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.
But this is unjustified circular reasoning. You are assuming that a court's refusal to follow the Constitution is not a violation of God's law. The whole point is, we believe the court certainly is violating God's law by ignoring the constitution at this point since this first amendment case is consistent with God's law.
The whole thing can be boiled down to this question: If the courts violate the constitution (which you admitted they sometimes do), are they not also violating God's law (when, in fact, his laws are glorified in such cases as Judge Moore)?
Acts 4:5-21
5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, 6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, 9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. 14 And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. 15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, 16 Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. 17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. 18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 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. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. 21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.
Not when he is a rogue out of step with the constitution and 2/3rds of the final governing authority (Congress, executive branch).
That is a logically indefensible position, unless you'd like the Republic to descend into chaos.
My position is the logical position, and it is exactly the way to stop leftist judges from sending our Republic into chaos.
remember, you are assuming that we will go into chaoes if we follow the constitution, and that the leftist judges are not the ones sending us into chaos by theirundermining the rule of law.
This is unjustified circular reasoning to assume that judges are the rule of law. They most certainly are not. They are interpreters of the rule of law. But when they incorrectly interpret the rule of law, they don't become the rule of law, themselves, to which we are accountable.
Please be careful of the underlying relativism you are arguing for. It is self defeating. If relativism is true, then you are right and wrong, which means I am wrong, but also right. I tire of this conversation. It is clear you believe we can ignore the Courts at our discretion simply because we disagree with them. I don't believe that. We'll leave it there.
Look, what I am arguing is that the judge who ordered the removal of the ten commandments is an aberational fraction within the greater parts of the governing authority who don't agree with him.
President Bush and the Congress (for the most part) no doubt agree with Judge Moore's interpretation. They are a greater part of the "governing authority" then that rogue judge, so Judge Moore is not being insubmissive.
No. quite the contrary. It is the leftist courts who believe they can ignore the constitution "at their discretion simply because" they "disagree" with it.
Second, I'm not the one who is a relativist. I don't think "disagreement" is a condition for disobeying the courts. Rather truth, Godliness, and constitutionality are the conditions.
I don't argue we should disobey the courts when they disagree with us, but rather when they are wrong. Truth, after all, is knowable.
If you say it is not is to allow that it is. After all, if you say truth is not knowable, then you are claiming to know that it is unknowable, which is self-contradictory.
Judge Moore has the Constitution on his side, and about 80% of the people. I wonder how many of that remaining 20% Clinton/Gore lunatic fringe will post to this thread.
On the one hand, you argue that a court's power is not absolute. It is right for someone to sometimes set aside a court's ruling (as Lincoln did in the Dred Scott case), albeit for human rights.
On the other hand, you seem to be arguing that it is never right to do so.
Remember, our "Republic" did, in fact,"descend into chaos" (we had a civil war!) after Lincoln set aside the SCOTUS decision. But I'm sure you would not fault Lincoln for that just because he "disobeyed" the courts. You would probably argue he was in fact correct.
I know, I know. You would say that was for human dignity. But the point is we both agree that there are times when courts should be "disobeyed" even if it might conceivably result in chaos. We disagree on what grounds we should do so.
So it is disingenous for you to argue as if there is never a time to do so when you think chaos might be involved.
I think what c-b 1 is referring to is the Paragon Foundation (of which I am a member), which has recently merged with The Environmental Conservation Organization.
It is a group of primarily Christian Conservatives, headed up by Zane Walley, Henry Lamb, Ronnie Merrit, and Bobby Jones.
1. No official national or state church has been established. If it has someone point to the law, and then to the place where I'm required to sign up.
2. The judge should be permitted to decorate in his style, the same as other chief justices before him have been able to decorate in their style. It's just a piece of artwork that is his expression in his workplace over an area that he is responsible for decorating.
3. It is an historic display demonstrating the derivations of American law.
For any of those issues, I cannot understand why this monument is any problem.
Please quote this law of which you speak. Because the constitutional language refers only to restrictions on Congress in passing laws relating to religion. It has nothing to do with having a monument to famous set of laws in a government building dedicated to law.
Actually, they did. There is nothing in the constitution that would forbid the display of a monument to a famous set of laws in a governmental building dedicated to law and justice. (And by the way, it is a STATE building, not a federal one. The Constitution says nothing of the states as regards religion.)
If you are conceding the constitutional argument, then it follows that CJ Moore had the right to disobey an unconstitutional court order.
Clearly Thompson believed the Constitution or some other source of law (case law for instance) required the monument to be removed.
Judge Thompson's beliefs do not trump the Constitution. The constitutional argument still has some unanswered questions. The more important one is, what Congress-made law did Justice Moore violate? You still haven't answered it.
So when did Moore become a member of Congress, and what law did he establish?
Will the Court feel they've made a mistake in their ruling? Are they losing sleep over their decision and wait the day they can rectify their mistake?
I'm not holding my breath.
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.