-
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!
Roy Moore continued. Who are the law breakers?
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
menageriekeeper
Active Member
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.
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.
I would consider all military to be soldiers, maybe that is an improper term?
I am not sure who you are offending but you are right that we aren't getting anywhere.
Did you disagree that those statements were made?
They shot a whole in your arguments if they were true, which they are actual quotes, you just may thing those people didn't know what they were talking about.
But anyway, I will probably see you elsewhere on the board.
God bless!
Dale
Here is a good article on this subject
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/opinion/article_21221481.shtml
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/opinion/article_21221481.shtml
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
fromtheright, I understand what you are saying but I think a lot of people are a bit misinformed about this issue. Not from lack of attention, but because the managed media tends to put a spin on things that make it seem just enough different that it actualy was.
First of all, he never said that the monument itself was required. He said to acknowledge God was required.
When he was elected, the job of decorating the judicial building became his. Because he felt that the ten commandments monument was a good way to represent the acknowledgment of God as the moral foundation of our law, he chose to do so.
That is a huge point! If the federal judge was violating his jurisdiction, ie, butting in where he didn't belong, Moore would have been wrong to OBEY the order.
The Chief Justice has a duty to defend Alabama within the confines of his job. To give in to a rogue judge from a federal court in an unlawful order would be to betray the people that elected him!
First of all, he never said that the monument itself was required. He said to acknowledge God was required.
When he was elected, the job of decorating the judicial building became his. Because he felt that the ten commandments monument was a good way to represent the acknowledgment of God as the moral foundation of our law, he chose to do so.
That is a huge point! If the federal judge was violating his jurisdiction, ie, butting in where he didn't belong, Moore would have been wrong to OBEY the order.
The Chief Justice has a duty to defend Alabama within the confines of his job. To give in to a rogue judge from a federal court in an unlawful order would be to betray the people that elected him!
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
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.
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.
The way I saw it was he was required to acknowledge God, the monument was a way good way to do that.
In the actual trial, he talked about the ways he would continue to acknowledge God.
The Monument was already moved but the fact remained that even without the monument, he would still start with prayer, he would still say "God save the state and this honorable court" In other words, he would still acknowledge God as the ruler above all rulers.
I don't intend to say Roy Moore is perfect and never made any mistakes but he deserves our support in his defense of the sovereignty of God.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
Dale, under our system of government, the people are sovereign. Not vox populi vox Dei, but nonetheless sovereign as affects political issues.
Thank you for finding the actual oath. I have been looking for it.
See that is the point exactly!
He had an oath to the Constitution and this issue was outside of the federal jurisdiction.
The tenth ammendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where was the issue of this monument given to the federal goverment to control?
Where is their jurisdiction?
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Mr. Moore.....buh bye!
From MSNBC:
From MSNBC:
tragic_pizza
New Member
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.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
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.
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.
Yes, that is exactly the point. God is God even if we don't admit it but Moore and Parker were willing to acknowledge that publically and even lose their jobs if need be, which that BOTH did BTW.
Riley on the other hand has shown that he will only stand for Christianity if it won't cost him anything.
ALso, Moore refused to take PAC money, whereas Riley didn't. I respect that.
As for Parker, I haven't read as much about him but I heard him speak in an interview and I was impressed with his grasp of Biblical and Constitutional Law and by his willingness to stand with Judge Moore, even though he was fired along with Moore, merely for supporting Moore in his case.
Oh, I missed that at first. If Riley is elected, he will be there because God put him there.
God is ultimately responsible for raising up all leaders. Even the democrats, even the Nazis.
God is always in control. THat doesn't make the actions of the leaders right, just because GOd is in control.
Christians want to hide God away in their private lives only.
As we become more unGodly, ever wonder how many of us will end up with the fate of Terri Shiavo?
tragic_pizza
New Member
Hyperbole reigns supreme, eh?Dale-c said:
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.
How people vote is their own business. I hope I have not offended anyone. The matter of principle is what I am trying to get across. I don't care what party you are a member of. The only thing I am trying to get across is that God must be acknowledged by our government or we will see more and more tyranny.
Roy Moore stood against tyranny and he is blasted by Christians and that I believe is a disgrace.
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.
Maybe criminal Roy will start something productive. Perhaps he can start looking for that ever elusive clue.
tragic_pizza
New Member
It's politics, Dale. Roy stuck it out there, and he got it cut off of him, simple as that.Dale-c said:
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.