the edification of all, here is the 14th Amendment in its entirety:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ofthe United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due processof law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicialofficers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, isdenied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as amember of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officerof any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Dale-c]

For what it is worth, most state constitutions have a similar clause.

But the important thing is, Moore did NOT establish a religion. The whole point as I think you stated earlier was that the state has no right to impose a particular sect of religion on any one. They state can't tax the people to pay for a particular church.
Roy Moore simply acknowledged the God that REQUIRES his allegiance.
Moore, in acknowledging God was submitting himself to the higher powers and thus avoiding damnation.


Now, as far as church and state seperation, did you know that there was a case in Alabama while Moore was chief justice that a church had a dispute and an Alabama court tried the case, according to the constitution and bylaws of the denomination?
Now THAT is a breach of church and state and Moore realized that and he opposed that.


And BTW, in case you don't think there is further mixing of unlawful church and state relations, what about "Faith Based Initiatives"??? That is quite the mixing of church and state.
Also, the states do not tax people to support a church but they do give tax deductions for people who donate to churches! That is an instance of church ans state mixing in a way they shouldn't

 

[rsr]

And BTW, in case you don't think there is further mixing of unlawful church and state relations, what about "Faith Based Initiatives"??? That is quite the mixing of church and state.
Also, the states do not tax people to support a church but they do give tax deductions for people who donate to churches! That is an instance of church ans state mixing in a way they shouldn't

Finally, something we agree on.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

And I agree as well :thumbs:

 

[Dale-c]

Wow, something to agree on at last!

 

[Dale-c]

By the way, you will find out from Moore's book that he is TOTALLY against the state butting into the church's business.

In The US we have things that have never really been seen ever before. We were given a seperation of Church and State that was never seen in Europe.

The problem for those that would like to reunite the two is that the term is too familiar to Americans.

So, how do you go about instituting a State Church in this political climate?
Embrace ALL churches by giving tax benefits!
All tax exempt churches become essentially state churches in that you give to the church of your choice, as long as it is one that qualifies as a tax exempt organization.
By the way, if you ever look into what it all entails, a church will give up some of it's autonomy by doing so.
Churches in America have become dependent on tax deductible gifts.
After all, wouldn't we all rather give to a Church than to the IRS if we had a choice?
The Commonwealth of Virginia did not allow Churches to incorporate and get this status until recently because they understood this true separation.

Unfortunately, Churches begged for it and now they will become dependent in VA just like everywhere else.

This is all just to show that the First Amendment has been totally ignored while being used as an excuse to remove God from government.

Roy Moore understood that the state was not over the church, the Church was not over the state, but BOTH are under God.