Judge Roy Moore to Speak in Wytheville, VA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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...
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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. :2cents:
 

HaigLaw

Puritan Board Sophomore
Who's resources; who's in charge?

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. :detective:
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
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. :detective:
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

Puritan Board Professor
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

Puritan Board Senior
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.:judge:

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

Puritan Board Senior
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.:judge:
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

Puritan Board Professor
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.:judge:
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.

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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.:judge:
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

ServantofGod

Puritan Board Junior
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.


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. :2cents:
 

ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Board Senior
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

Puritan Board Senior
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. :2cents:
Perhaps Moore's huge loss in the Republican primary in the last election cycle is a referendum on his actions...
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
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...:)
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

Puritan Board Senior
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 :worms: and we're getting way :offtopic: 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

Puritan Board Professor
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 :worms: and we're getting way :offtopic: 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."

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

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor

Then how come the slaves in the north were not freed before you came down to free ours?
You need to read up on your history...
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?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis

ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

HaigLaw

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Puritan Board Senior
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top