Roy Moore continued. Who are the law breakers?

I started a post a few days ago asking prayer for the Alabama primary election and Roy Moore in particular with the assumption that most Christians would support him.
Was I in for a surprise!
Not only do people not support him, he was called thing such as a rogue, lawbreaker and liar to mention a few.

HE was said to only have stood for the ten commandments for political gain.

So the topics discussed were:

• Was Judge Moore right or wrong to defy the court order
• Was he asked to do anything directly against scripture when asked to never acknowledge God as part of his duties?
• Was his oath, and first duty to the law(constitution of US and Alabama) or to judicial orders?
• What does a judge obey when their is a conflict between the written law and judges orders.
• Even if he is right, is he still qualified for office?


These were the basic discussions that came out of the other thread. If you happen to remember others, feel free to put your 2¢ worth in.

You can read the original post here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=9993

Dale

 

He was asked specifically if he would continue to acknowledge God.

Check this link out. http://vbuttons.com/ec/6064/index.php?em_id=4382104
It is pretty clear!

As for working at a place like that, no, I don't think I would work there.
And that is NOT the law of our land for our public officials. in fact the Alabama constitution itself acknowledges God quite clearly in the preamble.
"We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution."
Doesn't look like Alabama is a "secular multi national corporation" does it?

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
It is quite clear that the job of government is to punish evil and not good.

Pryor: "And if you resume your duties as chief justice after this proceeding you will continue to acknowledge God? As you have testified you would today? No matter what any other official says?"

How can it get more clear than that?

 

You avoided the question. Did you watch the video? Was he not asked what I quoted?
I could equally come back with "federal judges..you mean the ones that say that you can kill babies and that God is not allowed in schools or in public life?

That would depend on the exact circumstances and that is their business. It is also off topic.

 

Ok, put that way, he was ELECTED not just "hired" and with that election came an oath. The oath was to UPHOLD the constitution of both Alabama and the US.
WHen something came into conflict with that, he had to stay true to his oath.

Would you rather that he deny his oath and deny his God in order to appease men and uphold the rule of man?

 

And just what do you think that "Job" was?

 

I have thought of this myself and I understand what you are saying but consider this:
It was never contradicted. If they had said, well that is not why you are here, then you would have a point. But the fact is, they DIDN't say that.
They went on to ask if he would continue, and he specifically stated the ways in which he would continue and none of them had anything to do with the monument.

Are you asking that? He was the prosecutor and very active in pursuading behind the scenes for the judges removal.

Note that you said MANY. That is certianly true. But it only takes ONE way of acknowledging God that is taken away from us for us to stand and cry foul.

This shows a very legalistic understanding of idolatry. Tell me, do you have pictures in your house? do you have any figurines? Do you worship them?
If you DO worship then you are guilty, if you do not worship them, as I would expect that you don't, then there is no problem.

The monument is a destraction for the real issue. I will try to find the quote from the judge that said the monument itself was ok but the purpose of aknowledging the God of the Bible was the reason for the problem.

 

That was the practical side of his job, yes but his oath was to uphold the contitution. Also, what slips by a lot of people was that the decorating of the building was also part of the "job" so to speak. And since it was a relatively new building, it hadn't had much done to it yet.
His oath was to a constitution that invoked the favor of Almighty God. his monument reinforced the constituion that he took an oath to.
he did NOT have the right to post the communist manifesto or anything else that violated his oath. He did have a duty to decorate with things that complimented his oath and that is justwhat he did.

 

In what way did he violate that, in other words, what LAW did he violate. you state:

Just what law by the legislature did he violate?
A court order is not a law. There must be a law to back it up. A court can't just make up law as they go, even though they have been doing this unlawfully for years. (ex. Roe v. Wade)

 

Wow, RSR, we must have posted at the same time.

Thanks for posting that part of the transcript. I will go back and read all of that this evening. I don't want to get the facts wrong.
However, even at that, it is obvious that what the monument stood for was what was the problem.
And there was nothing wrong with the monument itself.

 

It comes from a quote from Morris Dees of the SPLC. I will try to get you an exact quote if possible.

But he must leave God out when judging is that it? Seems to be the main point and the point I am having a problem with.
Consider Psalm 2:
10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

You wouldn't for a picture of your family etc. ANd you wouldn't worship them either.
By the way, what was the original media used for the ten commandments? I mean as Moses wrote them down?

If you recall it was STONE!



By the way, I am still learning the facts of the case. There were a lot of things stated etc but the bottom line is that it was an attack against Almighty God and I take quite offense to that.
There are also a lot of contradictions.

So what was the point then? again inconsistent.



By the way, court order aside, do you think it to be wrong to Acknowledge the Christian God by any public official?

 

We seem to be posting at the same time. Actually I am aware of Pryors prior (no pun intended) actions in defense. The problem was it cost him politically and a federal nomination was at stake and he could not continue to support Moore if he was to ever get anywhere politically.