Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon  Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe
Your last 2 sentences are contradictory (never mind the erroneous reading of Romans 13). You believe that Romans 13 doesn't apply in this case. If so, lacking a theological argument, how was Moore wrong in disobeying the state? But in your first paragraph you say he violates Romans 13, but in this one you say it doesn't apply. Which is it?
| Very nice Michael Moore-esque video splicing short segments together without context! You missed the entire point of Pryor's (the prosecutor) cross examination. Pryor was pointing out that Moore can acknowledge God in numerous other ways, and didn't need a monument to do so. While it hurt Moore's case in displaying the monument, it actually illustrated that a justice can reference God in many other ways. Pryor essentially demonstrated what Moore was doing: unnecessary grandstanding under the guise of piety. That video is dishonest and misleading in that implies that Moore was on trial for "acknowledging God," which was not the issue at all.
Fair point about my Romans 13 comments - I was very unclear. Let me clarify: I do believe Romans 13 applies in this case, and that Moore was wrong for disboeying civil authority. What I meant to say is that there are no exceptions to Romans 13 in this particular case, because obeying the supreme court would not be violating God's law. So, Moore should have obeyed the court, and not doing so violates the concept of Romans 13. How is my reading of Romans 13 erroneous? |
Judge Moore is not disobeying legitimate civil authority, because he is a legitimate civil authority, being a civil magistrate he is one of "the powers that be" or "the governing authorities" who has a right to resist higher levels of civil authority when they step-outside their God-appointed role.
In Romans 13, Paul is not writing the state a blank check, but outlining what its God-appointed role is.