4
comments
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
We all probably remember the Roy Moore Ten Commandments battle in Alabama. Yesterday he announced that he will run for Governor of Alabama in the upcoming election.
I really do agree with Judge Moore on a moral level and in principle. Yes, this country was founded by Christians and the 10 commandments were and are the backbone of our judicial system.
What I don't agree with is his method. Would Jesus have violated the law in the way that Judge Moore did? Would he have made himself a criminal to prove a point while alienating everyone around him who disagrees? I can't really answer that right now. I think that perhaps going the legal and judicial route would have been more appropriate. We know it is right, nothing in the constitution says that the government can't display religious documents or monuments.
Contrary to popular belief, seperation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution. What is mentioned is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now, I read that to mean that the Government should stay out of the church's business. Not just Christian churches but all religious institutions. I don't see anywhere in there that it says the government cannot be influenced by a religion. In fact, are not Christians being denied the "free excercise thereof" on a daily basis?
I'm off topic.
So I don't think I could vote for Judge Moore in the upcoming Ala. Gov. election even if I was there. Unfortunately I don't think the alternatives are very good either. I find that the Incumbent has really screwed things up, and the likely Democratic guy is a known mafia guy and he screwed it up worse than Riley.
Ugh, politics.
But here is my question. Do you agree with the way Roy Moore went about his Ten Commandments fight?
4 Comments:
Didn't the apostles go against the religious Jewish government by continuing to preach even though they had been warned not to?
7:56 PM
If you want to get right down to it, it can be said that this country was founded in direct violation of the Bible, and seen in Romans chapter 13. It's pretty cut and dry, all leaders are put into athority by God, thus a revolt against a leader is a revolt against God. Then you must take into account that Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and Monroe were all diests. What I found most allarming is that documents have recently confirmed Benjamin Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club, a Satanic cult.
As far as Alabama politics go, George Wallace was right, political parties don't matter in Alabama because when you get right down to it we're still dealing with Jacksonians and Whigs. That's the reason you can vote for a republican in this state, and then they suddenly start acting like a democrat. It's an interesting topic, I suggest looking it up.
Just a little codine-induced food for thought.
9:32 PM
Nelson,
That's a good point. I agree, just because someone is in authority doesn't mean that they are right. I'm not saying his actions disqualify him as a christian leader, but does it disqualify him in the arena of being a state governor? Could I vote for someone who is a loose cannon with the law? What stops him from being one with other laws?
8:34 AM
I did not say that my view of Romans 13 was correct, I simply said that it could be interpreted as such. The argument of biblical translations can be used, especially in regard to those available at the time of the Revolution, but that is not the point I was trying to make.
The passage from Mr. Johnson's book does make a valid point, but who is to say that George III was truly a wicked magistrate? I will admit ignorance on whether or not he commanded his people to disobey God. However, many other strong points can easily be addressed, such as those evil taxes that so angered the colonists. Due to salutary neglect, they had actually been on the books for years. George III didn't inforce them until the end of the 7 Years' War, when the british economy was wrecked due to a huge national debt. Where did this debt come from? A great part of the debt came from the expences of England protecting her colonies in the americas from crazy frenchmen and bloodthirsty indians. We were just expected to help pay for part of the cost of our protection, which (in my opinion) is more than fair.
One can also take into account that George III's advisors and friends were incompitent, and that he suffered from mental illness throughout his life. Recent evidence suggests that he was also being slowly poisoned with arsenic by his son, which can lead to unstable and erratic behavior.
So who makes the judgement that George III was an evil tyrant that deserved to be overthrown?
But, then again, Benedict Arnold is viewed as a traitor in this country, while England calls him a patriot. Some view Moore as a champion of christian rights, others view him as a law breaking zealot. I guess that what's true of history is also true of the Bible: It depends on your perspective.
12:44 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home