Posted on 08/22/2003 4:25:33 AM PDT by kattracks
You see, the funny thing is that our Constitution rights aren't up for popular vote. Remarkably, it's why it never goes before a jury. Because the public's opinion doesn't matter.
And, incidentally, for public knowledge, I'm just about the most conservative person I've ever met in my life, and I'm a member of the ACLU. I think most conservatives should be, as the ACLU serves an important purpose in checking the power of government.
A fine book on the subject is by the former director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, Shelia Suess Kennedy, "What's A Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU?"
The STATE SUPREME COURT of ALABAMA ruled against him! He is breaking their ruling on the law. How is that a federal matter?
Unfortunately, there are many ambiguities in the Bible. The Hebrew children who would not honor the law of the land which restricted their praying to their God is one example. There are times when you need to take a stand, not just as a Christian, but as an American.
We do have an appeals process in this country and the judge is not wrong to follow that through. This is an issue that the "separation of Church and State" people have grabbed hold of and disseminated much disinformation regarding. IMHO, this issue needs to be pushed and decided, possibly by the SC Justices once and for all because there are many ambiguities relating to this subject in our country.
Currency, Chaplains, Declaration of Independence, swearing in process, etc...all allow the aknowledgement of a Higher Power, a Creator, God. Now the ACLU arbitrarily, or not so, decides to attack a statue in Alabama? The lefties accuse us of trying to backdoor laws regarding life to overthrow pro-abortion laws, well it seems if that is true it's a page out of their own book as they attack religious freedoms in this way.
Who has been restricted from praying? I'm sorry that you think the Bible is ambiguous. I believe it's actually very consistent when taken as a whole and understood as the Word, the Beginning and the End, Jesus Christ.
If we are talking Constitutional Law, that is fine (and there I disagree with the disobediance of a State court's and top official's commandment to Moore as well). But I was addressing many of these FReepers who say that not defending this guy is somehow not "Christian".
(from today's Washington Times)
But the eight state justices said Judge Thompson's order must be followed, writing that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it."... In their decision, the eight state justices invoked a state law that gives them the authority to overrule any administrative decision made by the chief justice.
They caved in on the principle, not the law.
The Alabama Supreme Court says they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law". What "law" are they following in this case? There is NO Federal law, passed by Congress, which addresses this controvery. Only forty years of judicial activism has formed some sort of precedent. But, no law. So, are they saying whatever a Federal judge says is now "law"? Apparently they have conceeded that point.
What they've done in saying they are following "law" is in fact only following a judge's orders, which is a far different thing than following the law - unless everybody wants to conceed whatever a Federal judge says from the bench is settled law.
Now these judges have picked an Alabama Law with which to enforce the ridiculous ruling of a non-existant Federal Law. This is a slipperly slope Judge Moore is refusing to traverse, and for good reason.
I fear these Alabama Judges have picked the wrong hill to die on.
Don't bother to reply with your opinion as to his motives, just talk about what he has done.
BTW, exactly what law is CJ Moore in violation of?
Make up your mind. Is he guilty of violating man's law or God's law, in your opinion?
If it's man's law, exactly what law has he violated?
If it's God's law, exactly what law has he violated?
They hate that question.
My point is that God's leading is to be followed and that sometimes He leads us to obey man's rule and in other circumstances He expects us to honor His when they are in conflict. To the world's eye it would appear ambiguous, but it is certainly consistant with His will and plan for His children.
Though the Commandments tell us not to kill, it is obvious that there are circumstances in which His will has been for death and destruction. Ambiguous? So it would seem apart from his sovereignty.
The original Hebrew word is much closer to our word for "murder" as opposed to "kill". Thus the reason the NIV version of the Bible translates Exodus 20:13 correctly as "You shall not murder."
My point is that God's leading is to be followed and that sometimes He leads us to obey man's rule and in other circumstances He expects us to honor His when they are in conflict.
I don't see how God's law and man's law are in conflict in this situation.
If it's man's law, exactly what law has he violated?
That Constitution thingy. Perhaps you've read about it somewhere?
Not just values, but freedom as well. Right on Byron.
I repeat, what law has CJ Moore violated?
Save us the slippery answer, gen'l. You made it clear that you are positive CJ Moore has violated God's law. Which part? What has he done that is a violation of God's law.
Put up or shut up.
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.