Posted on 08/28/2003 8:50:50 PM PDT by xzins
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!
© Chuck Baldwin
NOTE: These commentaries are copyrighted and may be reposted or republished without charge providing the publication does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and providing the publication reposts the column intact with full credit given including Chuck's web site: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. If the publication charges for subscriptions or advertising, the publication must contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com for permission to use this column.
Ah, but this case could make a fine lever to begin to restrict the magic wand of the current form of judicial review if we recognize it is in fact illegitimate, and demand reform. If judges are going to act as defacto legislators, appointment needs to be changed to election. As it stands, they bear no responsibility before the body politic for their decisions.
If you believe this is all the Founders meant by "establishment", you haven't read their words.
They - including Madison on numerous occasions - specifically wrote against the use of tax dollars collected from non-Christians to support the promotion of Christianity. This had nothing to do with the forced practice of Christianity. They also specifically intended that "establishment" would include the use of government office to adopt Christianity as the state-sponsored faith. Reading "establishment" to mean "complusory adherence to one faith" is a far more narrow reading than the one set forth by those who wrote the 1st Amendment.
Yeah, right.</sarcasm>. Point to that religion's edifices.
Thous shalt worship at the feet of SCOTUS. That one?
Further, are you arguing that court orders shouldn't be legally binding?
Nope.
Do you honestly want to live in a nation where we can ignore any court order simply because we don't agree with it?
Court orders are court orders and the refusal to abide by same come with penalties. Judge Moore has decide to accept those penalties because he sees the issue of the courts issuing anti Constitutional rulings as worth it. His stance is one of civil disobedience and he will pay the price for it while the frogs in the pot go merrily on their way to the boiling point.
Is there legal precedence for disobeying unlawful orders? Certainly. Does that come with consequences. Of course.
And I'm not arguing semantics, you are. You stated that court orders were in fact laws. That is a false statement. Correct
Citation please?
Actually Justice Marshall stated that in MArbury v Madison in direct conflict with the Constitution and then like now the Congress just rolled over and purred.
Exactly my point! The beauty of this 10C issue is it is forcing at least some elected officials to take a stand one way or the other.
The closest we've come to this set of circumstances was the Bush election back in 2000. But not for the intervention of SCOTUS, the Florida legislature, under intense but largely disingenuously reported pressure from the electorate, was poised to slap down the Florida Supreme Court. It was a missed opportunity that ended well anyway.
You didn't answer the critical question: Where does this law-making authority come from? If you cite the authority, you win the debate. If you can't, you lose. It's that simple.
First, the Bible says to Submit...unless those governing authorities go against the God's laws.
Second, Even using that standard, Judge Moore is in harmony (thus not insubmissive) with most the Governing authorties in this land--a majority of the Congress, the Executive branch, AND Our constitution.
The Judicial branch is only one part of our "Governing authorities".
In our system of Government the SCOTUS is only a one part of the governing authority, not the totality of it. Just because a branch of government claims, in effect, to be the final arbiter (e.g., the Marbury case) does not make it so. For example, one can only imagine the outcry if the executive branch made such a claim.
We would call that "unlawful dictatorship". Well, the SCOTUS does the same thing and some think we are obliged to accept it. We are not obliged.
are you arguing that court orders shouldn't be legally binding?
Of course court orders should not be legally binding if they are wrong!
President Lincoln did not consider the SCOTUS's Dred Scott decision (stating that blacks were inferior beings) to be legally binding. We had a civil war.
Remember, most of us are not moral or legal relativists, We believe there is objective truth, and our position is not weakened because of the fact that others may be mistaken about the truth. If this were so, then the the judicial branch would nullify itself asthe final arbiter since it is often historically wrong (Dred Scott).
A President is obligated by the U.S. Constitution to stand up against the SCOTUS when they are wrong...he just better make sure 34 Senators agree with him.
Do you honestly want to live in a nation where we can ignore any court order simply because we don't agree with it?
No. We honestly want to live in a nation where we can ignore the SCOTUS because they are critically wrong!
After all we live in a nation where 9 unelected people in black robes ignore the law and the constitution simply because they don't agree with it. They are no more authorized to disobey the law than we are.
Another response might be "But, that will lead to anarchy!"
First, we already have a form of anarchy within the court system itself! So the question is not about whether there will be lawlessness, but whether we will allow the Leftist courts to contitually get away with such blatant lawlessness.
Second, the threat of public "anarchy" (or antinomianism) is so minute that it poses no threat compared to the judicial antinomianism already taking place.
The public, as well as all branches of Government will stand by the ordered system--the SCOTUS--(right or wrong) in most cases that are not obvious blatant abuses of power (like Dred Scott, etc.)
Even using your reasoning, having the power to decide cases does not ensure such cases will be decided correctly If SCOTUS decisions are correct because they are SCOTUS decisions, then such reasoning is unjustifiably circular.
It's a form of relativism which would lead to the position that blacks really were inferior beings because the SCOTUS said so in Dred Scott.
We argue this is absurd. Lincoln agreed, and you had the executive branch ignoring the Judicial branch's decision resulting, in part, in a civil war. , which means they have the POWER to decide in this case per the Constitution. If Moore ignores them, he ignored the Constitution.
This does not follow. When Lincoln ignored the SCOTUS ruling that blacks were "inferior beings" he was not ignoring the constitution. Rather, the SCOTUS was wrong.
There is a false analogy. God's law directly commands us to treat all humans with dignity. It does not command us to place the Ten Commandments in a courtroom. The Christian is only allowed to violate the ruling authorities if obeying them would violate God's law. That is simply not the case here.
Then explain exactly how CJ Moore violated the 1st Amendment, which forbids Congress from making any laws that touch on an establishment of religion. So the question is, what law did CJ Moore violate? It is religion-establishing laws that the constitution forbids.
So, if CJ Moore didn't violate a Congress-made law, then what law did he violate? If you can't find it, don't castigate yourself too harshly. Federal Judge Thompson couldn't find one either. He didn't let that omission stop him from issuing a lawless court order though.
No. Actually it's the perfect anaology since it is right on point with what we are speaking of.
God's law directly commands us to treat all humans with dignity.
So you agree with us then that some judicial decisions are to be ignored at times?
The Christian is only allowed to violate the ruling authorities...
Judge Moore is not violating the ruling authorities (see my above post re: definition of "governing authorities")
...if obeying them would violate God's law....
The whole point is that it is the judges that ruled the ten commandments removed who are not submitting to the governing authorities. Remember, Judge Moore is correct. The other judges who want the ten commandments removeed are not following the constitution (which is part of our "governing authority").
Judge Moore is not required by God to submit to ungodly, unconstitutional judicial decisions, which, BTW, do, in fact, violate God's laws (they put aside Gods instructions to glorify him, and instead folow the precepts of secular humanism. I argue this is a violation of Gods laws).
But you admitted that the courts are sometimes wrong (as in Dred Scott). In fact the courts are wrong with regard to the constitutionality of the 10 commandments
I am not arguing the Constitutionality of Moore's monument, but whether or not he has the right to ignore the courts. I submit that he doesn't have that right, unless the courts' ruling violates God's law. Since there is nothing in Scripture that requires posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, the courts' ruling doesn't violate God's law, and thus Moore is bound not only by they Constitution, but also by Paul's command to obey those in authority, to remove the monument.
Clearly Thompson believed the Constitution or some other source of law (case law for instance) required the monument to be removed. We may not agree with him, but he is the governing authority in this case, per the Constitution, which states the SCOTUS and inferior courts have the power in all cases arising under the Constitution.
So then you would admit that the President would be correct to set aside abortion laws (for instance, the SCOTUS recent decision to strike down a states rights to outlaw partial birth abortion--analogous to Dred Scott law) since all humans should be treated with dignity, thus the abortion laws violate Gods laws?
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.