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.
Let me ask you this question:
If I write a letter to President Bush about this issue and say: This is about the ten commandments case. In order to establish justice -- APPEALNG to your involvement and guidance -- we write this letter.
Who am I suggesting as the most important authority based on the wording of that 2nd sentence?
How silly.
I suppose you actually think that Govt officials using their position to promote their personal religion in public Govt buildings...is fine UNLESS they pass a law requiring ALL people in the state to sign up for it.
With all due respect this is juvenile.
No. You are the one asserting that the presence of a stone in a state building somehow is a law establishing a religion. I'm merely asking which one. We will get to the other questions once you can name a religion that can be established by said stone.
1. No religion established.
2. The Chief Justice is responsible for the appearance of the building.
3. The display also had a developmental history aspect to it.
Based on #2, Buddhist artwork could be put up, too. I'm acutally betting that you can find it on the walls in some courthouses around America. Those drawings with Chinese characters have been quite popular. The words and pictures reflect aspects of Buddhist/Confucian/Taoist/etc. religion.
I could care less.
And, yes. A LAW must be passed for a religion to be ESTABLISHED.
It isn't established IF people aren't REQUIRED to join it.
If George Bush talks about his Methodism, or Billy Clinton talks about the Baptists, or GHBush speaks of Anglicanism, then I could care less AS LONG AS they don't force me to sign up.
It's America. There's lots of differences out there in the culture. Adults recognize that and don't let it get to them.
The genius of the 1st Amendment is that it said, "Just let everyone be themselves; keep your hand off their religion." That way they didn't have little religious gestapos running around the country tattling and getting in a snit everytime someone said the word "God."
If I write that letter, then the 2nd sentence indicates that I consider the President the leading authority.
Read this from the Preamble of the Alabama Constitution:
We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God,do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:
I think you can see the parallel.
If the letter recognizes the President as the Authority, then the preamble recognizes Almighty God as the authority.
Moore says his constitution REQUIRES him to recognize the authority of God.
Grammatically, he is correct. It does.
Actually, it doesn't, because the Preamble has ZERO legal value. And Judge Moore knows this.
One cannot uphold an interpretation of the Constitution that is contradicted by the preamble.
Nonetheless, the grammar remains.
You may say it isn't binding, but that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether those words were correctly translated by Moore. They are.
The preamble clearly recognizes "Almighty God" as the authority to which they appeal for guidance.
The preamble to any law, including the constitutions of the US and the States, sets forth the stated purpose of the law and when interpreting that law the judges MUST interpret the law in the light of that stated purpose. To fail to do so is to violate their oath.
If the "Church" in America had any "Court sense"..they would'nt be dragging this "Law" issue before Him who Lives Forever.
The Ancient of Days would ask them if they had observed the Law of Life themselves.
ie..Have you looked to the well being of your Parents...your children..your neighbour.
It is said..that the Creator did not speak to Israel for 400 yrs...this was after Temple 2 as they go by.
Well..Christianity is some 400+ denominations now...clear evidence things have run off the rails.
Judaism....divided and stubborn as it has allways been.
After the flood..the Earth was silent...this marker is redactl..as Noahs name in Hebrew..means quiet.
The one who dwells in Light Resplendent hears prayer..and answers.
The background noise in non existant when this diologue occurs.
I'm sure when God flips on Earth T.V...he hits the "Mute" button.
Mans endless Noise...
Sorry, the preamble of ANY legal document has zero legal value. This dates back to English common law.
One cannot uphold an interpretation of the Constitution that is contradicted by the preamble.
Except that the preamble is unenforceably vague, which is endemic to preambles and why they aren't enforceable.
Nonetheless, the grammar remains.
You may say it isn't binding, but that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether those words were correctly translated by Moore. They are.
Actually, they aren't.
The preamble clearly recognizes "Almighty God" as the authority to which they appeal for guidance.
That does not equal a MANDATE stating that Moore MUST acknowledge God in his courthouse, as you claim.
Therefore, he has a basis for making a "most favored culture" claim for judeo-christianity. That's OK with me.
However, my 3 issues which I think support Judge Moore are:
1. No religion established.
2. Moore was in charge of setting up displays, art, etc. in the building.
3. The monument includes a history of the development of law angle.
Sorry, kiddo. Preambles != enforceable; the principle goes back to English common law, which is where we get our own common law.
As such, it is the mission statement of the document.
Judge Moore's point is correct. An oath to uphold that constitution requires one to enter into that PURPOSE spelled out in the preamble. To be honest, an atheist judge simply cannot enter into his oath about that constitution with honesty. He cannot participate in "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God."
In extremely broad generalities. Specific clauses of the document are legally binding, not a questionable interpretation of the Preamble.
In order for Moore's claim that he is REQUIRED to acknowledge God, he has to ignore Article VI, paragraph 3--he is saying that there is a religious test for holding office or public trust under the United States.
So you're arguing that Article VI, Section 3 of the US Constitution is, in itself, unconstitutional?
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.