# Judge Roy Moore to Speak in Wytheville, VA



## Southern Presbyterian

I know its too far off the beaten path for most everyone on the board, but I thought I'd post this for anyone who may be in the area or close enough to travel.

Judge Roy Moore ("the Ten Commandments Judge") will be speaking in Wytheville, VA, Saturday, April 5th, from 9 AM to 2 PM. This is part of his "Jeremiah Project" and he will be speaking on "the First Amendment, Separation of Church and State, and the crucial role that the pulpit has played as the 'conscience of the nation' throughout American history". 

The event is hosted by my home church, Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church.

You will find more information HERE.

Blessings!


----------



## RamistThomist

will there be audio afterwards?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Yes, we will be recording and producing CD sets as well as posting it to our website.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

There will also be mountain rednecks like myself there.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Blueridge Baptist said:


> There will also be mountain rednecks like myself there.





The more the merrier!


----------



## HaigLaw

*Romans 13:1*



Southern Presbyterian said:


> Judge Roy Moore ("the Ten Commandments Judge") will be speaking in Wytheville, VA, Saturday, April 5th, from 9 AM to 2 PM. Blessings!



I've always wondered what Judge Moore's understanding of Romans 13:1 is, and how he justified defying the federal court's order to remove the taxpayer funded monument he erected in his court's building without the consent of his fellow justices on the Alabama Supreme Court, and for which he was removed from office by the duly-appointed authorites in Alabama.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Will anyone besides BlueRidge Baptist be attending? If so, PM me. I wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to say "Hello" in person.


----------



## Bladestunner316

I would go but being in Kirkland,Wa dont help


----------



## Blueridge Believer

HaigLaw said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judge Roy Moore ("the Ten Commandments Judge") will be speaking in Wytheville, VA, Saturday, April 5th, from 9 AM to 2 PM. Blessings!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered what Judge Moore's understanding of Romans 13:1 is, and how he justified defying the federal court's order to remove the taxpayer funded monument he erected in his court's building without the consent of his fellow justices on the Alabama Supreme Court, and for which he was removed from office by the duly-appointed authorites in Alabama.
Click to expand...


Could you give a link to this matierial brother? Would love to read it.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

CNN.com - Ten Commandments judge removed from office - Nov. 14, 2003

At the end of the day judge Moore was right and on the side of God and the federal court as usual was against Christ and in league with Satan. 
God's law trumps everytime.

Roy Moore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Blueridge Baptist said:


> CNN.com - Ten Commandments judge removed from office - Nov. 14, 2003
> 
> At the end of the day judge Moore was right and on the side of God and the federal court as usual was against Christ and in league with Satan.
> God's law trumps everytime.
> 
> Roy Moore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Having lived in Alabama when this debacle was going on, I must disagree that Roy Moore was on the "side of God" in this case. The issue of the Ten Commandments being displayed is a different argument altogether. The bottom line in this case is that the state supreme court (unanimously), state governor, and attorney general (the governor and AG are both conservative Christians) all told Moore to remove the monument and he refused, clearly violating Paul's admonition in Romans 13. 

Now, I like having the Ten Commandments displayed in public places (eg, government buildings), though I understand the opposing argument completely - if you allow the Bible to be displayed, you also must allow the Koran. But there is no Biblical mandate to display the Ten Commandments in secular government buildings. So, I don't believe Romans 13 applies at all in this case. Moore should have obeyed his civil authorities and removed the monument. 

As a side note, Moore is seen by most people in Alabama (a very conservative state) as being a political opportunist rather than a devout follower of God. He has a very suspect track record when it comes to making "stands" like this, and many saw it (correctly, as it turns out) as a starting point for his campaign for governor. So, what looks like piety on the surface isn't always so...


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Blueridge Baptist said:


> At the end of the day judge Moore was right and on the side of God and the federal court as usual was against Christ and in league with Satan.
> God's law trumps everytime.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Bladestunner316 said:


> I would go but being in Kirkland,Wa dont help



Well, I suppose that's a good enough reason.  

But we could've made room on the couch for you. 

BTW, we plan on making audio available of the seminars, barring technical difficulties or ineptitude. I'll post links as soon as they are available.

Blessings,


----------



## RamistThomist

> Having lived in Alabama when this debacle was going on, I must disagree that Roy Moore was on the "side of God" in this case. The issue of the Ten Commandments being displayed is a different argument altogether. The bottom line in this case is that the state supreme court (unanimously), state governor, and attorney general (the governor and AG are both conservative Christians) all told Moore to remove the monument and he refused, clearly violating Paul's admonition in Romans 13.



The prosecuation disagrees with you. They made it clear that the issue was not about some monument, but wether the state may acknowledge God as the source of law.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> Having lived in Alabama when this debacle was going on, I must disagree that Roy Moore was on the "side of God" in this case. The issue of the Ten Commandments being displayed is a different argument altogether. The bottom line in this case is that the state supreme court (unanimously), state governor, and attorney general (the governor and AG are both conservative Christians) all told Moore to remove the monument and he refused, clearly violating Paul's admonition in Romans 13.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prosecuation disagrees with you. They made it clear that the issue was not about some monument, but wether the state may acknowledge God as the source of law.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> CNN.com - Ten Commandments judge removed from office - Nov. 14, 2003
> 
> At the end of the day judge Moore was right and on the side of God and the federal court as usual was against Christ and in league with Satan.
> God's law trumps everytime.
> 
> Roy Moore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having lived in Alabama when this debacle was going on, I must disagree that Roy Moore was on the "side of God" in this case. The issue of the Ten Commandments being displayed is a different argument altogether. The bottom line in this case is that the state supreme court (unanimously), state governor, and attorney general (the governor and AG are both conservative Christians) all told Moore to remove the monument and he refused, clearly violating Paul's admonition in Romans 13.
Click to expand...


Note that if you are correct, then we should see in the prosecution a clear reference to the monument. But note that is precisely what we do not see.

YouTube - Roy Moore cross-examined for acknowledging God




> Now, I like having the Ten Commandments displayed in public places (eg, government buildings), though I understand the opposing argument completely - if you allow the Bible to be displayed, you also must allow the Koran. But there is no Biblical mandate to display the Ten Commandments in secular government buildings. So, I don't believe Romans 13 applies at all in this case. Moore should have obeyed his civil authorities and removed the monument.



Your last 2 sentences are contradictory (never mind the erroneous reading of Romans 13). You believe that Romans 13 doesn't apply in this case. If so, lacking a theological argument, how was Moore wrong in disobeying the state? But in your first paragraph you say he violates Romans 13, but in this one you say it doesn't apply. Which is it?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. 
Deu 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. 


in my opinion, anytime any state tells any christian to remove the 10 commandments from view or violate the law of God in any manner they are outside of Romans 13 protection thier actions. Government is just as responsible to God's law as individuals are.


----------



## RamistThomist

Also, the historic Reformed position on Romans 13 is that the lesser civil magistrate (which includes everything from Sherriffs to Judges) may rise up and interpose themselves.

Calvin and John Knox taught this.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> Your last 2 sentences are contradictory (never mind the erroneous reading of Romans 13). You believe that Romans 13 doesn't apply in this case. If so, lacking a theological argument, how was Moore wrong in disobeying the state? But in your first paragraph you say he violates Romans 13, but in this one you say it doesn't apply. Which is it?



Very nice Michael Moore-esque video splicing short segments together without context! You missed the entire point of Pryor's (the prosecutor) cross examination. Pryor was pointing out that Moore can acknowledge God in numerous other ways, and didn't need a monument to do so. While it hurt Moore's case in displaying the monument, it actually illustrated that a justice can reference God in many other ways. Pryor essentially demonstrated what Moore was doing: unnecessary grandstanding under the guise of piety. That video is dishonest and misleading in that implies that Moore was on trial for "acknowledging God," which was not the issue at all.

Fair point about my Romans 13 comments - I was very unclear. Let me clarify: I do believe Romans 13 applies in this case, and that Moore was wrong for disboeying civil authority. What I meant to say is that there are no exceptions to Romans 13 in this particular case, because obeying the supreme court would not be violating God's law. So, Moore should have obeyed the court, and not doing so violates the concept of Romans 13. How is my reading of Romans 13 erroneous?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your last 2 sentences are contradictory (never mind the erroneous reading of Romans 13). You believe that Romans 13 doesn't apply in this case. If so, lacking a theological argument, how was Moore wrong in disobeying the state? But in your first paragraph you say he violates Romans 13, but in this one you say it doesn't apply. Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice Michael Moore-esque video splicing short segments together without context! You missed the entire point of Pryor's (the prosecutor) cross examination. Pryor was pointing out that Moore can acknowledge God in numerous other ways, and didn't need a monument to do so. While it hurt Moore's case in displaying the monument, it actually illustrated that a justice can reference God in many other ways. Pryor essentially demonstrated what Moore was doing: unnecessary grandstanding under the guise of piety. That video is dishonest and misleading in that implies that Moore was on trial for "acknowledging God," which was not the issue at all.
> 
> Fair point about my Romans 13 comments - I was very unclear. Let me clarify: I do believe Romans 13 applies in this case, and that Moore was wrong for disboeying civil authority. What I meant to say is that there are no exceptions to Romans 13 in this particular case, because obeying the supreme court would not be violating God's law. So, Moore should have obeyed the court, and not doing so violates the concept of Romans 13. How is my reading of Romans 13 erroneous?
Click to expand...


Judge Moore is not disobeying legitimate civil authority, because he is a legitimate civil authority, being a civil magistrate he is one of "the powers that be" or "the governing authorities" who has a right to resist higher levels of civil authority when they step-outside their God-appointed role.

In Romans 13, Paul is not writing the state a blank check, but outlining what its God-appointed role is.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

For more on the right of lesser magistrates to resist, readers may benefit from this post on my blog:

Carson was Right! « Reformed Covenanter

After reading this you should purchase my book.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Judge Moore is not disobeying legitimate civil authority, because he is a legitimate civil authority, being a civil magistrate he is one of "the powers that be" or "the governing authorities" who has a right to resist higher levels of civil authority when they step-outside their God-appointed role.
> 
> In Romans 13, Paul is not writing the state a blank check, but outlining what its God-appointed role is.



Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to governing authorities." 

Moore was subject to (and should have obeyed) the rule of the other 8 supreme court justices, who in this case were his "governing authority." I agree that if they had abused their power or had caused Moore to sin by following their order, he would have the right to resist (as Calvin would no doubt agree). But they didn't abuse their power, and they didn't cause him to sin. Whether or not you agree with his stand on the monument, I fail to see how he had the right to disobey the legal authority in this situation.


----------



## RamistThomist

When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power.



They never told him he could not acknowledge God. They certainly didn't in the video you showed. Do you have a link or transcript that shows otherwise?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Interview with judge Moore by Kevin Swanson.

SermonAudio.com - In God We Trust. . . or Not.


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never told him he could not acknowledge God. They certainly didn't in the video you showed. Do you have a link or transcript that shows otherwise?
Click to expand...


They most certainly did in the video. They asked him will he continue to acknowledge God (the implication being if he did he would be dismissed). He said yes, because...

They said, and here I quote verbatim in the video, "We don't care why, but rather, will you?"


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never told him he could not acknowledge God. They certainly didn't in the video you showed. Do you have a link or transcript that shows otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They most certainly did in the video. They asked him will he continue to acknowledge God (the implication being if he did he would be dismissed). He said yes, because...
> 
> They said, and here I quote verbatim in the video, "We don't care why, but rather, will you?"
Click to expand...


Again, you took a segment of video out of context, and thus don't understand the point of the questioning. Pryor was actually showing that Moore COULD acknowledge God in many ways. You are assuming from the short clip that by answering yes to those questions they ruled against him based on his acknowledgement of God. But this is simply false. The point is that Moore didn't need the monument to acknowledge God, because he could do it in MANY other ways, which is exactly what Pryor was demonstrating in that line of questioning. As I said earlier, that video is deceptive and misleading.

"When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power." This is completely wrong - they never did any such thing. Again, please find a transcript or a different clip to prove me wrong...


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> They never told him he could not acknowledge God. They certainly didn't in the video you showed. Do you have a link or transcript that shows otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They most certainly did in the video. They asked him will he continue to acknowledge God (the implication being if he did he would be dismissed). He said yes, because...
> 
> They said, and here I quote verbatim in the video, "We don't care why, but rather, will you?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you took a segment of video out of context, and thus don't understand the point of the questioning. Pryor was actually showing that Moore COULD acknowledge God in many ways. You are assuming from the short clip that by answering yes to those questions they ruled against him based on his acknowledgement of God. But this is simply false. The point is that Moore didn't need the monument to acknowledge God, because he could do it in MANY other ways, which is exactly what Pryor was demonstrating in that line of questioning. As I said earlier, that video is deceptive and misleading.
Click to expand...


Moore admitted the very fact that he didn't need the monument. The monument pointed to something deeper: whether he could acknowledge God or not as the source of Law. Perhaps the video is out of context, but the statements there seem rather clear.




> This is completely wrong - they never did any such thing. Again, please find a transcript or a different clip to prove me wrong...



With all due respect, I don't feel I need to.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> With all due respect, I don't feel I need to.



If you want your view to have any intellectual integrity, you do. The fact is they did NOT rule against him for acknowledging God. They ruled against him for failing to obey a legal court mandate. 

I don't mean to harp on this, but what you said is simply incorrect. I suppose it's up to you if you want to actually find the truth of the matter, but I wanted to make it clear what ACTUALLY happened to everyone else reading the thread...


----------



## Zenas

Ivanhoe said:


> When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power.



In what portion of their opinion did they hold that he couldn't aknowledge God?

I'm going to look this opinion up and see what it actually says in hopes of clarifying things a bit.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judge Moore is not disobeying legitimate civil authority, because he is a legitimate civil authority, being a civil magistrate he is one of "the powers that be" or "the governing authorities" who has a right to resist higher levels of civil authority when they step-outside their God-appointed role.
> 
> In Romans 13, Paul is not writing the state a blank check, but outlining what its God-appointed role is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to governing authorities."
> 
> Moore was subject to (and should have obeyed) the rule of the other 8 supreme court justices, who in this case were his "governing authority." I agree that if they had abused their power or had caused Moore to sin by following their order, he would have the right to resist (as Calvin would no doubt agree). But they didn't abuse their power, and they didn't cause him to sin. Whether or not you agree with his stand on the monument, I fail to see how he had the right to disobey the legal authority in this situation.
Click to expand...


But he is one of the governing authorities, so he has the right to resist their tyranny as they were stepping outside their God-appointed role, and he, as a lawful lesser magistrate, was resisting them.


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I don't feel I need to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want your view to have any intellectual integrity, you do. The fact is they did NOT rule against him for acknowledging God. They ruled against him for failing to obey a legal court mandate.
> 
> I don't mean to harp on this, but what you said is simply incorrect. I suppose it's up to you if you want to actually find the truth of the matter, but I wanted to make it clear what ACTUALLY happened to everyone else reading the thread...
Click to expand...


I could find it, I suppose. And I might later on. I don't have cable at my house so my time and priorities on the internet are limited. I have other projects going. Partly the reason I jumped in the thread--well, let's assume for the moment you are correct.

I jumped in this thread because I weary of hearing Reformed Christians parrot Romans 13 in a way that I think is ethically ambiguous. And even assuming he is wrong in some matters, I think Judge Moore represents a much needed voice in American circles. We are seeing increasing judicial tyranny and it is helpful to see someone stand against it.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Well, I certainly didn't intend for this thread to turn into a debate about Judge Moore or his court case. It was meant as an invitation to anyone in the area, that might find such an event edifying/beneficial, to attend. 

But on a personal note I must add, that having spent time around Judge Moore (note: I am not claiming to be his close friend - he would more than likely not even remember who I am) I consider him to be a man of biblical character and not one to stage any event due to either personal or political ambitions. Also, I do know men who are his friends that hold the same, or if possible, an even higher opinion of the Judge.


----------



## HaigLaw

*Who's resources; who's in charge?*



Blueridge Baptist said:


> Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
> Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
> Deu 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
> 
> in my opinion, anytime any state tells any christian to remove the 10 commandments from view or violate the law of God in any manner they are outside of Romans 13 protection thier actions. Government is just as responsible to God's law as individuals are.



Your quote of Deut. 6 misses the point. Roy Moore was not on trial for posting the law of God on his own property. The Supreme Court of Alabama was and is run by 9 justices, of which Moore was only one. They were 8 to 1 against him on this, and he refused to submit.

It would have been like if he had spent court funds to donate Bibles to the Gideons. It would have been misappropriation of public funds for an unauthorized private purpose, which is a crime. It would have been no defense to say Deut. 6 requires me to do this in and around my own home. He's lucky he didn't go to jail. 

The people in Alabama did not want him for governor because they followed his grandstanding shenagans closer than the average Christian outsider. 

Let me offer another analogy, on the issue of Christian liberty of conscience: let's say someone comes into my courtroom and I ask, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?" and the person says, "I can affirm, but I cannot swear."

And I kick them out of my court for rebellion against my authority? Am I right?

No; because I refused to acknowledge the legitimate liberty of conscience of others. I am not allowed to use my position to impose my particular way of practicing my beliefs on others. 

That is also part of what was wrong with Roy Moore. The Bible does not mandate monuments to the Decalogue on public property. Individual believers are free to place monuments on property they own or control. But Roy Moore did not own or control the property where he placed his monument.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

HaigLaw said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
> Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
> Deu 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
> 
> in my opinion, anytime any state tells any christian to remove the 10 commandments from view or violate the law of God in any manner they are outside of Romans 13 protection thier actions. Government is just as responsible to God's law as individuals are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your quote of Deut. 6 misses the point. Roy Moore was not on trial for posting the law of God on his own property. The Supreme Court of Alabama was and is run by 9 justices, of which Moore was only one. They were 8 to 1 against him on this, and he refused to submit.
> 
> It would have been like if he had spent court funds to donate Bibles to the Gideons. It would have been misappropriation of public funds for an unauthorized private purpose, which is a crime. It would have been no defense to say Deut. 6 requires me to do this in and around my own home. He's lucky he didn't go to jail.
> 
> The people in Alabama did not want him for governor because they followed his grandstanding shenagans closer than the average Christian outsider.
> 
> Let me offer another analogy, on the issue of Christian liberty of conscience: let's say someone comes into my courtroom and I ask, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?" and the person says, "I can affirm, but I cannot swear."
> 
> And I kick them out of my court for rebellion against my authority? Am I right?
> 
> No; because I refused to acknowledge the legitimate liberty of conscience of others. I am not allowed to use my position to impose my particular way of practicing my beliefs on others.
> 
> That is also part of what was wrong with Roy Moore. The Bible does not mandate monuments to the Decalogue on public property. Individual believers are free to place monuments on property they own or control. But Roy Moore did not own or control the property where he placed his monument.
Click to expand...


Judge Moore refused to submit to the other Judges because he does not have to submit to rulings which violate Constitutional liberties which he is pledged to uphold.

The idea (I hope I have picked you up right) of someone not swearing in the name of God in a courtroom only works if one takes an atheist view of the state. In a trial, a witness takes an oath to signify that God's curse will fall on him if he lies.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

From what I understand the monument, while placed on public property was not paid for with public funds but private contributions. BTW, all property is God's property.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

From the WCF:

Chapter XXIII - Of the Civil Magistrate

"Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matters of faith."

"Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to them."

Moore was in violation of these concepts. As Haiglaw pointed out, and as we can see from the first WCF excerpt above, nowhere are we commanded to display the Ten Commandments in a secular courthouse. Whether or not he agreed with the court's decision to move the monument, Moore still should have obeyed their just authority.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ColdSilverMoon said:


> From the WCF:
> 
> Chapter XXIII - Of the Civil Magistrate
> 
> "Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matters of faith."
> 
> "Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to them."
> 
> Moore was in violation of these concepts. As Haiglaw pointed out, and as we can see from the first WCF excerpt above, nowhere are we commanded to display the Ten Commandments in a secular courthouse. Whether or not he agreed with the court's decision to move the monument, Moore still should have obeyed their just authority.



The fact that anyone would quote the WCF to justify such tyranny is tragic, not to mention a-historical. The Westminster Assembly met in defiance of an Erastian king, and was formed as part of a Covenanted Reformation against tyranny, while supporting the just authority of the lesser magistrate.

The first section rules out Erastianism; the Westminster Divines were strongly in favour of a covenanted-Christian state.

The second section refers to the magistrates "just and legal authority", it is not just and legal authority to restrict the God-given and constitutional rights of the American people. Moreover, while the people should never resist a magistrate for infidelity in religion, Judge Moore was not one of the people, but one of the "powers that be" that God has ordained to withstand tyrants.

The idea of a "secular" courthouse is foreign to historic Reformed political theory; all courthouses are religious, the only question is which religion does it recognise. Judge Moore was contending for the rights of God over a civil court which is supposed to be acting as God's servant. It is not the "just authority" of a civil court in the United States (or anywhere for that matter, but especially the USA) to forbid Christian religious expression; they had no just authority in this matter and Judge Moore rightfully resisted their undermining of the rights of the American people.

I fear for my American brethren; you are about to face a war with secular humanism that is so vicious I shudder to think of it. However, what is most grevious is that Christians are surrendering to the enemy instead of supporting those leading the battle.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The first section rules out Erastianism; the Westminster Divines were strongly in favour of a covenanted-Christian state.
> 
> The second section refers to the magistrates "just and legal authority", it is not just and legal authority to restrict the God-given and constitutional rights of the American people. Moreover, while the people should never resist a magistrate for infidelity in religion, Judge Moore was not one of the people, but one of the "powers that be" that God has ordained to withstand tyrants.
> 
> The idea of a "secular" courthouse is foreign to historic Reformed political theory; all courthouses are religious, the only question is which religion does it recognise. Judge Moore was contending for the rights of God over a civil court which is supposed to be acting as God's servant. It is not the "just authority" of a civil court in the United States (or anywhere for that matter, but especially the USA) to forbid Christian religious expression; they had no just authority in this matter and Judge Moore rightfully resisted their undermining of the rights of the American people.



I agree to a certain extent with your first point that it forbid Erastianism, but at the same time nowhere in the Confession or in Scripture are there instructions to display the Ten Commandments or any other type of Christian monument on the grounds of a secular building; it doesn't forbid it, but it doesn't expressly command a Christian magistrate to do it. Moore was essentially overstepping his bounds by doing so.

But even if you're right about the first point, Moore was still wrong in disobeying the just authority of his superiors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for a state court to display a religious symbol. Moore has every right to express his Christian beliefs, and if you read the Circuit Court's ruling on the original issue (I'll find the link), they affirmed this right. The difference is that it was on display in a state courthouse, which in the court's view violated the First Amendment provision that forbids government to establish a specific religion. So again, they weren't "forbidding Christian religious expression," just forbidding this specific monument in a state courthouse, which they viewed as the government endorsing one specific religion. The court had every authority to do this, and to demand its removal. It's not tyranny or abuse of power of unjust authority. Moore may disagree with the decision, and he may even be right. But he still should obey their authority according to Romans 13; removing the monument is not causing him to sin.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first section rules out Erastianism; the Westminster Divines were strongly in favour of a covenanted-Christian state.
> 
> The second section refers to the magistrates "just and legal authority", it is not just and legal authority to restrict the God-given and constitutional rights of the American people. Moreover, while the people should never resist a magistrate for infidelity in religion, Judge Moore was not one of the people, but one of the "powers that be" that God has ordained to withstand tyrants.
> 
> The idea of a "secular" courthouse is foreign to historic Reformed political theory; all courthouses are religious, the only question is which religion does it recognise. Judge Moore was contending for the rights of God over a civil court which is supposed to be acting as God's servant. It is not the "just authority" of a civil court in the United States (or anywhere for that matter, but especially the USA) to forbid Christian religious expression; they had no just authority in this matter and Judge Moore rightfully resisted their undermining of the rights of the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to a certain extent with your first point that it forbid Erastianism, but at the same time nowhere in the Confession or in Scripture are there instructions to display the Ten Commandments or any other type of Christian monument on the grounds of a secular building; it doesn't forbid it, but it doesn't expressly command a Christian magistrate to do it. Moore was essentially overstepping his bounds by doing so.
> 
> But even if you're right about the first point, Moore was still wrong in disobeying the just authority of his superiors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for a state court to display a religious symbol. Moore has every right to express his Christian beliefs, and if you read the Circuit Court's ruling on the original issue (I'll find the link), they affirmed this right. The difference is that it was on display in a state courthouse, which in the court's view violated the First Amendment provision that forbids government to establish a specific religion. So again, they weren't "forbidding Christian religious expression," just forbidding this specific monument in a state courthouse, which they viewed as the government endorsing one specific religion. The court had every authority to do this, and to demand its removal. It's not tyranny or abuse of power of unjust authority. Moore may disagree with the decision, and he may even be right. But he still should obey their authority according to Romans 13; removing the monument is not causing him to sin.
Click to expand...



Act 4:18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 
Act 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first section rules out Erastianism; the Westminster Divines were strongly in favour of a covenanted-Christian state.
> 
> The second section refers to the magistrates "just and legal authority", it is not just and legal authority to restrict the God-given and constitutional rights of the American people. Moreover, while the people should never resist a magistrate for infidelity in religion, Judge Moore was not one of the people, but one of the "powers that be" that God has ordained to withstand tyrants.
> 
> The idea of a "secular" courthouse is foreign to historic Reformed political theory; all courthouses are religious, the only question is which religion does it recognise. Judge Moore was contending for the rights of God over a civil court which is supposed to be acting as God's servant. It is not the "just authority" of a civil court in the United States (or anywhere for that matter, but especially the USA) to forbid Christian religious expression; they had no just authority in this matter and Judge Moore rightfully resisted their undermining of the rights of the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to a certain extent with your first point that it forbid Erastianism, but at the same time nowhere in the Confession or in Scripture are there instructions to display the Ten Commandments or any other type of Christian monument on the grounds of a secular building; it doesn't forbid it, but it doesn't expressly command a Christian magistrate to do it. Moore was essentially overstepping his bounds by doing so.
> 
> But even if you're right about the first point, Moore was still wrong in disobeying the just authority of his superiors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for a state court to display a religious symbol. Moore has every right to express his Christian beliefs, and if you read the Circuit Court's ruling on the original issue (I'll find the link), they affirmed this right. The difference is that it was on display in a state courthouse, which in the court's view violated the First Amendment provision that forbids government to establish a specific religion. So again, they weren't "forbidding Christian religious expression," just forbidding this specific monument in a state courthouse, which they viewed as the government endorsing one specific religion. The court had every authority to do this, and to demand its removal. It's not tyranny or abuse of power of unjust authority. Moore may disagree with the decision, and he may even be right. But he still should obey their authority according to Romans 13; removing the monument is not causing him to sin.
Click to expand...


The first amendment of the US Constitution was forbidding the establishment of an established federal church; it was not possible at the time of the American Revolution to have one federal church as there were different denominations established in the states, while in every state Protestant Christianity was the official religion. The idea that the first amendment means that the civil government is not to be Christian is ahistorical, as the Constitution itself would therefore be unconstitutional as it says at the bottom "in the year of our Lord".

Romans 13 does not teach that the lesser magistrate should obey the authority of other magistrates except when they require him to sin, according to Romans 13 Judge Moore is one of the "powers that be" (note the word is plural) and thus has the right to resist actions which he believes are an unlawful encroachment on the people's liberties which he is there to protect. Indeed, I believe that he would have been justified in raising a citizen militia and resisting by force of arms if necessary. There was a group of lesser magistrates who did this before in America....when was it...1776 (and 1861 when the CSA - now unlawfully occupied by Northern invaders - seceeded)...remember the British parliament were not forcing the colonists to sin by paying more tax, however, they were trampling on their rights as Englishmen under God, and so it was rightly resisted by the lesser magistrate.


----------



## ServantofGod

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judge Moore is not disobeying legitimate civil authority, because he is a legitimate civil authority, being a civil magistrate he is one of "the powers that be" or "the governing authorities" who has a right to resist higher levels of civil authority when they step-outside their God-appointed role.
> 
> In Romans 13, Paul is not writing the state a blank check, but outlining what its God-appointed role is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to governing authorities."
> 
> Moore was subject to (and should have obeyed) the rule of the other 8 supreme court justices, who in this case were his "governing authority." I agree that if they had abused their power or had caused Moore to sin by following their order, he would have the right to resist (as Calvin would no doubt agree). But they didn't abuse their power, and they didn't cause him to sin. Whether or not you agree with his stand on the monument, I fail to see how he had the right to disobey the legal authority in this situation.
Click to expand...




Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to governing authorities." 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. _Preamble to the Constitution_

According to the Constitution, the PEOPLE decide what goes and what doesn't. If the representatives don't represent the people, they are an invalid government, and not authority at all. We didn't elect those eight other justices. We didn't even elect Roy Moore. But we did elect the representatives that put them in office. Alabama is a hugely conservative state, and if the "government" was truly the people, the ten commandments would have stayed.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The first amendment of the US Constitution was forbidding the establishment of an established federal church; it was not possible at the time of the American Revolution to have one federal church as there were different denominations established in the states, while in every state Protestant Christianity was the official religion. The idea that the first amendment means that the civil government is not to be Christian is ahistorical, as the Constitution itself would therefore be unconstitutional as it says at the bottom "in the year of our Lord".
> 
> Romans 13 does not teach that the lesser magistrate should obey the authority of other magistrates except when they require him to sin, according to Romans 13 Judge Moore is one of the "powers that be" (note the word is plural) and thus has the right to resist actions which he believes are an unlawful encroachment on the people's liberties which he is there to protect. Indeed, I believe that he would have been justified in raising a citizen militia and resisting by force of arms if necessary. There was a group of lesser magistrates who did this before in America....when was it...1776 (and 1861 when the CSA - now unlawfully occupied by Northern invaders - seceeded).



Your first point is partially correct, but by forbidding the establishment of religion at the federal level, the same also applied at the state level, since no state law can conflict with the Constitution. And remember, the Constitution and especially Bill of Rights were written to protect minorities from oppression. So the fact that some of the authors of the Constitution were Christians, as was the majority of the nation, does not imply that they wanted a "Christian nation" per se. Others may disagree, but the Circuit Court ruling in this case is probably right in line with what they would have wanted. And your argument about "in year of our Lord" is a bit silly. The term AD has been universally adopted in Western culture as a way of measuring time - it doesn't imply belief in Christianity. 

I disagree with your second point entirely. Moore was in a position of power, but had a clear structure of authority over him. The court's ruling was not illegal, not sinful, and did not encroach on the "people's liberties." And of course he does not have the right to raise a militia. 

And I assume you're joking about the legality of the Civil War...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

ServantofGod said:


> We didn't even elect Roy Moore. But we did elect the representatives that put them in office. Alabama is a hugely conservative state, and if the "government" was truly the people, the ten commandments would have stayed.



Perhaps Moore's huge loss in the Republican primary in the last election cycle is a referendum on his actions...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first amendment of the US Constitution was forbidding the establishment of an established federal church; it was not possible at the time of the American Revolution to have one federal church as there were different denominations established in the states, while in every state Protestant Christianity was the official religion. The idea that the first amendment means that the civil government is not to be Christian is ahistorical, as the Constitution itself would therefore be unconstitutional as it says at the bottom "in the year of our Lord".
> 
> Romans 13 does not teach that the lesser magistrate should obey the authority of other magistrates except when they require him to sin, according to Romans 13 Judge Moore is one of the "powers that be" (note the word is plural) and thus has the right to resist actions which he believes are an unlawful encroachment on the people's liberties which he is there to protect. Indeed, I believe that he would have been justified in raising a citizen militia and resisting by force of arms if necessary. There was a group of lesser magistrates who did this before in America....when was it...1776 (and 1861 when the CSA - now unlawfully occupied by Northern invaders - seceeded).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first point is partially correct, but by forbidding the establishment of religion at the federal level, the same also applied at the state level, since no state law can conflict with the Constitution. And remember, the Constitution and especially Bill of Rights were written to protect minorities from oppression. So the fact that some of the authors of the Constitution were Christians, as was the majority of the nation, does not imply that they wanted a "Christian nation" per se. Others may disagree, but the Circuit Court ruling in this case is probably right in line with what they would have wanted. And your argument about "in year of our Lord" is a bit silly. The term AD has been universally adopted in Western culture as a way of measuring time - it doesn't imply belief in Christianity.
> 
> I disagree with your second point entirely. Moore was in a position of power, but had a clear structure of authority over him. The court's ruling was not illegal, not sinful, and did not encroach on the "people's liberties." And of course he does not have the right to raise a militia.
> 
> And I assume you're joking about the legality of the Civil War...
Click to expand...


My first point is not merely partially correct, at the time of the Revolution I think that at least 9 states had established churches, while all states were offiicially Protestant and Christian. The idea that the Founding Fathers would have forbidden courts from displaying the Ten Commandments is a-historical.

The point about "in the year of our Lord" is not silly; why do you think the French Revolutionaries wanted to get rid of it? Because they were wicked Atheists, while the American Founding Fathers were Christians (or at least influenced by Christianity). The reason the term AD has been adopted in Western Culture is due to the fact that Western Culture was Christian. 

The fact that Judge Moore had a structure of authority over him is irrelevant; he is a lesser magistrate, and so he has a right to resist those over him when they threaten the people's liberty.

I am not joking about the Northern War of Aggression, when the Southern States seceded from the Union they were unlawfully invaded.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Daniel Ritchie said:


> My first point is not merely partially correct, at the time of the Revolution I think that at least 9 states had established churches, while all states were offiicially Protestant and Christian. The idea that the Founding Fathers would have forbidden courts from displaying the Ten Commandments is a-historical.
> 
> The point about "in the year of our Lord" is not silly; why do you think the French Revolutionaries wanted to get rid of it? Because they were wicked Atheists, while the American Founding Fathers were Christians (or at least influenced by Christianity). The reason the term AD has been adopted in Western Culture is due to the fact that Western Culture was Christian.
> 
> The fact that Judge Moore had a structure of authority over him is irrelevant; he is a lesser magistrate, and so he has a right to resist those over him when they threaten the people's liberty.
> 
> I am not joking about the Northern War of Aggression, when the Southern States seceded from the Union they were unlawfully invaded.



If my point goes against history then the next time you visit the US, particularly Washington and Philadelphia, take a look at how many religious symbols you find on the buildings in which the Founding Fathers framed the country. You will find few, if any, religious symbols, and I'm quite sure no displays of the Ten Commandments. Look, I personally would love to see the Ten Commandments displayed. But to be consistent and fair, if that were allowed then the next time a Muslim judge wanted to erect a monument to the Koran, that also would have to be allowed. I would not feel comfortable walking into a court of law with a monument of the Koran out front, and that's exactly why the court ruled the way it did. 

I disagree that Moore had the right to resist in this case as a "lesser magistrate," because nothing about moving the monument was causing him to sin. And again I ask you, what liberties were threatened in this case?

As for the Civil War issue, you opened up a big  and we're getting way  But I will say Lincoln had every right to enforce the laws and to put down an unlawful rebellion, a rebellion that was based on defending slavery under the guise of "states' rights."


----------



## Blueridge Believer

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first point is not merely partially correct, at the time of the Revolution I think that at least 9 states had established churches, while all states were offiicially Protestant and Christian. The idea that the Founding Fathers would have forbidden courts from displaying the Ten Commandments is a-historical.
> 
> The point about "in the year of our Lord" is not silly; why do you think the French Revolutionaries wanted to get rid of it? Because they were wicked Atheists, while the American Founding Fathers were Christians (or at least influenced by Christianity). The reason the term AD has been adopted in Western Culture is due to the fact that Western Culture was Christian.
> 
> The fact that Judge Moore had a structure of authority over him is irrelevant; he is a lesser magistrate, and so he has a right to resist those over him when they threaten the people's liberty.
> 
> I am not joking about the Northern War of Aggression, when the Southern States seceded from the Union they were unlawfully invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If my point goes against history then the next time you visit the US, particularly Washington and Philadelphia, take a look at how many religious symbols you find on the buildings in which the Founding Fathers framed the country. You will find few, if any, religious symbols, and I'm quite sure no displays of the Ten Commandments. Look, I personally would love to see the Ten Commandments displayed. But to be consistent and fair, if that were allowed then the next time a Muslim judge wanted to erect a monument to the Koran, that also would have to be allowed. I would not feel comfortable walking into a court of law with a monument of the Koran out front, and that's exactly why the court ruled the way it did.
> 
> I disagree that Moore had the right to resist in this case as a "lesser magistrate," because nothing about moving the monument was causing him to sin. And again I ask you, what liberties were threatened in this case?
> 
> As for the Civil War issue, you opened up a big  and we're getting way  But I will say Lincoln had every right to enforce the laws and to put down an unlawful rebellion, a rebellion that was based on defending slavery under the guise of "states' rights."
Click to expand...



You really believe that line about a rebellion to defend slavery?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Yes.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Yes.




Then how come the slaves in the north were not freed before you came down to free ours?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Blueridge Baptist said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then how come the slaves in the north were not freed before you came down to free ours?
Click to expand...


You need to read up on your history...


----------



## Blueridge Believer

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then how come the slaves in the north were not freed before you came down to free ours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read up on your history...
Click to expand...


Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia (admitted has a slave state during the war), Kentucky and Missouri were all slave states. If Lincoln were a civil rights worker wouldn't he have freed those that were under his control first? The union had firm control over La. very early in the war not to mention large parts of Virginia and Mississippi. How come those weren't freed?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I think this one has gone far enough; we are just going to have to agree to differ.


----------



## RamistThomist

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then how come the slaves in the north were not freed before you came down to free ours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read up on your history...
Click to expand...


Grant didn't free his slaves until after the war, saying good help is hard to find. Also, Lincoln disagrees with you on the cause of the war. Lincoln said, at teh outset, that he had no desire to free teh slaves if he didn't have to.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I think this one has gone far enough; we are just going to have to agree to differ.



Agreed.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Ivanhoe said:


> Grant didn't free his slaves until after the war, saying good help is hard to find. Also, Lincoln disagrees with you on the cause of the war. Lincoln said, at teh outset, that he had no desire to free teh slaves if he didn't have to.



We're way, way off topic now, so one last word from me. The reason freeing the slaves was hard to do for Lincoln was because there was no clear political consensus on exactly how to do it. Release them all at once and create a huge refugee problem? Release them gradually? His party (Republican) was very divided on this issue. At the time they weren't sure of the best way to proceed. Eventually Lincoln freed all the Confederate slaves at once when the Union had major momentum in the South. 

Slavery wasn't the ONLY reason for secession, but it was a major one. Freeing the slaves meant a huge economic blow to the agrarian South. It was as much an economics issue as a race issue. The imposition of (legal) tariffs was another major point of contention. Regardless, secession was by no means justified. An interesting read on the subject is "The Idea of a Southern Nation" by John McCardell.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

One might also read "When in the course of human events" by Charles Adams.


----------



## HaigLaw

Daniel Ritchie said, "Judge Moore was contending for the rights of God over a civil court which is supposed to be acting as God's servant. It is not the "just authority" of a civil court in the United States (or anywhere for that matter, but especially the USA) to forbid Christian religious expression; they had no just authority in this matter and Judge Moore rightfully resisted their undermining of the rights of the American people."

No. It is not the business of civil courts to conduct religious exercises, and 8 of the 9 Justices voted not to. Moore, when he was Chief Justice, went against the will of his 8 fellow justices and installed the monument, which he had no authority to do -- no authority under the laws of Alabama, and no justification under the Bible or Reformed standards. I have not heard anyone say he claims to be Reformed, so I don't know why we're invoking Reformed standards in judging his conduct. But we have been, in this thread.

This was a unilateral act on his part. He ran on that platform. He got elected on promising to do that, not on legal qualifications. 

He is not a Christian leader. Any more than anyone deciding on his own, without any Biblical warrant, to do something strange in the guise of a religious exercise. 

This is not a matter of some magistrate backing a Christian in a corner and ordering him not to do something that God directly commands him to do -- as in the instance of the disciples being commanded by the Sanhedrin not to speak of Jesus. Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to place religious monuments on public property. Rather we are told to place them on our own property. That is where Roy Moore made his mistake. He was forcing his religious exercises on other people. That violates Liberty of Conscience and the laws of the land. He was lawfully ordered to remove the monument; he refused; and he was lawfully removed from office because of it. He was a lawless person, and he should not be revered by Christians because of it. I could understand some dispensational fundamentalist honoring the man, because they are into defeatist tokenism; but for Reformed people to do so is beyond me. We should know better.


----------



## HaigLaw

Blue Ridge Baptist quoted ColdSilverMoon saying, "If my point goes against history then the next time you visit the US, particularly Washington and Philadelphia, take a look at how many religious symbols you find on the buildings in which the Founding Fathers framed the country. You will find few, if any, religious symbols, and I'm quite sure no displays of the Ten Commandments."

Actually, CSM, I think you are incorrect on this. The US Supreme Court's courtroom, in fact, has a display of the Decalogue. This may seem ironic, but there are cases discussing the difference between a historic display vs. a religious exercise. The most recent case distinguished a display on the capital grounds in Texas with another one in Tennessee, I think it was. One was found OK and the other one not. 

Judge Moore's doings were found to be a religious exercise, and found wanting on public property. 

I think, though, that CSM has a good point in saying -- if you allow one, you have to allow them all, as in the case of the Koran. That is the very kind of balancing act the courts have had to do in regard to establishment challenges.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

HaigLaw said:


> Actually, CSM, I think you are incorrect on this. The US Supreme Court's courtroom, in fact, has a display of the Decalogue. This may seem ironic, but there are cases discussing the difference between a historic display vs. a religious exercise.



But the difference is the Supreme Court building was built in the 1930s, not the time of the Founding Fathers. Also, they claim it is Hammurabi's (sp?) code, not the Ten Commandments.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

HaigLaw said:


> Daniel Ritchie said, "Judge Moore was contending for the rights of God over a civil court which is supposed to be acting as God's servant. It is not the "just authority" of a civil court in the United States (or anywhere for that matter, but especially the USA) to forbid Christian religious expression; they had no just authority in this matter and Judge Moore rightfully resisted their undermining of the rights of the American people."
> 
> No. It is not the business of civil courts to conduct religious exercises, and 8 of the 9 Justices voted not to. Moore, when he was Chief Justice, went against the will of his 8 fellow justices and installed the monument, which he had no authority to do -- no authority under the laws of Alabama, and no justification under the Bible or Reformed standards. I have not heard anyone say he claims to be Reformed, so I don't know why we're invoking Reformed standards in judging his conduct. But we have been, in this thread.
> 
> This was a unilateral act on his part. He ran on that platform. He got elected on promising to do that, not on legal qualifications.
> 
> He is not a Christian leader. Any more than anyone deciding on his own, without any Biblical warrant, to do something strange in the guise of a religious exercise.
> 
> This is not a matter of some magistrate backing a Christian in a corner and ordering him not to do something that God directly commands him to do -- as in the instance of the disciples being commanded by the Sanhedrin not to speak of Jesus. Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to place religious monuments on public property. Rather we are told to place them on our own property. That is where Roy Moore made his mistake. He was forcing his religious exercises on other people. That violates Liberty of Conscience and the laws of the land. He was lawfully ordered to remove the monument; he refused; and he was lawfully removed from office because of it. He was a lawless person, and he should not be revered by Christians because of it. I could understand some dispensational fundamentalist honoring the man, because they are into defeatist tokenism; but for Reformed people to do so is beyond me. We should know better.



Brother myself and Mason had agreed to disagree; it is a shame that you could not exercise similar self-restraint and left it at that.

However, you continue to misrepresent us as we are not saying that private individuals may take it upon themselves to do such things as Judge Moore did. All we are arguing for is the classic Reformed doctrine of interposition - which allows the lesser magistrate to resist higher magistrates when they restrict the people's liberty.


----------



## HaigLaw

*Interposition?*



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Brother myself and Mason had agreed to disagree; it is a shame that you could not exercise similar self-restraint and left it at that.
> 
> However, you continue to misrepresent us as we are not saying that private individuals may take it upon themselves to do such things as Judge Moore did. All we are arguing for is the classic Reformed doctrine of interposition - which allows the lesser magistrate to resist higher magistrates when they restrict the people's liberty.



Misrepresent? That's a nice word for lying. No; I've told the truth about Roy Moore.

As for interposition, I've never heard that word from Moore's mouth; is he even familiar with the concept?

What liberty of the people is Moore protecting? The only liberty he's asserting is his own presumed liberty to conduct a religious exercise on government property at taxpayer expense. 

If he'd placed a monument to the Koran, I doubt you'd defend him.

It was the higher magistrates who were protecting the people's liberties, not Roy Moore. 

But if you want to agree to disagree, that's fine with me. Just don't make parting shots questioning my character, and expect agreement.


----------

