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.
Bull, you must be a lawyer. Legislators make law in this country, executives and judges make it other than paper. Somewhere along the line the judges lost their way. Time to make the correction. A stone monument no more establishes a religion than belching makes a tenor.
Bingo. So if the Supreme Court, or any court makes a law, then by definition it is an illegal law. And if a court issues an order pursuant to that judge-made law, then the order is void.
The power to legislate does not rest with the judiciary.
Right, I agree, which is why I tend to side with Moore on the Constitutionality of the monument. But the Constiution also states that the federal courts are to interpret exactly what the Constitution says, and it gives them the force of law. The courts in this case sided against Moore, which we have to accept unless it is egregiously erroneous.
Egregiously erroneous would mean an order to kill all Christians, or something like that. It would not mean an order to move a monument.
Do you want a nation where we are allowed to ignore court orders simply because we do not agree with them?
Diversion.
The issue is whether or not a state religion was established.
Another issue is whether or not Judge Moore has to excise ONLY his religious expression when it comes to the work environment in his own workplace that he is charged with arranging, decorating, organizing. (That would be prohibiting his free exercise.)
Right, but their rulings themselves govern how the law is interpreted and applied, and their rulings are enforced by the physical force of the state. Therefore, they are legally binding.
Again, I reiterate: Do you want a nation where we can ignore any court order we choose merely because we do not agree with it?
It's not about a stone symbol, and you know it. It's about SCOTUS "interpreting" laws in such a way as to constitute a quasi-legislative body. Moore has repeatedly quoted the letter of the first ammendment, and proves he is not in violation of said ammendment. If you choose to sanction the SCOTUS revision of what the first actually says, there is no principle by which to argue any interpretation they come up with for any of the others...including the second. Judicial review is NOT a power granted by the Constitution.
One of the reasons this is getting gnarled up relates to the misdirection of 'Christian' principles and state's rights versus Federal oligarchy. It does no harm to Christianity to make a stone icon to the Ten Commandments inappropriate to a Courthouse (though that is precisely where they should be displayed, as well as in schools and public-use locations), but it certainly effects our collective liberty for the federal judiciary to continue cancelling the states' laws duly on the books.
Which law did he break specifically ?
BUUUURRRRRRP!
Can I be in Figero now?
Ah, I see. So I sleep with my wife, so any woman I sleep with is my wife. Please...if it isn't passed by a legislature it isn't a law by definition. Don't you know that?
And nowhere does God command you to respect the usurpation of authority.
Amen, brother. The Mosaic Law required that it be read publicly on a regular basis. Fathers were required to speak of it constantly to their offspring. Even more then than now, ignorance of The Law was no excuse.
Everyone in Alabama who wants to read the Ten knows where to find them. Judge Moore was picking a fight by just placing the monument there, and he got one.
I DO, however, agree with the judge about the intellectual laziness regarding the Constitution and the founding fathers and belief in a Creator that has led to errors of jurisprudence such as the Ninth Circus's agreement with Michael Newdow.
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.