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.
Where does it say that the Ten Commandments have no place on our courthouses?
Find someone of the opposite sex (and make sure it ain't a trans dude/or dudette), get married and have some children. The frustration that you're now experiencing will be replaced by the day-to-day struggle to survive and raise a family in this fallen world of ours. Only when the kids are grown will you have time to do what I'm doing and enjoy your hobbies.
That's not what Judge Moore said
He said: "The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"
"Those were the precise words used by Judge Thompson in his closing remarks in open court. Today, I argue for the rule of law, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgment of God in the public sector."
You need to become familiar with Judge Moores' position before you try to argue against it.
Wow, you can translate "BA-A-A-AH" into English! I'm truly impressed.
I'm answering your desperate, fumbling accusations only because I want to reach out to you Poobah, to get through that miasma of confusion which you probably think of as your intellect.
Goombah, you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag, as your refusal to engage my argument when you started this flame war demonstrated.
"Good breeding" does not equal "intelligence."
Find someone of the opposite sex (and make sure it ain't a trans dude/or dudette), get married and have some children.
Happily married, with a beautiful five-year-old daughter.
Now kindly STFU. You've expended what Christian charity I have.
The frustration that you're now experiencing will be replaced by the day-to-day struggle to survive and raise a family in this fallen world of ours.
Yeah, especially with all the idiots shouting "get your hands off of my God!" out there.
"Your Honor, I rest my case."
I was relying on the other poster's statements. I should know better than to rely on someone who can't figure out what is and isn't a "religious test."
I do understand that Moore has deliberately gone out of his way to lose the case--he has refused excellent legal advice in favor of an extremely weak case that looked tailored to fail.
If he is sincere...pride goeth before the fall.
If he's what he seems to me...the Kingfish, wherever he is, is saying "that's it, son, good show!"
Better than a guess. Until fairly recently the acknowledgement of God as creator and final authority was a given on everything from the coins in our pockets to the oaths sworn in the courtroom.
I imagine most of the Founding Fathers would be shocked to see how protection from federally-supported religious taxation has morphed into denying God's existence in our daily lives.
Judge Moore has every right to do just what he chooses in the rotunda of his courthouse. And the fact that some chiseled rock causes this much consternation among the bubbleheads who pose as intellects is indicative of the petty, retrogressive, secular mudhole those in power want us to swim in.
As a society, we've abandoned any sense of moral perspective when we sanction Judge Moore and venerate Judge Judy.
No. You are the one asserting that the presence of a stone in a state building somehow is a law establishing a religion.
Wrong. I never said such a thing in any of my posts.
With all due respect, it is a ridiculous claim.
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.
No. You first need to go back and review my posts to see what my argument really was.
You've obviously lost track of the dialogue.
Wrong. I never said such a thing in any of my posts.
Isn't the following your statement?
The law Judge Moore defied was one dictating that NO ONE has the right to use the Govt to impose their religion on others.
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.