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.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/
The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied (Xulon Press)
A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government (Reformed Worldview Books)

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

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Preamble to the Constitution

According to the Constitution, the PEOPLE decide what goes and what doesn't. If the representatives don't represent the people, they are an invalid government, and not authority at all. We didn't elect those eight other justices. We didn't even elect Roy Moore. But we did elect the representatives that put them in office. Alabama is a hugely conservative state, and if the "government" was truly the people, the ten commandments would have stayed.

__________________
Ian Kemmerer
Covenant Presbetyrian Church,Reading,PA
Fleetwood,PA

"Be still, my soul: when dearest friends depart, And all is darkened in the vale of tears, Then shalt thou better know His love, His heart, Who comes to soothe thy sorrow and thy fears. Be still, my soul: thy Jesus can repay From His own fullness all He takes away."

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...

__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

Perhaps Moore's huge loss in the Republican primary in the last election cycle is a referendum on his actions...

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.

If my point goes against history then the next time you visit the US, particularly Washington and Philadelphia, take a look at how many religious symbols you find on the buildings in which the Founding Fathers framed the country. You will find few, if any, religious symbols, and I'm quite sure no displays of the Ten Commandments. Look, I personally would love to see the Ten Commandments displayed. But to be consistent and fair, if that were allowed then the next time a Muslim judge wanted to erect a monument to the Koran, that also would have to be allowed. I would not feel comfortable walking into a court of law with a monument of the Koran out front, and that's exactly why the court ruled the way it did.

I disagree that Moore had the right to resist in this case as a "lesser magistrate," because nothing about moving the monument was causing him to sin. And again I ask you, what liberties were threatened in this case?

As for the Civil War issue, you opened up a big and we're getting way But I will say Lincoln had every right to enforce the laws and to put down an unlawful rebellion, a rebellion that was based on defending slavery under the guise of "states' rights."

You really beleive that line about a rebellion to defend slavery?

__________________
1689 Baptist Confession

Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley, Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly.
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
www.wildernessroadbaptist.org

Yes.

Then how come the slaves in the north were not freed before you came down to free ours?

You need to read up on your history...

Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia (admitted has a slave state during the war), Kentucky and Missouri were all slave states. If Lincoln were a civil rights worker wouldn't he have freed those that were under his control first? The union had firm control over La. very early in the war not to mention large parts of Virginia and Mississippi. How come those weren't freed?

I think this one has gone far enough; we are just going to have to agree to differ.

Grant didn't free his slaves until after the war, saying good help is hard to find. Also, Lincoln disagrees with you on the cause of the war. Lincoln said, at teh outset, that he had no desire to free teh slaves if he didn't have to.

Agreed.

We're way, way off topic now, so one last word from me. The reason freeing the slaves was hard to do for Lincoln was because there was no clear political consensus on exactly how to do it. Release them all at once and create a huge refugee problem? Release them gradually? His party (Republican) was very divided on this issue. At the time they weren't sure of the best way to proceed. Eventually Lincoln freed all the Confederate slaves at once when the Union had major momentum in the South.

Slavery wasn't the ONLY reason for secession, but it was a major one. Freeing the slaves meant a huge economic blow to the agrarian South. It was as much an economics issue as a race issue. The imposition of (legal) tariffs was another major point of contention. Regardless, secession was by no means justified. An interesting read on the subject is "The Idea of a Southern Nation" by John McCardell.

One might also read "When in the course of human events" by Charles Adams.

Daniel Ritchie said, "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."

No. It is not the business of civil courts to conduct religious exercises, and 8 of the 9 Justices voted not to. Moore, when he was Chief Justice, went against the will of his 8 fellow justices and installed the monument, which he had no authority to do -- no authority under the laws of Alabama, and no justification under the Bible or Reformed standards. I have not heard anyone say he claims to be Reformed, so I don't know why we're invoking Reformed standards in judging his conduct. But we have been, in this thread.

This was a unilateral act on his part. He ran on that platform. He got elected on promising to do that, not on legal qualifications.

He is not a Christian leader. Any more than anyone deciding on his own, without any Biblical warrant, to do something strange in the guise of a religious exercise.

This is not a matter of some magistrate backing a Christian in a corner and ordering him not to do something that God directly commands him to do -- as in the instance of the disciples being commanded by the Sanhedrin not to speak of Jesus. Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to place religious monuments on public property. Rather we are told to place them on our own property. That is where Roy Moore made his mistake. He was forcing his religious exercises on other people. That violates Liberty of Conscience and the laws of the land. He was lawfully ordered to remove the monument; he refused; and he was lawfully removed from office because of it. He was a lawless person, and he should not be revered by Christians because of it. I could understand some dispensational fundamentalist honoring the man, because they are into defeatist tokenism; but for Reformed people to do so is beyond me. We should know better.

__________________

HaigLaw, ruling elder
Grace PCA, Shreveport, LA
http://www.xanga.com/HaigLaw

Blue Ridge Baptist quoted ColdSilverMoon saying, "If my point goes against history then the next time you visit the US, particularly Washington and Philadelphia, take a look at how many religious symbols you find on the buildings in which the Founding Fathers framed the country. You will find few, if any, religious symbols, and I'm quite sure no displays of the Ten Commandments."

Actually, CSM, I think you are incorrect on this. The US Supreme Court's courtroom, in fact, has a display of the Decalogue. This may seem ironic, but there are cases discussing the difference between a historic display vs. a religious exercise. The most recent case distinguished a display on the capital grounds in Texas with another one in Tennessee, I think it was. One was found OK and the other one not.

Judge Moore's doings were found to be a religious exercise, and found wanting on public property.

I think, though, that CSM has a good point in saying -- if you allow one, you have to allow them all, as in the case of the Koran. That is the very kind of balancing act the courts have had to do in regard to establishment challenges.