Judge roy moore

I received this today. Tell me what you think:

The following is a poem written by Judge Roy Moore from Alabama. Judge Moore was sued by the ACLU for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom foyer. He has been stripped of his judgeship and now they are trying to strip his right to practice law in Alabama. The judge's poem sums it up quite well.

America the Beautiful,
or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride;
I'm glad they'll never see.

Babies piled in dumpsters,
Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty;
your house is on the sand.

Our children wander aimlessly
poisoned by cocaine,
Choosing to indulge their lusts,
when God has said abstain.

>From sea to shining sea,
our Nation turns away
>From the teaching of God's love
and a need to always pray.

We've kept God in our temples,
how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool,
and Heaven is His throne.

We've voted in a government
that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges
who throw reason out the door,

Too soft to place a killer
in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
before he leaves the womb.

You think that God's not angry,
that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait
before His judgment comes?

How are we to face our God,
from Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do,
but stem this evil tide?

If we who are His children,
will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face
and mend our evil way:

Then God will hear from Heaven
and forgive us of our sins,
He'll heal our sickly land
and those who live within.

But, America the Beautiful,
if you don't - then you will see,
A sad but Holy God
withdraw His hand from Thee.

~Judge Roy Moore

23 answers

Recent Questions Sex


ANSWER #1 of 23

Torikeene, that article is complete BS. It is so full of lies, I don't have the time to debunk all of them. We were not talking about state constitutions, which do not have any bearing on the US constitution. The author engages in obfuscation, and completely ignores the writing of our founders, who clearly saw our country as a secular one and as Jefferson stated was designed with "wall of separation between church and state". The state has no right to display religious iconography in public places, just as it has no right to declare that there is no god. It has no say either way. Why can't you keep your religious belief in your church and home, and out of OUR government. And do you have any idea when "in god we trust" was added to our money? In the 50s, around the same time they added "under god" to the pledge. They were never there before. It was during the cold war and heavy anti-communism sentiment in the country, with wackos like McCarthy running around. They were meant as a response to the "godless" soviets. It was silly then, and it is still silly.

rnealw, you wish you had one ounce the integrity that the ACLU has. They are a great organization who has stood up for the civil rights of all americans. Even you.


ANSWER #2 of 23

rneal, did you know that the "American Communist libertys union" has provided free legal support to Christian children wanting to exercise their personal religious freedoms in public schools? You might want to consider a source of information other than just Rush Limbaugh.



ANSWER #3 of 23

It is obvious the only thing you know about the ACLU is what you hear on FOX Noise and Blimpaugh.


ANSWER #4 of 23

*** I missed that one would you please point it out to me Before they get that bible off of John freshwaters desk. . . .

http://www.acluutah.org/defenseofreligion.htm

(open mouth, insert foot, and then apologize to the ACLU)



ANSWER #5 of 23

rnealw, do you really think it is ok for a public school science teacher to be teaching his religious views in class?


ANSWER #6 of 23

John Freshwater...oh yes, he's the teacher who promotes religion in his class and burns crosses into his students' arms according to other teachers and students.



ANSWER #7 of 23

Rush Limbaugh. . . . naaa. . . Haven't listened to him in years. . .

***provided free legal support to Christian children wanting to exercise their personal religious freedoms in public schools?***
I missed that one would you please point it out to me Before they get that bible off of John freshwaters desk. . . .


ANSWER #8 of 23

Some parts of some of them. I don't have access to all of that, and I haven't had a personal computer for very long, so I'm a little behind on my information.



ANSWER #9 of 23

torikeene, I'm curious. Have you ever read any of the Supreme Court's rulings on cases dealing with freedom of religion in the First Amendment?


ANSWER #10 of 23

Wow talk about old news. . . Thats at least 2 yrsa old And more of a political issue than a religious one. Just goes to show how powerful the "American Communist libertys union" has become. . . Next thing you know they will want to remove Moses and St. Pauls statues from the library of Congress. . .


ANSWER #11 of 23

First of all, I have the a copy of the original constitution, and know it well.
Secondly, I was asking your opinions based on this which I recieved this mornign via e-mail. I did not write any of it, nor the comment underneath where I said I recieved it.
Thank you for your comment however.


ANSWER #12 of 23

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Judges take an oath to protect the Constitution. Anyone unwilling to do that has no business in such a position.


ANSWER #13 of 23

Actually it has not been proven that he was. . .
Coming from a School in the Bible belt Religion shaped our life around here. You knew where everyone went to church and where the teachers went even where to School board members went. seeing a religious symbol was not uncommon at all you could even find 2 or 3 Bibles in the school Library. . .

And the burning Crosses into his students only came from 1 ( ONE ) student. . and no one else knows anything about it. . . .Does that strike you as odd. . .


ANSWER #14 of 23

I say thank goodness for the ACLU and for the fact that this quack no longer has influence over other peoples lives.

Torikeene if you don't understand why moore is wrong, I suggest you actually read the constitution and tell me how many times god or jesus is mentioned. I'll give you a hint... NONE!!!


ANSWER #15 of 23

Tori, that article by David New is apologetic nonsense. Any reputable historian (including Christian historians) will tell you the reason the US Constitution is void of religious overtones, has everything to do with 3 factors:

- the US was founded in large part by those escaping the tyranny of the English theocracy and had no interest in seeing the same thing here
- the various sects at the foundation of the US did not trust eachother and preferred a secular national government over a theocracy based on someone else's sect ; a point modern day dominionists might want to consider
- a significant fraction of the founding fathers were Deists

It was not an oversight on their part.


ANSWER #16 of 23

Also, here is an article you may want to read. It gives a more in depth look at what I can not explain myself.

Where is God in the Constitution?: Part 2 • Part 1
By David W. New, Esq.

Secularists are very quick to point out that the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be 'under God' in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point: The word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. It is doubtful, however, that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word "God" will appear in two places in most constitutions: in the preamble and the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, there is no preamble. In these cases, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.

The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word "God" in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: "Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . and Georgia." When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of We the People. Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularist groups like the ACLU and their 'spin' on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here the textual reason is due to the subject. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clause is the government or "Congress." This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference is the reason the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment's religion clauses. Let's compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . ." The subject of the clause is clear. It is "All men." The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses' better wording. It says "Every individual . . ." In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual.

In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a "natural right" of an individual to worship "Almighty God" according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the "right" of an individual, the word "God" naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the "Congress." The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion among the states. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion as it relates to the states. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words "God," "natural right," "worship," or "conscience" do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word "God" in the First Amendment is because the subject is what Congress can do in relation to the states which are explicitly religious.

The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth-century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common error. The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there is a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain.

The Supreme Court of Florida concluded in 1950 that "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers."3

Even if the word "God" was in the Constitution, it probably would not make any difference. Secularist groups like the ACLU would probably dismiss it as a mere formality. There are 50 reasons to believe that this is true. Since secularists dismiss all references to God in the state constitutions, there is no reason to believe that they would behave any differently with the federal Constitution. Their commitment to secularism will not allow for the possibility that they might be wrong.

For a more in-depth discussion of how monotheism and the Ten Commandments influenced the U.S. Constitution, read my new booklet: "The Ten Commandments for Beginners." Visit: www.mytencommandments.us for ordering information.


ANSWER #17 of 23

I wonder though. There is no un-truth in it, but there are a lot of ommitted truths. This judge is clearly for the death peanalty but against abortion. That's not a position that all Christians take (I cannot support the death penalty while I say that abortion is wrong, personally - Thou shalt not kill).

Other ommitted truths: America is not a rotten land. People in it may be lost and wandering, but there is much good coming from it too, as people like amblessed are right to point out. It is a nation of contrasts, not 'a moral slum'.

Other points missing: Morality is about a lot more than sexuality, abortion, public prayer and the death penalty. These are big issues. But in the Bible the issues like the treatment of the poor (our own and foreigh poor) are HUGE - where is the reference to issues like that? America has some good things going for it there - amblessed has pointed them out on other questions. In other ways, like other nations, the US may be failing its own poor, let alone those around the world.

So, my summary question is: Why has the judge picked and chosen his sins according to such a right wing agenda?

I can't support this kind of campaign/poem/chain email, when it claims that Christianity supports one particular political viewpoint.


ANSWER #18 of 23

Not really. . .


ANSWER #19 of 23

I bet someone get fired over those. . .


ANSWER #20 of 23

Here's a website to check out, http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage19.html


ANSWER #21 of 23

Well, if you do find the time, I suggest going to this site:

www.findlaw.com

...and look up Van Orden v. Perry, and McCreary County v. ACLU. Read through the opinions of the justices. Both cases deal with the display of the Ten Commandments on government property. Before one can criticize the Supreme Court for it's decisions, one should at least do them the respect of reading through those decisions. The Court had very good justification for ruling the Ten Commandments displays to be unconstitutional.


ANSWER #22 of 23

Appears to be a lot of truth there - sobering.


ANSWER #23 of 23

Oh, also, it still says in God we trust on the brand new dollars and almost every state consitution makes reference to God in one form or another.


Add your answer to this list