Thread: Judge Roy Moore to Speak in Wytheville, VA

will there be audio afterwards?

Yes, we will be recording and producing CD sets as well as posting it to our website.

There will also be mountain rednecks like myself there.

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

There will also be mountain rednecks like myself there.

The more the merrier!

Originally Posted by Southern Presbyterian

Judge Roy Moore ("the Ten Commandments Judge") will be speaking in Wytheville, VA, Saturday, April 5th, from 9 AM to 2 PM. Blessings!

I've always wondered what Judge Moore's understanding of Romans 13:1 is, and how he justified defying the federal court's order to remove the taxpayer funded monument he erected in his court's building without the consent of his fellow justices on the Alabama Supreme Court, and for which he was removed from office by the duly-appointed authorites in Alabama.

Will anyone besides BlueRidge Baptist be attending? If so, PM me. I wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to say "Hello" in person.

I would go but being in Kirkland,Wa dont help

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by Southern Presbyterian

Judge Roy Moore ("the Ten Commandments Judge") will be speaking in Wytheville, VA, Saturday, April 5th, from 9 AM to 2 PM. Blessings!

I've always wondered what Judge Moore's understanding of Romans 13:1 is, and how he justified defying the federal court's order to remove the taxpayer funded monument he erected in his court's building without the consent of his fellow justices on the Alabama Supreme Court, and for which he was removed from office by the duly-appointed authorites in Alabama.

Could you give a link to this matierial brother? Would love to read it.

CNN.com - Ten Commandments judge removed from office - Nov. 14, 2003

At the end of the day judge Moore was right and on the side of God and the federal court as usual was against Christ and in league with Satan.
God's law trumps everytime.

Roy Moore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

CNN.com - Ten Commandments judge removed from office - Nov. 14, 2003

At the end of the day judge Moore was right and on the side of God and the federal court as usual was against Christ and in league with Satan.
God's law trumps everytime.

Roy Moore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having lived in Alabama when this debacle was going on, I must disagree that Roy Moore was on the "side of God" in this case. The issue of the Ten Commandments being displayed is a different argument altogether. The bottom line in this case is that the state supreme court (unanimously), state governor, and attorney general (the governor and AG are both conservative Christians) all told Moore to remove the monument and he refused, clearly violating Paul's admonition in Romans 13.

Now, I like having the Ten Commandments displayed in public places (eg, government buildings), though I understand the opposing argument completely - if you allow the Bible to be displayed, you also must allow the Koran. But there is no Biblical mandate to display the Ten Commandments in secular government buildings. So, I don't believe Romans 13 applies at all in this case. Moore should have obeyed his civil authorities and removed the monument.

As a side note, Moore is seen by most people in Alabama (a very conservative state) as being a political opportunist rather than a devout follower of God. He has a very suspect track record when it comes to making "stands" like this, and many saw it (correctly, as it turns out) as a starting point for his campaign for governor. So, what looks like piety on the surface isn't always so...

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

At the end of the day judge Moore was right and on the side of God and the federal court as usual was against Christ and in league with Satan.
God's law trumps everytime.

Originally Posted by Bladestunner316

I would go but being in Kirkland,Wa dont help

Well, I suppose that's a good enough reason.

But we could've made room on the couch for you.

BTW, we plan on making audio available of the seminars, barring technical difficulties or ineptitude. I'll post links as soon as they are available.

Blessings,

Having lived in Alabama when this debacle was going on, I must disagree that Roy Moore was on the "side of God" in this case. The issue of the Ten Commandments being displayed is a different argument altogether. The bottom line in this case is that the state supreme court (unanimously), state governor, and attorney general (the governor and AG are both conservative Christians) all told Moore to remove the monument and he refused, clearly violating Paul's admonition in Romans 13.

The prosecuation disagrees with you. They made it clear that the issue was not about some monument, but wether the state may acknowledge God as the source of law.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Having lived in Alabama when this debacle was going on, I must disagree that Roy Moore was on the "side of God" in this case. The issue of the Ten Commandments being displayed is a different argument altogether. The bottom line in this case is that the state supreme court (unanimously), state governor, and attorney general (the governor and AG are both conservative Christians) all told Moore to remove the monument and he refused, clearly violating Paul's admonition in Romans 13.

The prosecuation disagrees with you. They made it clear that the issue was not about some monument, but wether the state may acknowledge God as the source of law.

Link?

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

CNN.com - Ten Commandments judge removed from office - Nov. 14, 2003

At the end of the day judge Moore was right and on the side of God and the federal court as usual was against Christ and in league with Satan.
God's law trumps everytime.

Roy Moore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having lived in Alabama when this debacle was going on, I must disagree that Roy Moore was on the "side of God" in this case. The issue of the Ten Commandments being displayed is a different argument altogether. The bottom line in this case is that the state supreme court (unanimously), state governor, and attorney general (the governor and AG are both conservative Christians) all told Moore to remove the monument and he refused, clearly violating Paul's admonition in Romans 13.

Note that if you are correct, then we should see in the prosecution a clear reference to the monument. But note that is precisely what we do not see.

YouTube - Roy Moore cross-examined for acknowledging God

Now, I like having the Ten Commandments displayed in public places (eg, government buildings), though I understand the opposing argument completely - if you allow the Bible to be displayed, you also must allow the Koran. But there is no Biblical mandate to display the Ten Commandments in secular government buildings. So, I don't believe Romans 13 applies at all in this case. Moore should have obeyed his civil authorities and removed the monument.

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?

Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
Deu 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.


Imo, anytime any state tells any christian to remove the 10 commandments from view or violate the law of God in any manner they are outside of Romans 13 protection thier actions. Government is just as responsible to God's law as individuals are.

Also, the historic Reformed position on Romans 13 is that the lesser civil magistrate (which includes everything from Sherriffs to Judges) may rise up and interpose themselves.

Calvin and John Knox taught this.

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?

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

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.

For more on the right of lesser magistrates to resist, readers may benefit from this post on my blog:

Carson was Right! « Reformed Covenanter

After reading this you should purchase my book.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to governing authorities."

Moore was subject to (and should have obeyed) the rule of the other 8 supreme court justices, who in this case were his "governing authority." I agree that if they had abused their power or had caused Moore to sin by following their order, he would have the right to resist (as Calvin would no doubt agree). But they didn't abuse their power, and they didn't cause him to sin. Whether or not you agree with his stand on the monument, I fail to see how he had the right to disobey the legal authority in this situation.

When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power.

They never told him he could not acknowledge God. They certainly didn't in the video you showed. Do you have a link or transcript that shows otherwise?

Interview with judge Moore by Kevin Swanson.

SermonAudio.com - In God We Trust. . . or Not.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power.

They never told him he could not acknowledge God. They certainly didn't in the video you showed. Do you have a link or transcript that shows otherwise?

They most certainly did in the video. They asked him will he continue to acknowledge God (the implication being if he did he would be dismissed). He said yes, because...

They said, and here I quote verbatim in the video, "We don't care why, but rather, will you?"

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power.

They never told him he could not acknowledge God. They certainly didn't in the video you showed. Do you have a link or transcript that shows otherwise?

They most certainly did in the video. They asked him will he continue to acknowledge God (the implication being if he did he would be dismissed). He said yes, because...

They said, and here I quote verbatim in the video, "We don't care why, but rather, will you?"

Again, you took a segment of video out of context, and thus don't understand the point of the questioning. Pryor was actually showing that Moore COULD acknowledge God in many ways. You are assuming from the short clip that by answering yes to those questions they ruled against him based on his acknowledgement of God. But this is simply false. The point is that Moore didn't need the monument to acknowledge God, because he could do it in MANY other ways, which is exactly what Pryor was demonstrating in that line of questioning. As I said earlier, that video is deceptive and misleading.

"When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power." This is completely wrong - they never did any such thing. Again, please find a transcript or a different clip to prove me wrong...

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

They never told him he could not acknowledge God. They certainly didn't in the video you showed. Do you have a link or transcript that shows otherwise?

They most certainly did in the video. They asked him will he continue to acknowledge God (the implication being if he did he would be dismissed). He said yes, because...

They said, and here I quote verbatim in the video, "We don't care why, but rather, will you?"

Again, you took a segment of video out of context, and thus don't understand the point of the questioning. Pryor was actually showing that Moore COULD acknowledge God in many ways. You are assuming from the short clip that by answering yes to those questions they ruled against him based on his acknowledgement of God. But this is simply false. The point is that Moore didn't need the monument to acknowledge God, because he could do it in MANY other ways, which is exactly what Pryor was demonstrating in that line of questioning. As I said earlier, that video is deceptive and misleading.

Moore admitted the very fact that he didn't need the monument. The monument pointed to something deeper: whether he could acknowledge God or not as the source of Law. Perhaps the video is out of context, but the statements there seem rather clear.

This is completely wrong - they never did any such thing. Again, please find a transcript or a different clip to prove me wrong...

With all due respect, I don't feel I need to.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

With all due respect, I don't feel I need to.

If you want your view to have any intellectual integrity, you do. The fact is they did NOT rule against him for acknowledging God. They ruled against him for failing to obey a legal court mandate.

I don't mean to harp on this, but what you said is simply incorrect. I suppose it's up to you if you want to actually find the truth of the matter, but I wanted to make it clear what ACTUALLY happened to everyone else reading the thread...

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

When they told him he could not acknowledge God, contrary to the laws of the land and contrary to their own opening court statements, they have abused their power.

In what portion of their opinion did they hold that he couldn't aknowledge God?

I'm going to look this opinion up and see what it actually says in hopes of clarifying things a bit.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to governing authorities."

Moore was subject to (and should have obeyed) the rule of the other 8 supreme court justices, who in this case were his "governing authority." I agree that if they had abused their power or had caused Moore to sin by following their order, he would have the right to resist (as Calvin would no doubt agree). But they didn't abuse their power, and they didn't cause him to sin. Whether or not you agree with his stand on the monument, I fail to see how he had the right to disobey the legal authority in this situation.

But he is one of the governing authorities, so he has the right to resist their tyranny as they were stepping outside their God-appointed role, and he, as a lawful lesser magistrate, was resisting them.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

With all due respect, I don't feel I need to.

If you want your view to have any intellectual integrity, you do. The fact is they did NOT rule against him for acknowledging God. They ruled against him for failing to obey a legal court mandate.

I don't mean to harp on this, but what you said is simply incorrect. I suppose it's up to you if you want to actually find the truth of the matter, but I wanted to make it clear what ACTUALLY happened to everyone else reading the thread...

I could find it, I suppose. And I might later on. I don't have cable at my house so my time and priorities on the internet are limited. I have other projects going. Partly the reason I jumped in the thread--well, let's assume for the moment you are correct.

I jumped in this thread because I weary of hearing Reformed Christians parrot Romans 13 in a way that I think is ethically ambiguous. And even assuming he is wrong in some matters, I think Judge Moore represents a much needed voice in American circles. We are seeing increasing judicial tyranny and it is helpful to see someone stand against it.

Well, I certainly didn't intend for this thread to turn into a debate about Judge Moore or his court case. It was meant as an invitation to anyone in the area, that might find such an event edifying/beneficial, to attend.

But on a personal note I must add, that having spent time around Judge Moore (note: I am not claiming to be his close friend - he would more than likely not even remember who I am) I consider him to be a man of biblical character and not one to stage any event due to either personal or political ambitions. Also, I do know men who are his friends that hold the same, or if possible, an even higher opinion of the Judge.

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
Deu 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Imo, anytime any state tells any christian to remove the 10 commandments from view or violate the law of God in any manner they are outside of Romans 13 protection thier actions. Government is just as responsible to God's law as individuals are.

Your quote of Deut. 6 misses the point. Roy Moore was not on trial for posting the law of God on his own property. The Supreme Court of Alabama was and is run by 9 justices, of which Moore was only one. They were 8 to 1 against him on this, and he refused to submit.

It would have been like if he had spent court funds to donate Bibles to the Gideons. It would have been misappropriation of public funds for an unauthorized private purpose, which is a crime. It would have been no defense to say Deut. 6 requires me to do this in and around my own home. He's lucky he didn't go to jail.

The people in Alabama did not want him for governor because they followed his grandstanding shenagans closer than the average Christian outsider.

Let me offer another analogy, on the issue of Christian liberty of conscience: let's say someone comes into my courtroom and I ask, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?" and the person says, "I can affirm, but I cannot swear."

And I kick them out of my court for rebellion against my authority? Am I right?

No; because I refused to acknowledge the legitimate liberty of conscience of others. I am not allowed to use my position to impose my particular way of practicing my beliefs on others.

That is also part of what was wrong with Roy Moore. The Bible does not mandate monuments to the Decalogue on public property. Individual believers are free to place monuments on property they own or control. But Roy Moore did not own or control the property where he placed his monument.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
Deu 6:9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Imo, anytime any state tells any christian to remove the 10 commandments from view or violate the law of God in any manner they are outside of Romans 13 protection thier actions. Government is just as responsible to God's law as individuals are.

Your quote of Deut. 6 misses the point. Roy Moore was not on trial for posting the law of God on his own property. The Supreme Court of Alabama was and is run by 9 justices, of which Moore was only one. They were 8 to 1 against him on this, and he refused to submit.

It would have been like if he had spent court funds to donate Bibles to the Gideons. It would have been misappropriation of public funds for an unauthorized private purpose, which is a crime. It would have been no defense to say Deut. 6 requires me to do this in and around my own home. He's lucky he didn't go to jail.

The people in Alabama did not want him for governor because they followed his grandstanding shenagans closer than the average Christian outsider.

Let me offer another analogy, on the issue of Christian liberty of conscience: let's say someone comes into my courtroom and I ask, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?" and the person says, "I can affirm, but I cannot swear."

And I kick them out of my court for rebellion against my authority? Am I right?

No; because I refused to acknowledge the legitimate liberty of conscience of others. I am not allowed to use my position to impose my particular way of practicing my beliefs on others.

That is also part of what was wrong with Roy Moore. The Bible does not mandate monuments to the Decalogue on public property. Individual believers are free to place monuments on property they own or control. But Roy Moore did not own or control the property where he placed his monument.

Judge Moore refused to submit to the other Judges because he does not have to submit to rulings which violate Constitutional liberties which he is pledged to uphold.

The idea (I hope I have picked you up right) of someone not swearing in the name of God in a courtroom only works if one takes an atheist view of the state. In a trial, a witness takes an oath to signify that God's curse will fall on him if he lies.

From what I understand the monument, while placed on public property was not paid for with public funds but private contributions. BTW, all property is God's property.

From the WCF:

Chapter XXIII - Of the Civil Magistrate

"Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matters of faith."

"Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to them."

Moore was in violation of these concepts. As Haiglaw pointed out, and as we can see from the first WCF excerpt above, nowhere are we commanded to display the Ten Commandments in a secular courthouse. Whether or not he agreed with the court's decision to move the monument, Moore still should have obeyed their just authority.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

From the WCF:

Chapter XXIII - Of the Civil Magistrate

"Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matters of faith."

"Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to them."

Moore was in violation of these concepts. As Haiglaw pointed out, and as we can see from the first WCF excerpt above, nowhere are we commanded to display the Ten Commandments in a secular courthouse. Whether or not he agreed with the court's decision to move the monument, Moore still should have obeyed their just authority.

The fact that anyone would quote the WCF to justify such tyranny is tragic, not to mention a-historical. The Westminster Assembly met in defiance of an Erastian king, and was formed as part of a Covenanted Reformation against tyranny, while supporting the just authority of the lesser magistrate.

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 fear for my American brethren; you are about to face a war with secular humanism that is so vicious I shudder to think of it. However, what is most grevious is that Christians are surrendering to the enemy instead of supporting those leading the battle.

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.