Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie
The first section rules out Erastianism; the Westminster Divines were strongly in favour of a covenanted-Christian state.
The second section refers to the magistrates "just and legal authority", it is not just and legal authority to restrict the God-given and constitutional rights of the American people. Moreover, while the people should never resist a magistrate for infidelity in religion, Judge Moore was not one of the people, but one of the "powers that be" that God has ordained to withstand tyrants.
The idea of a "secular" courthouse is foreign to historic Reformed political theory; all courthouses are religious, the only question is which religion does it recognise. Judge Moore was contending for the rights of God over a civil court which is supposed to be acting as God's servant. It is not the "just authority" of a civil court in the United States (or anywhere for that matter, but especially the USA) to forbid Christian religious expression; they had no just authority in this matter and Judge Moore rightfully resisted their undermining of the rights of the American people.  | I agree to a certain extent with your first point that it forbid Erastianism, but at the same time nowhere in the Confession or in Scripture are there instructions to display the Ten Commandments or any other type of Christian monument on the grounds of a secular building; it doesn't forbid it, but it doesn't expressly command a Christian magistrate to do it. Moore was essentially overstepping his bounds by doing so.
But even if you're right about the first point, Moore was still wrong in disobeying the just authority of his superiors. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for a state court to display a religious symbol. Moore has every right to express his Christian beliefs, and if you read the Circuit Court's ruling on the original issue (I'll find the link), they affirmed this right. The difference is that it was on display in a state courthouse, which in the court's view violated the First Amendment provision that forbids government to establish a specific religion. So again, they weren't "forbidding Christian religious expression," just forbidding this specific monument in a state courthouse, which they viewed as the government endorsing one specific religion. The court had every authority to do this, and to demand its removal. It's not tyranny or abuse of power of unjust authority. Moore may disagree with the decision, and he may even be right. But he still should obey their authority according to Romans 13; removing the monument is not causing him to sin. |
The first amendment of the US Constitution was forbidding the establishment of an established federal church; it was not possible at the time of the American Revolution to have one federal church as there were different denominations established in the states, while in every state Protestant Christianity was the official religion. The idea that the first amendment means that the civil government is not to be Christian is ahistorical, as the Constitution itself would therefore be unconstitutional as it says at the bottom "in the year of our Lord".
Romans 13 does not teach that the lesser magistrate should obey the authority of other magistrates except when they require him to sin, according to Romans 13 Judge Moore is one of the "powers that be" (note the word is plural) and thus has the right to resist actions which he believes are an unlawful encroachment on the people's liberties which he is there to protect. Indeed, I believe that he would have been justified in raising a citizen militia and resisting by force of arms if necessary. There was a group of lesser magistrates who did this before in America....when was it...1776 (and 1861 when the CSA - now unlawfully occupied by Northern invaders - seceeded)...remember the British parliament were not forcing the colonists to sin by paying more tax, however, they were trampling on their rights as Englishmen under God, and so it was rightly resisted by the lesser magistrate.