Posted on 08/28/2003 8:58:18 PM PDT by Theodore R.
Those Ministers Who Say Judge Moore Acted Improperly Need To Tear Daniel Chapter Six Out Of Their Bibles!
By Chuck Baldwin
Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon August 29, 2003 I have listened to minister after minister publicly rebuke Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore saying, as a Christian, he should have obeyed federal judge Myron Thompson's unlawful order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. Those ministers need to reread Daniel chapter six.
Daniel was a government official in the court of King Darius. In fact, Daniel was the second-in-command answering only to the king. Yet, when Darius issued his command that everyone in the kingdom not pray to God for thirty days, Daniel openly and defiantly disobeyed.
I've heard ministers say Judge Moore was wrong not to take down the monument and wait for his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to be decided. However, if this logic would have prevailed in the mind and heart of Daniel, the great story of Daniel in the lion's den would not appear in Scripture. After all, Darius' order against prayer was only for thirty days. Using the logic of today's ministers, Daniel should have merely suspended his prayers for thirty days, and everything would have been all right.
Instead, Daniel immediately went home, threw open his windows, and prayed to God as he always had done. He would not postpone his convictions for even thirty days!
Like Judge Roy Moore, Daniel believed that there is a higher authority than the king. Furthermore, he believed that human governments do not have the right to interfere with religious conscience, in or out of the public square.
Also take into account that Daniel lived under a monarchy. Darius' word was the law of the land. However, Americans do not live (yet) under a monarchy. A federal judge is not king; his word is not automatically law. Under our constitutional republic, whenever a federal judge, or any other government official, rules outside his constitutional authority, his ruling must be considered unlawful and irrelevant.
When Daniel disobeyed the law of King Darius, he had only the law of moral conscience behind him. Judge Moore has, not only the law of moral conscience, but the supreme law of the land (the U.S. Constitution) behind him!
Of all people, Christian ministers should flock to Judge Moore's assistance! That they aren't proves they are either ignorant of the lawlessness of this federal judge's actions, or they do not have the courage of their convictions.
One thing is sure: those ministers who condemn Judge Roy Moore's actions should tear the story of Daniel out of their Bibles, and never teach it again. If Daniel was right, Roy Moore is right!
My immediate response to this sentence, is to question whether or not they have any convictions, let alone courage.
LVM
While various restatements of this assertion have been floating around FR since the beginning of the Ten Commandments controversy, I have yet to see ONE quote from Justice Moore that could be construed as prideful.
My question is: if the Justice doing nothing but standing up for his convictions, and his theistic detractors were in fact seeking plausible deniability for their own cowardice, how could one prove it to other coward's satisfaction?
What rulings from his bench are you calling into question?
My question is: if the Justice doing nothing but standing up for his convictions, and his theistic detractors were in fact seeking plausible deniability for their own cowardice, how could one prove it to other coward's satisfaction?
I do not question his intentions or character. But I look at the result. Everybody is talking about Judge Moore, but I sure don't hear them talking about God.
Another poster on this thread is correct, where you stand on this issue of a block of stone should not be a litmus test for being conservative or Christian
Why not?
Precisely how has the justice system suffered?
Then you ain't listenin' pal...
Then you ain't listenin' pal...
I'm listening and hearing people who know Him talk about Him some, but the ones who need to be reached ain't talking about Him, there just talking about the circus they see.
FRiend, this is not an evangelistic effort. If you expect it to be, you are operating under a set of unsupportable assumptions. It IS an effort to roll back the increasingly prevalent assumption that religious expression is incompatable with civil administration and leadership.
I'm sorry if Justice Moore doesn't fill all your aspirations on what a Christian civil administrator should be, but I can tell you he sure fills mine. But then, I'm not expecting him to convert the country. I'm expecting him to stand against the proposition that a monument to the philosophical and religious underpinnings of our civilization does not constitute an establishment of religion.
Oddly enough, that's very close to what he says he's trying to do.
I know. I'm just pointing out the fact your complaints and criticisms of Justice Moore are completely circular. You denounce his record because he won't bow to usurpation, but the only thing in his record you criticize is that refusal to bow.
Kind of like arguing to put your dog to sleep because it bites everytime you kick it, I'd say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.