View Single Post
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2008, 11:01 AM
Daniel Ritchie Daniel Ritchie is offline.
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post

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...
My first point is not merely partially correct, at the time of the Revolution I think that at least 9 states had established churches, while all states were offiicially Protestant and Christian. The idea that the Founding Fathers would have forbidden courts from displaying the Ten Commandments is a-historical.

The point about "in the year of our Lord" is not silly; why do you think the French Revolutionaries wanted to get rid of it? Because they were wicked Atheists, while the American Founding Fathers were Christians (or at least influenced by Christianity). The reason the term AD has been adopted in Western Culture is due to the fact that Western Culture was Christian.

The fact that Judge Moore had a structure of authority over him is irrelevant; he is a lesser magistrate, and so he has a right to resist those over him when they threaten the people's liberty.

I am not joking about the Northern War of Aggression, when the Southern States seceded from the Union they were unlawfully invaded.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)