How many Judge Moore supporters have you challenged today?

[Liberator_Rev]

How many friends of Judge Moore have you challenged today?
Please let us know if you emailed somebody or posted somewhere how the THE BIBLE ITSELF condemns the behavior of Christians like Judge Moore and his supporters who claim to believe that every word of the Bible is inspired and yet disobey the teaching of St. Paul in
the Letter to the Romans 13:1-7
" Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them--taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due." How ironic that these people think that the way to promote obedience to the commandments by DISOBEYING the legitimate authorities!

I've just started a thread at a a Christian thread:http://forums.about.com/n/main.asp?webtag=ab-christianity&cguid=C20E0F87-A646-4FD4-B535-49B48647451E

Please do something similar and tell us about it here.


check out http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Inerrancy .

See what Christ might say about the "Christian Coalition" & "Religious Right" imposters.


Editted the title

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

1. You know what, Rev..

I'd say you've got it. I must admit I am a bit conflicted on this issue. I support wholeheartedly the separaion of church and state, but part of me wondered if Justice Moore was right when he pointed out that the Ten Commandments is that moral foundation of law. Few can deny that the Ten Commandments has a huge part to play in the historical and intellectual underpinnings of our law. I had reasoned that the momument was simply attesting to that fact. Quite honestly, I still believe that the simple act of acknowledging our historical roots, and the existence of God is not an affront to the Bill of Rights, and as a Christian, I believe it is the duty of every man to honor God although the government cannot, and should never try to force this upon people).

What I'm saying is, I don't believe that the momunent itself is unconstitutional, but I do have two main problems with this issue:

1. Roy Moore is openly defying federal law, and as the Chief Justice, is sets a bad precedent.

2. The taxpayers who may or may not have supported this effort, are going to have pay for Justice Moore's stand.

3. The overall agenda here seems obvious. It's hard to side with the likes of Alan Keyes and Jerry Falwell on this, because I fear this is not just about the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama courthouse. Much with the pledge issue, I fear that conservatives will oppose this ruling not because it doesn't violate church-state sepaation, rather because they don't believe in it, and will press further into the area of you know where.

[Walt Starr]

2. The ten commandments are NOT the basis of law

40% of the ten commandments must be completely disregarded as a basis for law as those commandments are strictly religious in nature.

One commandment deals with nothing but family respect and must be disregarded as having anything to do with the law.

One commandment is strictly sexual in nature and has nothing to do with the law.

One commandment deals with personal socio-economic values, personal sexual desire, and is anti-capitalistic so it has nothing to do with the law.

One commandment is only applicable to the law when under oath in a court of law. You can lie all you want when not under oath and there is not thing one that can be done about or else all politicians would be in prison.

So what you're left with is don't steal and don't murder.

Name me one culture or religion that doesn't agree with those two? You can't, those are unicultural and are not the foundation of law in and of themselves.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

4. You're right

The point I'm making is that these values (right life, liberty, property) are universal in any civilized society. Simply acknowledging their existence is not promoting religion, just history.

[Walt Starr]

8. Then put a rock with the DoI on it in the courthouse

The ten commandments have nothing to do with the law.

[sujan]

15. ok

wouldn't it make a lot more sense to put the actual law (say like bill of rights) rather than some outdated dogma?

[oneighty]

3. Why, as a Christian

do you feel it is the duty of every man to honor your God?

I would guess you intended to include (And women).

180

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

5. Calm down..

Of course I meant to include women, and I simply meant that I believe in God, and I would hope that all would recognize His existence and presence. I'm not trying to force anyone to believe in God. You don't have to be Christian to believe in God, I'm simply saying that I believe in the supreme being. To suum it up, I want pluralism, not stotal secularism, and I certainly don't want a theocracy.

[oneighty]

6. No problem.

I am not upset or excited. Just curious as to your meaning.

180

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

7. Cool,

I just wanted to distinquish myself from the fundies. I believe in God, and the freedom to worship (or not worship him), while the fundies want a theocracy in which their version of Scripture is the law.

[Walt Starr]

10. Then put the rock in a church

I have yet to find a church in this country that posts the Ten Commandments.

I've looked, but I have not found ONE!

[Walt Starr]

11. Then put the rock in a church

I have yet to find a church in this country that posts the Ten Commandments.

I've looked, but I have not found ONE!

[Dhalgren]

12. If, then, you favor "pluralism",

you should be totally against any sort of religious icon adorning a state or federal court of law. The idea that one person's religion reguires a public validation above others seems quite the opposite of "pluralism". Just an observation.

[sandnsea]

13. No, it endorses one religion at the Courthouse

It doesn't matter if you think Law was based on the Ten Commandments. It doesn't matter if 90% of the country thinks Law is based on the Ten Commandments. The fact is the Constitution says religion cannot be endorsed by the State. Having the Judeo-Christian foundation of Law at the Courthouse endorses that religion. It implies that Judeo-Christian principles, Christian if we want to be honest, will be applied in that Courthouse. And Moore bluntly said as much as he places God's Law over all other law, the Christian God that is. And actually, it also has religous quotes by the founders that add to the notion that the government endorses Christian principles. It is totally unconstitutional, not to mention being against the Alabama Constitution itself which I'm surprised nobody has bothered to look up.

Moore also snuck the thing into the rotunda in the middle of the night. It's not like there was any sort of concensus by anybody to put it there. Now the whole State is in an uproar because of the religious beliefs of one man. If that doesn't show you how far these people are willing to go with their religiosity, I don't know what will. If faith-based employers can hire based on religion, why not everybody else? If prayer in school, why not 'gather' the staff for prayer in the workplace? Knocking at your door and making sure you're reading the Bible after dinner?

They have to be stopped.

[Liberator_Rev]

18. Moore is a frustrated preacher

If only churches paid better, he wouldn't be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Arianrhod]

16. law

lib4life wrote:

"Few can deny that the Ten Commandments has a huge part to play in the historical and intellectual underpinnings of our law."

Actually, I can deny it. US law was born almost fully grown from the forehead of the Enlightenment. As a matter of fact, it is opposed to the 10Cs in various aspects. For example, our Constitution blatantly violates the First Commandment. We have no law forbidding adultery or coveting, no law requiring the honoring of parents. So how is US law based on the Old Testament at all?

If you wish to get an idea of the philosophical basis upon which our law is genuinely based, I recommend reading the writings of John Locke.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

21. I recognize the Lockean roots of our system,

and I also recognize that we don't have laws against adultery and covetousness (for good reason). All I'm saying is that the idea of murder and theft being wrong came from the Commandments, although its not exclusive to them. Moore's politics are a serious problem here, but I saying that the simple act of having the Commandments in the Courthouse, is not promoting religion, but rather those universal principles (Life, Liberty, property) that all of us, believers and unbelievers hold dear.

[Walt Starr]

9. BTW, I';ve challenged several Moore supporters today

Every last stinking one of them has been on DU.

[maggrwaggr]

14. Sorry, Rev, your quote SUCKS

According to that quote, we should bend over for George Bush, since he's the "authority" and therefore god put him in power and his wishes are God's wishes.

This is a classic example of a christian pulling something out of the bible and pointing to it as an example of what he WISHES to believe at the moment.

You're being 100% hypocritical, saying Judge Moore should do what he's told because of that freaking bible quote, when in fact the same bible quote means we should all take it up the ass by BFEE.

Not offense, but JESUS FREAKING CHRIST!!

[Liberator_Rev]

17. Maggrwaggr. it's NOT a that quote I ENDORSE.

"Liberals Like Christ" don't endorse and promote Paul of Tarsus, who is the prophet of fundamentalism,but Jesus Christ whom Paul claim to teach but in fact UNDERMINES.

Since Judge Moore and all of his Fundamentalist followers swear by the whole Bible, word for word, and just adore Paul, then THEY should have their noses shoved into these words of Paul, and asked how they could have defied "God's word" when Bill Clinton was God's representative.

See http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Inerrancy where I use this quote of Paul's as a example of Scripture that Christians should reject.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

20. Actually,

it's not St. Paul that's the problem, rather its the historical misinterpretation of Paul's epistles that's the problem. Many fundies have have misunderstood what Paul preached, and twisted his words and the whole Bible, to justify slavery, total obedience to the state, and other things.

[maggrwaggr]

22. Okay, Rev, I accept that and apologize for sounding rabid

I have evangelical fundies in my family and they ALWAYS hit me with that "The bible was written word-for-word by God" bullshit. I actually know the bible well enough to realize that you can find anything you WANT in there and that their belief is SELECTIVE.

I always like to throw the quotes at them (like that one) that says you have to pay your taxes and that sorta thing just to upset them.

My point was that we sure can't go around throwing bible verses at them the same way they do in a political context because we are then guilty of the same crap as they.

Throwing something at them to prove the bible is ambiguous is one thing, throwing it at them and saying "you have to do this" won't work because you can always find something else that will contradict it.

[Liberator_Rev]

23. I don't let them off the hook.

I think fundies should be made to tow the line and when they try to squirm their way out of obeying Scriptures, I point out how LIBERAL they are when it suits THEM. And how hypocritical it is to be CONSERVATIVE and RIGID when applying the Scriptures to others, but not for THEMSELVES.

A great example is how tolerant they are of DIVORCED people, now that so many of their OWN are divorced, and yet its DIVORCE, not homosexuality that Jesus condemned.

There's nothing wrong with Liberals being liberal, but it's hypocritical for Conservatives to be Liberal ONLY if it benefits THEM!!!

[LWolf]

19. None.

I haven't found any yet today. But I did subject myself to listening to Alan Keyes rant about it yesterday on NPR. The man was rabid. Not exactly likely to win any converts from the unconvinced.