Judge Roy Moore Removed From Office
Published November 13, 2003
Justice, at least in the short term, has been served. Roy Moore has disgraced himself and American Christians with his misguided stance. America has been a haven for the Christian faith for as long as it has existed because of Freedom of Religion, not in spite of it. Christians must understand that we (yes, we) can not insist that anyone anywhere abide by or live under our moral law by force or coercion. Moore has - and continues to - thumb his nose at the Constitution Of The United States in the name of Christianity and at the risk of driving people even further toward divisiveness. I can't imagine a less Christian practice.
I have been waiting for weeks to click on a news link to the perfect 'take' on the Roy Moore debacle - or at least to pick up a newspaper/magazine and see an op-ed piece that made me say, 'There's somebody who has said what I've been thinking all along!' But no such luck. And maybe I just missed it - I've been busy being all self-employed and shit.
I don't have the brain for writing diatribes (misspent youth) but here's my rough guide to the whole shebang:
Roy Moore is an immoral man. His actions spit in the face of Christian ideals and Christian principles. I have read the Bible pretty thoroughly and - even though no Church on earth is clamoring to claim me as a member - I am very comfortable describing myself as a Christian. It takes a fool to take something as pure and simple as the teachings of Christ and pervert them to defend something as foul as what Moore and his cronies are doing. No text on earth so clearly and succinctly lays down the framework for religious and social tolerance as the New Testament. Christ clearly warned us to 'render unto Caesar,' but he never made any mention about us forcing anything of ours down Caesar's throat.
Moore and his ilk would have us believe that the framers of the Constitution - being Christians themselves - never meant separation of church and state / freedom of religion to be so grossly interpreted. Bullshit. The framers of the Constitution knew exactly what they were doing and that this country would have to practice religious tolerance for ALL, not just a handful of Baptists, Quakers, and Catholics, if it were to be a lasting alternative to what they had suffered under in Europe. The idea of separation of church and state was pretty novel and came at a high price. I don't think the 'Founding Fathers' need a mouth-breathing country judge to make plain what they intended - it's worked in plain view of the world for a couple of centuries now.
- Judge Roy Moore Removed From Office
- Published: November 13, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Chris Gray
- Chris Gray's BC Writer page
- Chris Gray's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Thanks Chris, very fine job. I folded your two posts into one since they are on the same topic.
I'd love to see him tried for treason.
Johno is right on point. Moore planned the whole thing, likely as part of his goal to become governor of the state. And, there is a good chance he will achieve that goal.
And, here is the kicker, Chris. Moore started a trend.
John you are wrong in so many ways that it's difficult to know where to start.
Let's begin with separation of church and state (SOCS). There is no provision for SOCS (as you interpret it) in the constitution or federal law except in court opinions by activist judges who essentially made it up out of thin air. The closest thing to SOCS in the constitution is the first ammendment which is intended to keep the state from establishing a church as had been done in England. These were people who had been persecuted because they did not follow the Church of England doctrine. A careful reading of the Federalist Papers will reveal to you that there was never any intention to remove religion from government. To the contrary, many of the founders said exactly the opposite. The current interpretation is a new invention of revisionist judges and is in sharp contrast to government practice for about 150 years prior.
The absence of SOCS in the constitution leaves us with the tenth amendment to fall back on... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that the federal government has no jurisdiction in a case involving a monument placed on state property by a man elected by a majority of voters in a state. Judge Moore was clearly elected in large part because of his stand on the commandments. By saying that he was wrong to defy the federal court ruling you are saying that the will of an unelected federal judge who has no jurisdiction in a state matter is more correct than the majority of voters in the state. How wrong is that? Judge Moore not only had the right but the duty to stand up to the federal court in this matter.
Lastly, your interpretation of what the bible says christians should do is not quite clear. But, it seems that you think that Judge Moore should make his beliefs subservient to the Constitution. I don't know what bible you are reading but that argument just baffles me. If you are a Christian how can you argue that a man-made document should be followed before God's word. In your careful reading of the bible did you not catch the part where Jesus was crucified because HE DEFIED THE AUTHORITY of the sanhedrin? They made up a lot of extra-biblical rules that Jesus called them on and they persecuted him for it.
Take a look at John 15:19 for a view of what Christians should expect from the world. "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."
Are you loved or hated by the world? What does that mean about where you stand with Jesus?
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/10099)
Ladies and Gentlemen of Alabama, may I present your next governer!