I would like to reply fully to the authors comments
|
#LXXXV/XCIII
|
|
"Should we obey men rather than God" wayne9999-at-aol.com - Semmes, AL - 14Nov2003 5:52 AM #LXXXV/LXXXV
Search words "obey+God" 6 results. Search restricted to: New_Testament
|
Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
It seems this has been the standard that justified everything from the American revolution to the slavery issue and beyond. Roy Moore is a patriot for freedom.
Wayne Hester
My responses to the author in alternate sections:
The rant-
Thou shalt not establish a religion (9-7-2002)
I have not received so much hate mail in a long time. The reason? I wrote that the chief “justice” of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, is a raging lunatic because he has defied court orders, common sense, and basic courtesy in order to place a monument to his personal religious beliefs on public property.
Many of those who have sent me messages or posted to the message board have, through threats made to me, demonstrated the most peculiar form of Christianity I’ve ever witnessed. But it is about as fair to say that these fanatics are representative of Christianity as those who blow up buildings are representative of Islam.
Wayne-
People tend to get angry when they feel their rights of free expression are violated. It is
unfortunate that some show their anger unproductively but these are people too and they are subject to the law. Remove freedom of expression from everyone and they will feel like they are in Nazi Germany. There those who expressed their opinions usually disappeared. I hope the present trend in the US toward that oppression is halted by the government acknowledging the responsive anger of the people.
The rant-
It is not within my ability or desire to stop the free expression of one’s religious faith. When I say that it is inappropriate to display a religious monument on public property, that does not prevent individuals from expressing their faith at home, on the street, or even on public property. So first, your faith is not under attack. What is under attack is the notion of a truly public space by a pack of intolerant zealots.
Wayne
What is intolerance - people expressing their faith or people intolerant of people expressing their faith? We have seen people praying peacefully in public who have been removed for what they were doing, not because they were creating a disturbance but because someone who was intolerant of their expression wanted to create a disturbance by removing them. And is it tolerance that there are people who do not believe in God to refuse to allow people who do to say so? I can see that anyone who is disruptive should be subject to removal from public by the law, but what I am seeing most is disruption by people who are intolerant of peaceful expressions of faith by people who simply do not want to see it because they believe differently. What ever happened to the Founding Fathers' promotion of the public place as a free forum for the expression of ideas? Freedom of religion was a key player in the desire for an American Revolution, freedom from religion was never considered, freedom from oppression is the question. Who is being oppressed, the people who like to see a Godly monument or the people who want it removed? Who is tolerant, the people who want to see the Ten Commandments or the people who want to put it out of sight?
The rant-
While most comments I’ve received from readers fall under the category, “doesn't deserve a response,” I feel compelled to amplify my views on the subject of religious displays (in general) and “justice” Moore’s insistence on his Ten Commandments monument (in particular) in the public sphere. For this, I have two broad arguments based on the secular and the sacred.
What purpose does it serve?
To begin with the secular, it is worth asking two fundamental questions.
First, what is the purpose of a courthouse (or for that matter, a legislative chamber or executive mansion)?
Second, what is the purpose of the Ten Commandments?
To answer the first question, the purpose of a courthouse is do the work of the people in the court’s jurisdiction (municipal, county, state, federal, etc.). As such, the court is charged with interpreting local and federal laws while abiding by state and federal constitutions.
To answer the second question, it is worth looking at the Commandments themselves. God first delivers the Ten Commandments (and the rest of the Mosaic law) to Moses at the beginning of Exodus 20 (they are repeated in Deuteronomy 5). The first three verses of Exodus 20 are worth quoting here in full:
“And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
The last sentence, of course, is the first Commandment. It’s purpose? To establish the authority of the God of Abraham over all other gods. The next three Commandments further establish the God of Abraham’s absolute authority: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (second Commandment, Exodus 20:4); “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (third Commandment, Exodus 20:7); and “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (fourth Commandment, Exodus 20:8).
The point of these first four commandments are not to give everybody on earth a set of harmonious rules to live by, they are designed to tell the people of Israel that there is only one god.
From the onset, then, the Ten Commandments stand in direct conflict with the purpose of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first four Commandments are establishing a religious authority (that of the God of Abraham), therefore, their display in a public courthouse is an endorsement of that authority which is the foundation of a religious faith.
Wayne-
We must look at the key words here. One key word is "CONGRESS" The Ten Commandments are not Congress, The judicial department is not Congress, Judge Roy Moore is not Congress. Congress makes the laws the Judicial department interprets them. The Constitution was carefully written to have checking powers so that no individual department of government should have powers to make a law that infringed on the freedom of religion and other freedoms. The Constitution did not state that the "Government" could make a law or the judicial system could make a law, or the executive department could make a law, but it says that Congress makes the laws and that congress "shall make no law" notice the key words "NO LAW" respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof. But now we seem to have laws which the Constitution says should never be made. Why do we have laws which say a judge, a citizen of the US, or anyone cannot peacefully express his belief in God by placing words on a plaque that people can either read or ignore? He does not force his belief on anyone he merely makes it available and like the founding fathers he knows it is the foundation for the freedoms we have and without this foundation our freedoms are in jeapordy. I just returned from the battlefields of Gettysburg and Antietam, and I marveled at the wonderful tributes to God and to men on the many monuments there. Are these to be struck down or removed? Acts of Congress set up these parks for the public and presented permission for these monuments. What will we do about a government who looks back at its historical foundations and declares them an offense to the public?
The rant-
To say that the courthouses cannot display a monument to a particular religious faith is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Nobody is being prevented from practicing their faith, Moore and his zealots are being prohibited from forcing everybody, whether they are of the faith or not, to acknowledge the supremacy of that faith.
Some have tried to wiggle out of the constitutional conundrum by arguing that it is “Congress” that the First Amendment prohibits from passing the law, not a state judge like Moore. This reasoning is, at best, poppycock. Using the same logic, one could say it is okay for a Catholic president to establish Catholicism as the official religion of the United States because the president is not a member of Congress. Or, the state of Utah could declare Mormonism the official religion of Utah because Utah is not Congress.
Wayne-
No, one cannot say that because your words "one could say" implies that "one" or an individual, is a lawmaker, but no one is a lawmaker for establishing or prohibiting religion - it is stated in the Constitution. Everyone has the right to express their religion peacefully and no one has the right to prohibit that peaceful expression. What is happening today is that those who hate religious expression want to prohibit those who believe they have the right to express their faith and they want to find ways to do that using government. The Constitution says that is wrong and was written to protect us from such restrictions. We have other laws which handle public disturbance. These cases must determine whether the religious expression actually is disrupting the peace or if intolerance of it is disrupting the peace. Most of the "peace" that is disrupted is in the hearts of men who choose not to acknowledge God, because they have a discontent that is between them and God, or they do not believe God. But that is between them and their own conscience, and the people that bring God to public attention should be allowed to do so as long as they are peaceful because that is their own conscience. They believe that it is their duty to share God with others. So the question is did God confront me or did a person confront me and was the peace really broken by the actions of the Religious expressor or by the conscience of the unbliever.
If someone who wishes not to acknowledge God is intolerant of those who wish to acknowledge God then where is the error? Certainly the intolerance is in error. If someone wishes to acknowledge God but is intolerant because someone wishes not who is in error? Certainly the intolerant is in error. It is not for government to restrict religious expressions because the peace is disrupted by intolerance, but it is the governments place to protect religious expression and to protect the peace. This has led to a dilemma. The judicial system fears that it will be overrun with cases trying to decide who was intolerant and who was unpeaceful, therefore it tends to take the easy way out, and prohibit free expression. It is the road to tyranny. The Founding Fathers believed that the public place should tolerate the expression of all ideas in the name of freedom, believing that the ideas that were true and beneficial would rise to the top. But they also believed in peace. Tolerance and keeping the peace should be the issues, not the prohibition of religious expression. But today government has embraced the prohibition of religious expression. Again that is tyranny. This disrupts the peace and the conscience of men. Certainly that is why the polls show so much favor to Roy Moore. He believes all men have the right to acknowledge God.
The rant-
Neither the president nor the state of Utah, thankfully, has this authority to do such things and neither does Moore or even a state constitution.
But Moore persists in his grandstanding and issues peculiar statements. One he first mentioned on CBS’ The Early Show is, “This case is not about a monument, it’s not about politics or religion, it’s about the acknowledgment of God.”
This is specious reasoning at best. As already demonstrated, the Ten Commandments are not just about acknowledging that a god, as such, exists, but that the God of Abraham exists and is all powerful — thus, Moore is endorsing a particular religion, that of the God of Abraham. Even if Moore’s only goal is to acknowledge that some generic god exists, that is superfluous to the purpose of a court of law; namely, the purpose of a court is try civil and criminal cases. Whether a defendant or plaintiff believes in a god, no god, or the God of Abraham is about as relevant as asking a communicant whether s/he is a Republican or Democrat before being allowed to take communion.
Wayne-
It seems that the issue is a monument in the courtroom that acknowledges the Ten Commandments. I have not heard of any such issue where Roy Moore has judged a case against someone because they weren't of his faith. Every judge has his personal beliefs even an atheist one, but his qualities as a judge are that he judges without prejudice. So if we look a a judges personal beliefs (they are expressed some time or another) and we base his judgeship on that then we have no one qualified to be a judge. We have to fire them all. So we dont do that. But if he tries a case on his prejudice THEN he is subject to removal. But here with Roy Moore we see he is unseated because he has expressed personal religious beliefs. I would rather be judged by a man who expresses his beliefs than one who hides them, then I know who is judging me. A man who acknowledges God has a duty to be fair. A man who is open and expresses his beliefs has nothing to hide. A man who is secret has something to hide. Give me the man who is at peace with his place in the universe.
The rant-
God's law is not democratic
Following up Moore’s baffling exercise in circular logic, he says (as have many others), that our country’s laws are based upon the laws of the God of Abraham. Much of the hate mail I have received, for example, say that the United States was founded by Christians and that our legal system is based upon the Ten Commandments.
This rationale, besides being historically inaccurate, is irrelevant. The American justice system is based not on the Mosaic law, but upon the model of British Common Law, which is itself derived from the Roman law. Need further convincing of the American connection to the Roman model?
Wayne-
It seems interesting that much of British common law was rejected by the Colonies. I am sure that the Roman dictatorship and the British Monarchy were not given place in the new republic. I would be willing to state that men who were familiar with the Bible were heavily influenced by it when they wrote the Constitution. The historical quotes of the Constitution period are full of God and the Bible and are too numerous to deny their influence on our Constitution.
The rant-
Look no further than that living monument to the Romans, the Senate. To erroneously insist that the American system of jurisprudence rests upon the foundation of the Ten Commandments is about as historically accurate as saying that it rests upon the Upanishads. Yes, the Ten Commandments preceded the Constitution by a couple thousand years, but the Commandments have about as much influence (and probably a good deal less) upon the Constitution as the Articles of Confederation, another historical antecedent to the Constitution.
Second, the Ten Commandments are a piece of statutory law that, as I have already mentioned, is specifically designed to assert the God of Abraham’s absolute authority — it is the law of an absolute, infallible monarch.
Wayne
Laws of the heart. People who wish to give themselves over to God and let Him rule their lives is a choice the Constitution protects when it says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free expression therof. People who do not wish to follow God in their lives may do so and they are not under force simply because words are posted. The Constitution protects that when it says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. But all people must tolerate each other and all people must follow the road of peace with one another. So you see there is no conspiracy to establish a Taliban, anyone who reads the whole Bible or understands what God is should recognize that the power of God is in love. The Constitution had guaranteed Government should have no setting up of religion nor jurisdiction over religion, but instead the Government has jurisdiction over the citizen. Citizens who are conductive of murder in the name of religion are still subject to the law. I don't see any of this applying to Roy Moore, his actions are peaceful and his conscience is clear and innocent as he has done nothing worthy of his treatment.
The rant-
By contrast, the U.S. Constitution is, historically speaking, a relatively new kind of document that specifically lays out what powers the various branches of government have and, perhaps more importantly, what powers they do not have — this is the law of a democratic republic, with power derived from the consent of the governed.
Wayne-
And no branch has the power to establish religion or tear it down. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof. Government rules the people and guarantees their freedom to worship or express faith without restriction as long as the citizen is peaceful. It is the intolerance of those who disagree with peaceful people of faith that has caused so much money to be spent on lawyers and courts.
The rant-
The British had the Magna Charta, but that was an agreement solely between nobles and the sovereign. The U.S. Constitution is an agreement between all the people and the government of the United States. It is also worth noting that, unlike the Magna Charta, the U.S. Constitution conspicuously ignores mentioning god. The Constitution begins with “We the people,” whereas the Magna Charta begins with various invocations calling god as a witness.
Wayne-
One of many instances where the people felt they should acknowledge God for their betterment.
The rant-
There is no mention of god anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.
Wayne-
In stating the use of the words "religion" and "free expression therof" the Constitution acknowledges the importance of God in that it guarantees freedom of religious expression. The Constitution was written to govern people and it obviously acknowledges that people who wish are also governed by God. The Founders knew the benevolence of such a freedom. The more that people obey such things as the Ten Commandments and the whole Bible would not occupy the courts with very much misdemeanor. So the Constitution does not acknowledge God?
The rant-
The power of the government as outlined in the Constitution is conferred by the people, not by god. An individual may think god grants all power or authority, but that is an individual belief, not the legally binding document we must adhere to on Earth.
Wayne-
I think any people of faith would agree that God is a choice and that God does not force, He calls. The Constitution was written so that this call is not interfered with by Government. I do believe the Founders feared God and knew that no government would stand very well against Him!
Te rant-
The Constitution deliberately avoids any mention of any god, much less the God of Abraham. While some have argued that the president finishes the oath of office by saying, “so help me god,” this is a traditional embellishment to appease the religious community. The actual oath, as laid out in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 states, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Wayne-
Maybe the oath is a President's personal acknowledgement of God. I think if we asked any of them they would admit without embarrassment that this is the case.
The rant-
It is of central importance here that the oath of office can equally be an affirmation rather than a swearing in. Clearly, this indicates that one’s faith has nothing to do with holding the office.
Wayne-
Maybe it would be clearer if you asked them?
The rant-
It is further inaccurate to say that the founding fathers were Christians, especially in the sense meant by today’s evangelical Christians. If some of the signatories to the Constitution were devout Christians, many more were Christian in name only and could be more accurately described as deists, or for that matter, any number of faiths, but not necessarily evangelicals—such as the word exists today.
Wayne-
More the reason to protect the free exercise therof! They knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. Don't you think?
The rant-
Many of the founding fathers were farmers too, but that doesn't mean the Constitution was written only for farmers. For that matter, many of the founders were slave owners, but that does not mean it remained a sacred institution forever.
My point is that the founding fathers were not establishing a new religious sect or denomination, but a working government. Their faith, therefore, was irrelevant to the task. Their faith may have helped them as individuals, but their faith did not constitute the foundation of government. The document they created was a compact between the people and their government, not the people and their god(s).
Wayne-
But what a better way to write a document of government than to embellish it with principles they have learned will work? Where did these principles come from? I think God had a very big hand in it. Continue to take that out and our government is in serious trouble. I think we are already seeing much of the negative result of the practice of suppressing the influence of God by the suppression of the public expressions of believers in this country.
The rant-
Commandments didn't invent law
But in discussing all these broadly secular issues, what I find most insulting about those who insist on placing a Ten Commandments marker in a courthouse, is that they ignore the inherent value and virtue of our government: democracy.
Wayne-
How can you call it democracy when lawmaking is removed from the elected representatives of the people (Congress) and taken up by the largely unelected and appointed judiciary? What has happened to Roy Moore is not the law but a radical interpretation of the law by the judicial department of government. The Constitution is clear when it says "make no law" regarding the free exercise of religion.
The rant-
Whenever one howls that our country is nothing without god’s guidance, I am insulted and enraged that such a magnificent document as the Constitution is worthless without the endorsement of their god. I am insulted by the arrogance that says we cannot govern ourselves without the sponsorship of a particular sect.
It is further insulting to say that, without the Ten Commandments, there would be no morality, because:
The Ten Commandments did not invent the prohibition against murder.
The Ten Commandments did not invent the prohibition against adultery.
The Ten Commandments did not invent the prohibition against lying.
The Ten Commandments did not invent the prohibition against stealing.
The Ten Commandments did not invent the prohibition against envy.
The Ten Commandments did not invent the obligation to honor one’s parents.
These are virtues common to most cultures across time and geography. Why then, do I insist on keeping the Ten Commandments out of the courthouses? The Ten Commandments are not just a set of rules everyone can agree to. As I’ve said, the first four establish one god and condemn adherents of all other faiths or, non-faiths. Period. To insist on their posting is a form of bullying everybody into following your rules. That’s fine, perhaps, in your church or your home, but not in our democratic courts — the courts belong to everybody, regardless of faith. The God of Abraham shuns democracy and His Ten Commandments allow for no dissent. The God of Abraham is the absolute, unquestioned authority. Our Constitution embraces democracy and the Constitution enshrines dissent. The power of the government is limited and operates at the sufferance of the people.
Wayne-
We must not shortchange ourselves nor should we deify ourselves. We "are wonderfully made." Mankind is both inherently good and inherently evil. We were created with a choice so we aren't robots but we are possessive of a free will. The Constitution doesn't have the Ten Commandments listed in its wording, but the Constitution does not deny any of them either. Does this sound like the establishment clause to you? It does to me. The Constitution acknowledges that men have a free will but it also acknowledges that without the principle of laws and consequences for breaking those laws there is no peaceful order possible in a people of free will. To protect the good from the bad you must control the bad. The Ten Commandments does not state punishment, only law. The law of God which a people of free will may choose or reject. Any consequences of doing either are a matter of enforcement of the law. The Constitution provides for enforcement in the ways of the Government it represents and establishes. The Law of God as stated in the Ten Commandments without the rest of the Bible is less severe than that as it states no punishment. The punishment is that of the conscience of every man and the consequences he/she subjects himself/herself to and others to by following each his/her own actions. It is a choice not a force unless you want it to be. So is that why so many are frightened by the words of the Ten Commandments? I am reminded of what was said by a prominent Biblical official who wanted to be careful not to be wrong about prohibiting the expression of a mans faith: "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5). Perhaps this is what the Founders were thinking about when they wanted to protect free expression of religion. I think they were very wise in what they wrote and I think there is a campaign to tear this foundation down. I think the issue of Roy Moore in going through all this will come to something indeed.
The rant-
Courthouses are a kind of shrine to democratic principles. They should therefore be above sectarian conflicts because such conflicts are irrelevant. Imagine that you belong to a church whose minister is an outspoken abortion opponent. Let’s say that one day your minister decides to build a monument to all the aborted fetuses and all those who have fought against abortion right next to the altar. At some point, wouldn’t you (or another member of the congregation) say to the minister, “It is fitting for us to be against abortion, but this is a house of worship. This is God’s place, such monuments do not belong here”?
Wayne-
Maybe they as a church would want to be democratic and vote on it .... ? But we as a people of this nation have a Constitution that guarantees the people the right to religious expression without a vote, as a liberty guaranteed every person, beyond the power of any suppression put to a vote. This expression of Roy Moore's did not harm anyone but it showed that there is among some a certain intolerance against religious expression. The issue would not even be an issue if the Constitution were not infringed, but our Constitution has been eroded again and again in the area of the protection clause and people of faith are being bound. The protection clause, you may call it the separation clause, clearly guarantees that everyone has the right to express their religious beliefs peacefully. What has happened is that we see an intolerance of this expression by some. If peaceful expression is untolerated and prohibited, we are no longer a free people. All are affected because all become subject to tyranny.
The rant-
Let he who is without sin . . .
This brings me to the sacred arguments.
Any monument is a representation, a small part that represents the whole. For example, a monument to veterans depicts a single soldier, but that is not a monument to the individual soldier, it is a monument to all soldiers.
Similarly, a monument isn’t just a monument to the Ten Commandments, it is a monument to all the Mosaic law and to the entire Bible itself. Having read the Bible, then, it is baffling to me that so many insist on the Ten Commandments. For the Mosaic law covers more than just ten laws. During the second giving of the law in Deuteronomy, this becomes much more clear. Yes, the Ten Commandments were spoken in a loud voice to the people of Israel, but then God commanded Moses to tell the Israelites to return to their tents, but said to Moses, “stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them” (Deuteronomy 5:31). So there’s more law to come. Later, we learn that Moses spent quite a time learning all this law. In Deuteronomy 9: 9-10, Moses recounts that he was up on the mountain for 40 days and nights learning the law.
So what does this law contain? Everything. It includes everything from the command to circumcise boys, to the prohibition against eating pork, to the rules for keeping slaves, to the prohibition against usury, to the rules for offering burnt offerings to God.
Why then, if you are such devout adherents of God’s law do you concentrate on the first 10 laws but ignore the hundreds of others? Why do you eat bacon? Why don’t you own slaves anymore? Why do you work for banks that charge interest? Why don’t you offer up burnt offerings to God?
Wayne-
But The Ten Commandments are not the law of the land. They are the laws of God. Again, the only enforcement of these laws is in the individual heart by his/her choice. It is a religious expression and it should be free. We have the Constitution that we follow by decree, and we who wish can follow the Ten Commandments by conscience. It is between the individual and God, but what a shame if the individual never sees them? We should never allow the suppression of free expression of ideas or we will be subject to tyranny by choice. Your very right to post your comments here is guaranteed by the Constitution. Government establishes your right to express. Wouldn't you feel it a shame if you could no longer do that?
The rant-
Furthermore, why do so few of you follow even the Ten Commandments? For example, how many of you take photographs? Then you are violating the Second Commandment. Ask any Amish person. They are not ignorant. They do not think that you are stealing their soul or some such nonsense if you take their pictures. No, they refuse to have their photos taken because the Second Commandment expressly forbids making an image of god or any living thing. The Second Commandment is, strictly speaking, a prohibition against any form or representational art.
Wayne-
Because we are created with a free will. We can obey or disobey God, its up to each conscience. The only punishment are the consequences of our actions, and the law of our land is included in the list of consequences in many cases such as murder for example there are consequences. Someone has had their life deprived, and someone else is a wanted individual for the protection of peaceful people. In the case of photographs or any other situation you may have in question, look at the consequences! Some see them others don't. Surely you recognize that there would be consequences for not following the Ten Commandments. Still, like the laws of the land, we can choose to disobey, but like the laws of the land state, there are consequences. Could it be that the issue here really is the future of law and order? Could it also be that the issue here is the conscience?
The rant-
And what about the Fifth Commandment? How does that square in a family court? What are we to do if a child complains to child services that his parents are abusing him? Is that child a criminal because he does not honor his father and mother? What if a child is beaten? In short, common sense tells us that this honoring of parents is conditional upon the parents being good parents, but the Ten Commandments say nothing of such conditions.
Wayne-
If you want to say, or if you want to question that the Ten commandments apply to the child, then don't you think also that the Ten Commandments would apply to the parents? If the parents were following the Ten Commandments wouldn't the child be treated well?
The rant-
It is a selective kind of obedience to the law that many of these self-proclaimed keepers of the devout practice. It is not my place to judge these people, but it is worth saying that a monument to laws that even the most “holy” violate on a daily basis sends an even stronger message to everyone seeing them in the courthouse — the law doesn’t apply equally to all.
Wayne-
Are you sure? If one loved God they would obey, and would not abuse their children or anyone for that matter. Failure to obey a law or a commandment does not render a law or a commandment useless does it?
The rant-
Jesus doesn't like grandstanding hypocrites
More important than the Mosaic law to any Christian, of course, are the words of Jesus. True, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that he did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-20). But Jesus was quite clear about the role of the law and the role of faith. Most famously, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). Or, put more bluntly by Paul, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
In short, if you are a Christian, you are not so because of what you do, but because of what you believe. Naturally, one who believes will behave differently. But the test for all Christians is: “Do you believe?” not “Did you follow the law?” Again, obedience to the Mosaic law does not exclude faith — and some could reasonably argue that following the law is an expression of faith. My point is that to obey the Mosaic law is not the same thing as having faith — and vice versa.
Wayne-
Well then why do you say adressing the Ten Commandments is acknowledging God?
The rant-
Of course, Jesus recognized this point. Roy Moore is (at worst) an odious hypocrite or (at best) a misguided ignoramus, for he resembles the kind of person Jesus describes in Matthew 6:5-15:
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
Wayne-
This is a point that is open to some clarification. The Constitution does not say that free expression of religion is guaranteed under the conditions that the Bible is followed to the letter in that expression. I think the Founders were clear when they stated no conditions on how one was to express their faith but it is instead left to the individual conscience. In other words the Founders left Judgement of our religion up to God not the Constitution.
The rant-
And then Jesus recites that which most Christians recognize as the Lord’s Prayer.
“Justice” Moore, with his continuous grandstanding in front of the courthouse is just like that hypocrite Jesus describes.
Wayne-
Judge Moore is trying to save the Constitution, he has a duty to stand up and be vigilant about it!
The rant-
Moreover, Moore fails to listen to the words of Jesus in other matters. As a justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Moore (before he was suspended) was duty-bound to follow the laws of his state and country. But in refusing to remove the monument as was ordered by the court, he broke the law.
Wayne-
But the law (Constitution) states that Congress shall make no such law prohibiting the free exercise therof, thereby giving Roy Moore the right to place a peaceful expression of his faith right where he placed it.
The rant-
Even to Jesus, being a scofflaw is wrong. When asked by the Pharisees if it was right to pay taxes, Jesus asked them to show him a coin: “And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They said unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:15-21).
Wayne-
And Jesus is talking about taxes and donations. Where did Roy Moore fail to pay his taxes? He pays his taxes and he renders to God much more, including his seat at court and I guess thats his job. I would not want to give up my job for God but I hope I never have to, our Government is coming to just that it would appear.
The rant-
In short, Jesus recognized that a civil administration didn’t always square with one’s faith. In the end, Jesus commands his followers to obey the laws of men (Caesar). The coin belongs to Caesar, the governing authority. The court order belongs to the United States, the governing authority.
Wayne-
Roy Moore did not expect anyone to share his faith, he just wanted his right to express his faith. I see no complaint against him for forcing anyone to believe his faith. If we limit places in government only to people of no faith, what would you call that? I think it is called unconstitutional.
The rant-
Of course, there are some who have said, “Aha, but our money contains the phrase, ‘In God We Trust’ on it. So our money belongs to God.” In all honesty, I think this phrase, imposed as the national motto during the height of the Cold War in 1956, also ought to be struck. The original national motto, the Latin phrase, “e pluribus unum,” or, “of the many, one,” is far better suited to a democracy such as ours. But to return to the money, the “God” mentioned in the phrase “In God We Trust” is a generic god. It doesn’t say, “In Jesus We Trust,” or “In The God of Abraham We Trust,” or “In Allah We Trust.” The phrase is able to squeak by the constitutional test because it is not an explicit endorsement of a particular sect — but the Ten Commandments are, quite literally, chapter and verse, from the holy books of a particular sect and therefore, posting the Commandments are constitutes the endorsement of that sect. Such endorsement is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
Wayne-
We might consider trusting in something with our money, remember what they trusted in 1929? Paper, lies on paper. It was a shambles for many years!
The rant-
In conclusion, to post the Ten Commandments is to endorse a particular faith.
Wayne-
No it is merely a peaceful expression of religion. It has no requirement which one must follow.
The rant-
To post the Commandments violates our nation’s laws. And to insist upon their posting after a judge ordered them removed is, for Christians anyway, ignoring the words of Jesus.
Wayne-
Jesus said we should acknowledge God:
Mark 12
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Another passage of interest:
Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
It seems this has been the standard that justified everything from the American revolution to the slavery issue and beyond. Roy Moore is a patriot for freedom. But he is peaceful and has done what he must peacefully.
The rant-
In the e-mails I have received on this subject many have asked me if I am a Christian, while just as many have called me an atheist and condemned me to hell. Either way, this is an inappropriate question to ask in a court of law. If you see me in your church, or if you see me on the street and want to talk some day and you’re concerned for my spiritual health, you have every right to ask me.
Wayne-
Only God can condemn anyone to hell.
The rant-
In the mean time, however, don’t let faith serve as the only measure of fitness for public office. If you are a Christian, you know that even Christians don’t agree on everything (just look at the hundreds of denominations!). An endorsement of faith, any faith, is a bad move by the government. Think about it. Ireland is still embroiled in civil strife because of sectarian conflict. European history is littered with a series of wars (both foreign and civil) because of disagreements among Christians. And even our most cherished myth of America is that one of our earliest colonies fled Britain in order to be free of a government-imposed faith.
Wayne-
Thats why we have history - to learn from it. I think the Founders learned from history and so they wanted all men to be able to express their faith, so there would not be oppression. Everyone must be tolerant of others. I do not see Roy Moore being intolerant of other perple's faith, but I do see many intolerant of his. This if allowed will lead to tyranny. We must take another look at the Constitution and remember to protect the rights guaranteed that Government must not establish religion or prohibit its free expression. I do not see Roy Moore establishing religion in posting the Ten Commandments, I only see his free expression. He has peacefully acknowledged God at a price. I admire him.
The rant-
Do you really want our government run by religious fanatics? Don't we have enough examples of bloodthirsty lunatics promoting murderous theocracies? In a court, as in government, your faith is irrelevant.
Wayne-
Roy Moore has not done this thing you are exaggerating on. You seem to fear for nothing and you appear to want to incite fear where it is not justified.
The rant-
As one of my defenders wrote on a message board, it is about as appropriate to have a monument to the Ten Commandments in a court of law as it is to have a giant penis. Neither one is appropriate because neither have anything to do with the business of a court.
Wayne-
I can see why an opponent didnt want to grace your comments with a reply. It seems you and your stated defender have a problem with making an accurate or tasteful analogy.
The rant-
I shall conclude where I began. As one of Moore's fundies whined in front of the courthouse as they were removing Roy's Rock, they can remove the monument, but they can't remove our faith. Exactly. You have your faith, you just can't cram it down everyone's throat.
Wayne-
Roy Moore expressed his faith, I see no complaints where he crammed it down anyone's throat. We all must be tolerant of each others views, that is the key to freedom.
The rant-
I'll make a deal with you. You keep your Ten Commandments monument out of the courthouse and I'll leave the giant penis statue at home.
Want to sound off on this rant?
Wayne-
Your statue is not a guaranteed freedom of expression although such atrocities have been funded by our government - National Endowment of the Arts I think it is called.
Roy Moore's expression was religious and should be guaranteed by the Constitution. I think I am safe to say it is no deal and the campaigns to save the Constitution shall remain in effect.
The rant-
Sign the guestbook
or
e-mail the author
|
|
