Moore and the Monument

[carlaimpinge]

Well, yesterday the Court of the Judiciary met and ousted Judge Roy Moore. The ACLU, along with the "Southern Poverty Law Center", got their wishes. They GOT ONE out. They finish up with him (according to Cohen, by DEMANDING that he be "barred"), and then move on to the next one.

You DO KNOW what the SPLC does don't you? Their SOLE PURPOSE is to put away and destroy ANYONE they don't agree with (under their guise and rhetoric of being HATE MONGERS), publicly and prejudicially by LITIGATION. Do you understand that folks. THEY SUE YOU AND MAKE YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY FOR LAWYERS. They "sue" FOR THE PEOPLE. They are "in the business" (CASH AWARDS TO THEM, got to pay their salaries!) to BANKRUPT others, and take their yenom. (money spelled backwards) Paul's statement was so true. (For the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of ALL EVIL.)

How bout' dat? Their people ON THIS CASE was "one man" (Cohen), who was OFFENDED when he had to go by the monument. My, my. The poor fool should have "tore out" HIS OWN HEART. (See Rom.2, concerning the WORK OF THE LAW) I seem to RECALL that he "got" a PROMOTION within the organization. Wow! (wages of unrighteousness?, 2 Peter 2, That's ole Baalam, the false prophet)

His "only" problem was this is the ONLY place HE HAS to "speak" HIS OWN HATRED towards the law of God. He figured he'd go ahead and USE THIS TIME AND PLACE. He'll get the TIME later, but he won't be ABLE. Why? He'll be JUDGED by them! (Rom.3)

There is a systematic attack being made in this country on ANYONE who is a Christian, and will stand for his faith. Moore was presented as a demogogue, an outlaw, and that ole standby, ONE that doesn't "seek the welfare OF THE PEOPLE", as Cohen and those REPRESENTATIVE of his way and heart do! (Hello JEREMIAH, how did you get in there? Jer.38:4)

Moore reminds me of that forgotten priest REMEMBERED by the Lord. (Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, 2 Chron.24, Matt.23)

Note what HE SAID, WHAT IT CONCERNED, WHAT WAS EQUATED WITH FORSAKING THE LORD and WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM for "saying it"!

2 Chronicles 24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.

2 Chronicles 24:21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.


Get ready folks, for it's coming. Get your "testimony" shined up.

Don't worry about speaking about "civil rights", "human injustices", "toleration of other's ideas", or "FREE SPEECH" for all, cause you won't be ALLOWED to speak much. MAKE IT SHORT AND SWEET. Holler it out IF you have to.

DON'T GIVE THEM YOUR IDEAS, WHAT YOU THINK, or THE WAY YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.

Give them the WORDS of "the BOOK", and I don't mean the CONTEMPORARY NEW ENGLISH BIBLE, or some adulterated trash, such as the ASV, RSV, NASB, or others.

My reply?


Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.


So be it Lord. Amen.

Have a nice day, folks, while you can.

 

[Pistos Ergon]

MOORE violates the 4th Commandment every week, doesn't he?

 

[wow]

 

[jukesk9]

I take the postition of States' Rights, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. In this case, I can't see where this monument violated the Constitution. If the people of the State of Alabama wanted the monument to stay up, then it should've stayed. I think the Federal Goverment put its nose where it didn't belong. Had I been Governor of the State of Alabama, I would've declared the ruling to remove the Ten Commandments display null and void. The Federal Judge's ruling in itself violated the 10th Amendment.

My question is how did the Ten Commandments display violate the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[jukesk9]

MOORE violates the 4th Commandment every week, doesn't he?

How? He's the one that issues the warrants based upon probable cause.

 

[nicodemus]

If the people of the State of Alabama wanted the monument to stay up, then it should've stayed. I think the Federal Goverment put its nose where it didn't belong.

I would say in general, Alabamians (and I am one) were not thrilled with the behavior of Roy Moore. Most of the supporters you saw on television were from other states. Sure, there were many Alabamians there, but don't be fooled into thinking that the crowds on TV were all Alabamians.

My question is how did the Ten Commandments display violate the First Amendment?

While most of the commandments prohibit things that are basic to all cultures and faiths (i.e. killing, stealing, etc.) it is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" that is problematic (from a legal point of view.) Since there is a seperation of church and state, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. could claim this as a form of religious "discrimination" because that commandment is in a specifically Judeo-Christian context. Another thing that made it problematic is that the monument was paid for with state money.

 

[jukesk9]

I would say in general, Alabamians (and I am one) were not thrilled with the behavior of Roy Moore. Most of the supporters you saw on television were from other states. Sure, there were many Alabamians there, but don't be fooled into thinking that the crowds on TV were all Alabamians.

I still think the people of Alabama should've decided and not the Federal Government. If the people of Alabama said it should've gone, then it should've gone.

While most of the commandments prohibit things that are basic to all cultures and faiths (i.e. killing, stealing, etc.) it is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" that is problematic (from a legal point of view.) Since there is a seperation of church and state, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. could claim this as a form of religious "discrimination" because that commandment is in a specifically Judeo-Christian context. Another thing that made it problematic is that the monument was paid for with state money.

I see your point. However, I do not agree that it is discrimination against other religions because the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Hindus are free to be Hindus, etc. Having this monument there did not prohibit them from freely practicing their religion. But, I did not know that it was paid for with state money.....

 

[nicodemus]

Having this monument there did not prohibit them from freely practicing their religion.

I completely agree with you on this point, but it supposedly "casts a Judeo-Christian shadow" over secular court rulings. Unfortunately, "Freedom of Religion" in this country is often misinterpreted as "Freedom from Religion." Nobody should have beliefs rammed down their throat, but it also shouldn't offend someone to know that religion exists.

 

[jukesk9]

I completely agree with you on this point, but it supposedly "casts a Judeo-Christian shadow" over secular court rulings. Unfortunately, "Freedom of Religion" in this country is often misinterpreted as "Freedom from Religion." Nobody should have beliefs rammed down their throat, but it also shouldn't offend someone to know that religion exists.

I wholeheartedly agree. It does sadden me each Holiday Season when there's always some city government or some person who fights to remove Nativity scenes, etc. Having a Nativity Scene or a picture of an angel isn't ramming Christianity down the public's throats. Personally, I don't think that these people are 'offended' by the Christ in Christmas. Rather, it's an attack on Christianity out of spite. Rarely do Jews or Muslims complain about Christmas. It's always the atheists.