Judge Roy Moore to Speak in Wytheville, VA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Southern Presbyterian

Puritan Board Doctor
I know its too far off the beaten path for most everyone on the board, but I thought I'd post this for anyone who may be in the area or close enough to travel.

Judge Roy Moore ("the Ten Commandments Judge") will be speaking in Wytheville, VA, Saturday, April 5th, from 9 AM to 2 PM. This is part of his "Jeremiah Project" and he will be speaking on "the First Amendment, Separation of Church and State, and the crucial role that the pulpit has played as the 'conscience of the nation' throughout American history". :judge:

The event is hosted by my home church, Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church.

You will find more information HERE.

Blessings!
 
Last edited:

HaigLaw

Puritan Board Sophomore
Romans 13:1

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. :detective:
 

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor
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. :detective:
Could you give a link to this matierial brother? Would love to read it.
 

ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Board Senior
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. :2cents:
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...
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
 

ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Board Senior
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?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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. :2cents:
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?
 

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor
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.


in my opinion, 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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
 

ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Board Senior
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?
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
 

ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
 

ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Board Senior
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?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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?"
 

ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Board Senior
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...
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
 

ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Board Senior
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...
 

Zenas

Snow Miser
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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top