Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie 
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).
|
Your first point is partially correct, but by forbidding the establishment of religion at the federal level, the same also applied at the state level, since no state law can conflict with the Constitution. And remember, the Constitution and especially Bill of Rights were written to protect minorities from oppression. So the fact that some of the authors of the Constitution were Christians, as was the majority of the nation, does not imply that they wanted a "Christian nation" per se. Others may disagree, but the Circuit Court ruling in this case is probably right in line with what they would have wanted. And your argument about "in year of our Lord" is a bit silly. The term AD has been universally adopted in Western culture as a way of measuring time - it doesn't imply belief in Christianity.
I disagree with your second point entirely. Moore was in a position of power, but had a clear structure of authority over him. The court's ruling was not illegal, not sinful, and did not encroach on the "people's liberties." And of course he does not have the right to raise a militia.
And I assume you're joking about the legality of the Civil War...
