He presented a solid defense of his position by providing a detailed look at the role of religion in the founding and history of our nation and government. I really quite torn on how I feel about him. I understand his religious beliefs and the position that places him in. I have no problem with the acknowledgement of God by the state or by a person serving it. The first Amendment only prevents the state from establishing a religion; from promoting one religion over another. The purpose of this amendment is not to stomp out religion but to guarantee its freedom.
I agree that when your conviction and obligations are in conflict, it is more difficult to stick to your convictions. I respect Justice Moore for standing up for something he believed in, which did eventually cost him his job. However, the size and location of the monument was more than just expression; more than simply acknowledging God. It almost had the appearance of endorsing God. Moore believes that God is the basis for law, a belief which I also share but is not shared by all. I believe in both the rule of law and the importance of sticking to your convictions. The difficulty is when they conflict.
In his presentation, Moore recalled the Alamo, about Travis drawing a line in the sand. He exhorted us to draw a line in the sand and stand up for our rights. I agree with this but it is critical to draw the line in the appropriate place. Travis drew his line in San Antonio and it ended up costing the lives of all who crossed it. Contrast that with Samuel Houston, who fell back and was vilified for the amount of territory lost and battles conceded. Yet, he chose his battle carefully and won the war with a single victory.
Is the display of the Ten Commandments in our courtrooms the right place to draw the line? I don't know. It would be easy if our San Jacinto would be labeled appropriately. Our opponents continue to spend their resources on what seem to be insignificant battles (like this one) yet which are slowly chipping away at public expression of religion in this country. I do admit that hearing Moore speak has helped me to understand his point of view. I also now believe that his stand was not grandstanding for power and attention but that he was simply trying to stand for his deeply held convictions.
It is difficult not to judge someone for his or her convictions when you would act differently in the same situation. It is also a good reminder to spend some time considering what my convictions truly are. I was discipled by a gentleman when I was in college and he impressed upon me that beliefs are great but you have to understand what your convictions are. He defined convictions as "believes that you hold strongly enough to die for."
I’m glad you enjoyed Judge Moore. He’s an impressive and courageous man.
As I see it, the problem is that the interpretation of the First Amendment has come completely off it’s moorings (no pun intended) because of runaway, activist courts. The way we interpret it now has nothing to do with the words that are actually written.
The Supreme Court itself has a carving of Moses above the bench, acknowledging him as the receiver of the Supreme Law. If such acknowledgement is a violation, the Supreme Court has violated it’s own rulings for decades.
And the First Amendment does not say that government cannot acknowledge or promote or even prefer a religion. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” As Alan Keyes says, “That is to say, that the Congress of the United States cannot make a law that even deals with the issue of establishment. ‘Respecting’ means ‘with respect to, dealing with, with regard to, involving’-- they can’t touch the subject.”
Even if we accept the dubious (though court-mandated) assertion that the First Amendment applies to state governments, Judge Moore never broke a law. Nobody who drove him from office ever cited a law he broke, nor was he ever charged with breaking one.
Nor did he violate the First Amendment. Putting up a monument is not “making a law.” A monument does not establish a religion because it does not compel anyone to do anything.
http://king-of-fools.com/blog/trackback/821/MxyBRSIr/
The King of Fools wrote a post about seeing Roy Moore speak as part of the the side festivities at the Texas State Republican Convention. As those of us who live in Alabama know, Roy Moore is extremely good at convincing devout and well meaning Christi...