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.
Jorge"Wrong. I never said such a thing in any of my posts."
AndrewC;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."
Of course it's my statement.
But nowhere do I state that *defying a law* is the same as creating a new "law establishing a religion."
My statement says that Judge Moore was abusing his position in Govt to impose his religion on others. You don't need to create a law to do this.
Then tell me the mechanism. You have not even named the religion. The only thing Moore has done is place that stone. Now you are the one asserting an imposition. Please elucidate.
Do I have to draw you a picture?
Guess you would have no problem walking into a Court House and seeing a giant picture of Mohammud on the wall and a stone replica of the Quran knowing the Judge put it there out of his personal choice.
You know I am right. This debate is so bogus.
You are a mind reader too! I admit to no such thing. You are patently wrong. There are no muslim nor buddhist references because they had nothing to do with the philosophy and formation of this Republic. It wasn't Buddhists nor Muslims that left Europe because of religious persecution nor were they atheists. You have not even come close to showing any establishment of any religion. And the prohibition is against Congress making laws establishing religion ---Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
You are a mind reader too! I admit to no such thing. You are patently wrong.
Don't contradict me. Why are you being so stubborn?
Don't you understand yet? Resistance is futile. I will win. You will lose.
Are there some aspects of the Quran which can relate to and tolerate our American system of criminal justice as the Ten Commandments does? Don't muslims still cut off fingers and behead folks as punishment in their system of "justice?"
Heck, some day some devil worshipping judge might want to put a statue of the devil in the rotunda. But shouldn't the folks of Montgomery decide if the The Ten Commandments, or a picture of Mohammed, or a statue of the devil be removed?
No, I don't think so. I don't believe religious expressions in Govt should be left up the tyranny of the local majority.
My ancestors barely escaped France with their lives after the Catholics came to power and began persecuting Protestants.
We need that sort of thing here.
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.