Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chuck Baldwin: "The American Inquisition Has Begun"
Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 11-14-03 | Baldwin, Chuck

Posted on 11/15/2003 11:59:35 AM PST by Theodore R.

The American Inquisition Has Begun

By Chuck Baldwin

Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon November 15, 2003 I was in attendance at Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's trial in Montgomery this past Wednesday and Thursday. "Trial" is not really the proper word, however. A better word is "inquisition."

There was never a doubt that the "judges" had made up their minds to remove Chief Justice Moore from the bench before the proceedings ever began. They sat like wooden Indians throughout the trial, taking few notes and, with only one exception, making no comments, and asking no questions.

Furthermore, Moore's attorneys had some 20 pieces of evidentiary material that they could have presented. This was denied. There were also several credible witnesses, including former Alabama Governor Fob James, that could have been called to testify on Moore's behalf. This was also denied.

The trial took upon itself a distinctive tone of inquisition when Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor questioned Chief Justice Moore. Here is an exchange between Pryor and Moore taken from the official transcript of the trial:

Pryor: Mr. Chief Justice? And your understanding is that the Federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn't that right?

Moore: Yes.

Pryor: And if you resume your duties as Chief Justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today---

Moore: That's right.

Pryor: ---no matter what any other official says?

Moore: Absolutely. (Chief Justice Moore then elaborated.)

Pryor: The only point I am trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as Chief Justice, you will continue to do that [acknowledge God] without regard to what any other official says; isn't that right?

Moore: (He responds by listing numerous examples of the public acknowledgement of God, and concluded answering the question.) I think you must.

Does any reader of this exchange not see what Bill Pryor was demanding? He was demanding that Chief Justice Roy Moore not acknowledge God! Pryor did not even refer to the Ten Commandments. He repeatedly asked Moore if he would continue to acknowledge God. To acknowledge God was deemed an impermissible activity and for this Roy Moore was removed as Alabama Chief Justice.

Watching Bill Pryor examine Roy Moore in such a fashion reminded me of the movie "Luther." It was shockingly similar to the moment when the great reformer stood in front of the Roman council and heard the inquisitor shout, "Will you recant? Will you recant? Will you recant?"

It is more than interesting that Bill Pryor asked Chief Justice Moore three times whether he would continue to acknowledge God, because Satan asked the Lord Jesus three times to fall down and worship him, and Simon Peter denied Christ three times. There does seem to be a pattern!

The point that all Americans must understand is that Chief Justice Roy Moore was removed from the bench, not for committing any crime, not for participating in unethical conduct, and not even for posting the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building. He was removed from office for acknowledging God!

Americans must understand that people such as judge Myron Thompson and Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor actually believe that the public acknowledgement of God is illegal activity. Even more dangerous, they believe that a federal judge's order, not the U.S. Constitution, is the supreme law of the land. Pryor said as much during the trial.

There is yet another similarity of Roy Moore's trial to a Dark Ages-style inquisition. Not only was he commanded to recant his public acknowledgment of God, the trial itself was conducted out of public view. No television cameras or recording devices were allowed. Obviously, the inquisitors did not want the American people to see and hear for themselves what took place inside the Alabama Judicial Building on that day.

However, reminiscent of Dark Ages-style punishment, while the trial took place in obscurity, TV cameras were allowed in the courtroom the next day when the verdict to remove Moore from the bench was announced, so all America could witness the "hanging."

The removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore as Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice is a travesty of justice, a reproach upon our national honor, and an insult to the voters of Alabama! It is also painfully obvious that since the American inquisition has begun, it is now time for an American reformation!

The American reformation should begin with the voters of Alabama electing Roy Moore to the highest office of that state and by the American people electing men and women to Congress who will immediately put a stop to these black-robed inquisitors!

Let the reformation begin!

© Chuck Baldwin


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: al; conviction; darkages; god; inquisition; iwantthefirststone; martinluther; moore; myronthompson; pryor; tencommandments

1 posted on 11/15/2003 11:59:36 AM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Well, I guess Pryor has proved the Democrats correct on his nomination - he IS too extreme to be allowed to sit on the bench. Why is freedom of religion so hard for these people to figure out?
2 posted on 11/15/2003 12:03:42 PM PST by thoughtomator ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Government officials using their political authority to specifically advocate a narrow sectarian viewpoint is establishment - which is prohibited by the 1st amendment.

In other words, Roy Moore as private citizen can honor any faith he wants - he cannot, however, do it on behalf of the State of Alabama as one of its elected officials.

It is really simple.

3 posted on 11/15/2003 12:07:57 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul; Poohbah; Catspaw; Modernman; SeaDragon; onyx
More hysterical shrieking from our "friend".
4 posted on 11/15/2003 12:09:10 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Government officials using their political authority to specifically advocate a narrow sectarian viewpoint is establishment - which is prohibited by the 1st amendment.

The establishment clause only applies to the US Congress and has nothing to do with the states at all.
5 posted on 11/15/2003 12:10:42 PM PST by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: microgood
-thank you.
6 posted on 11/15/2003 12:14:15 PM PST by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: microgood
***BZZZZZT***

Wrong. The 14th Amendment and several decades of litigation say you're all wet.

7 posted on 11/15/2003 12:18:27 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
several decades of litigation say you're all wet.

How does several decades of distorting and perverting reality (what the legal profession is all about) change the establishment clause which was written over 200 years ago?
8 posted on 11/15/2003 12:21:34 PM PST by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Let me spell the words real slow, inasmuch as your reading comprehension is apparently pathetic - f-o-u-r-t-e-e-n-t-h a-m-e-n-d-m-e-n-t.

1860s, Civil War and all that?

9 posted on 11/15/2003 12:27:07 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
- f-o-u-r-t-e-e-n-t-h a-m-e-n-d-m-e-n-t.

Oh yes, the LSD induced link (or maybe lawyer induced link) between the equal protection clause and establishment clause. Definitely staying away from the stuff you are dropping.
10 posted on 11/15/2003 12:31:40 PM PST by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
"If Roy Moores' monument is allowed to stand,it would mean
a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the
constitution for years."Ed carnes of th e11th circuit in one of his ungaurded moments of honesty.Clearly Roy Moore
was lynched to protect years of mis-interpretation of the
constitution.there is nothingnew under the sun.And Brevard Hand made a reasonable case against the looney tunes
mis-application of the 14th amendment only to be ingnored
by th eenemies of our Constitution and way of life.
11 posted on 11/15/2003 12:35:38 PM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Why is freedom of religion so hard for Chuck Baldwin to understand? If there is an any inquisition in this country, I could almost guarantee it would be led by him or his ilk. Baldwin does the unthinkable...he almost makes the ACLU look good.

Where is your BARF ALERT. Rember all BAldwin posts must have the requisite BARF WARNING.

12 posted on 11/15/2003 12:37:26 PM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Thanks for posting this. I heard Judge Moore quote this portion of the transcript on NBC yesterday. It is almost unbelievable that such a question would be asked, and without shame. If he referred to the monument and inguired as to his refusal to remove it I could see some basis. The question as it stands however is outrageous.
13 posted on 11/15/2003 12:37:51 PM PST by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Sounds like mission creep - Government recognizing a Creator is the same as Government establishing a religion.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The import of the Alabama approach is to negate the Declaration of Independence by establishing that all Rights come from Government something our founders were not willing to cede to Government. There is a God, let's go from there.

14 posted on 11/15/2003 12:38:19 PM PST by ex-snook (Americans need Balanced Trade - we buy from you, you buy from us. No free rides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
1860s, Civil War and all that?

So it took 130 years to figure out we cannot have statues of the 10 commandment in state courthouses. More like some sinister people are trying to change things.
15 posted on 11/15/2003 12:41:29 PM PST by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Maybe it'll be a Moore-Baldwin ticket for next year's Constitution Party slate.
16 posted on 11/15/2003 12:45:18 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Pryor is a Roman Catholic, Justice Moore is Born Again Christian. Could the persecution of Matthew 24 have begun?
17 posted on 11/15/2003 1:21:25 PM PST by thiscouldbemoreconfusing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Maybe it'll be a Moore-Baldwin ticket for next year's Constitution Party slate.

The dream ticket?

18 posted on 11/15/2003 1:53:18 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: microgood
The establishment clause only applies to the US Congress and has nothing to do with the states at all.

The 14th Amendment applied to Bill of Rights to the states. If you believe that is incorrect, then I guess you also believe that the states can outlaw the right to bear arms.

19 posted on 11/15/2003 5:43:46 PM PST by Modernman (What Would Jimmy Buffet Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Although the 14th Amendment to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ratified in 1868, was designed to restrain state governments from abridging the rights of former slaves after the Civil War, it has been used to extend virtually all of the personal liberties and rights granted in the BILL OF RIGHTS to protection against infringement by state governments

It was not until 1925 in Gitlow v. New York that the Court used the due process clause of this amendment to incorporate a provision of the Bill of Rights by extending the FIRST AMENDMENT protection of freedom of speech to persons against abridgment by state action.

Sounds like this admendment has been changed from its original intent as well. Leave it to lawyers to pervert meaning.
20 posted on 11/16/2003 12:27:38 AM PST by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson