Roy Moore and the belief in a Theocratic America

[Danmark]

Roy Moore is now the GOP candidate for a U.S. Senate seat from Alabama. Moore believes the United States should be a theocracy and that Christians should by law have advantages over other religions and that the Constitution should be subservient to his idea of the Christian God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
Moore thinks homosexuality should be criminalized and has twice been removed as a judge for refusing to follow the Constitution and insisting that the Ten Commandments should be in the courthouse.

I'm wondering if there are any DCR members who agree with him. The question for debate is whether beliefs like Moore's are appropriate in the United States and whether his beliefs are good or bad for Christianity and for the country.

[Danmark]

So, let's say the United States throws out the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, as you suggest. And then a conservative Evangelical party comes to power, declaring your religious views to be "ignorant" and throwing you in prison.

Would you support such a government?

That is just painting extreme gloom and doom which is not possible in realistic terms.

WRONG. Historia's point is dead on. The scenario he suggests is exactly what could happen if you got your wish and the 1st Amendment was abolished. This is what totalitarians never understand. This is what Roper failed to understand.
Thomas More corrected him:

'Alice More: Arrest him!
More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret More: He's bad!
More: There is no law against that.
Will Roper: There is! God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Alice: While you talk, he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.'

From A Man for all Seasons.

[JP Cusick]

WRONG. Historia's point is dead on. The scenario he suggests is exactly what could happen if you got your wish and the 1st Amendment was abolished. This is what totalitarians never understand. This is what Roper failed to understand.
Thomas More corrected him:

'Alice More: Arrest him!
More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret More: He's bad!
More: There is no law against that.
Will Roper: There is! God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Alice: While you talk, he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.'

From A Man for all Seasons.

It is a distraction to change the point against ignorant free speech and try to make it as a call against law or law enforcement.

I strongly believe in just laws and in rightful Police to enforce sensible laws.

To correct the absurdity of the "free speech" by putting real and sensibly limitation on speech is in no way trying to undermine law and order.

The real "free speech" of empowering hate speech and filthy speech is the true undermining of decent law and order.

It is not to cut down every law - it is just to correct the one (1) ignorant law of free speech.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 22 by JP Cusick]

You stated on a public forum, that it was okay for people to take the law into their own hand and shoot artists for drawing offensive cartoons if the police don't arrest them. It's not even clear if that speech is protected by the law of free speech, and you want to shut down it down? Don't you know you'd be the first one to be locked up?

[JP Cusick]

You stated on a public forum, that it was okay for people to take the law into their own hand and shoot artists for drawing offensive cartoons if the police don't arrest them. It's not even clear if that speech is protected by the law of free speech, and you want to shut down it down? Don't you know you'd be the first one to be locked up?

I do not really ever tell anyone to shoot people or to do any form of violence, but I can understand when others act as Police against evil when the government fails to do its job.

Concerning the evil cartoonist over in France - then the reports declare that the cartoonist were first given a direct warning to stop their trashy hateful cartoons, and much later there was a bomb exploded near the cartoon office and again it was a direct warning and the cartoonist continued with total disregard, and then much later and at last some warriors went into that office building and specifically only targeted and shot the cartoonist and left others unharmed, and then they retreated from the scene as the job of policing was completed.

As such - it was done by rightful procedure - and that is praiseworthy.

It would be no different if any person walked down any main street of any town or any city yelling out hateful and ugly words then some people in the town or city would confront them and if they continued then very likely the speaker(s) would be silenced by force - that is to be rightly expected in any town in the USA and in any place on earth, so those cartoonist hide away in their closed office as if their hate speech is thereby protected from public wrath - and rightfully they are not protected.

[Bust Nak]

I do not really ever tell anyone to shoot people or to do any form of violence, but I can understand when others act as Police against evil when the government fails to do its job.

Your post right here speaks for itself, you don't tell anyone to shoot cartoonists, but it is rightly so that cartoonists are shot.

Concerning the evil cartoonist over in France - then the reports declare that the cartoonist were first given a direct warning to stop their trashy hateful cartoons, and much later there was a bomb exploded near the cartoon office and again it was a direct warning and the cartoonist continued with total disregard, and then much later and at last some warriors went into that office building and specifically only targeted and shot the cartoonist and left others unharmed, and then they retreated from the scene as the job of policing was completed.

You are wrong, the two gunmen shot 16 people killing 12, only 6 of whom were cartoonists. The gunmen specifically targeted the editor. But that's besides the point.

As such - it was done by rightful procedure - and that is praiseworthy.

It would be no different if any person walked down any main street of any town or any city yelling out hateful and ugly words then some people in the town or city would confront them and if they continued then very likely the speaker(s) would be silenced by force - that is to be rightly expected in any town in the USA and in any place on earth, so those cartoonist hide away in their closed office as if their hate speech is thereby protected from public wrath - and rightfully they are not protected.

Do you understand that a post like yours is on shaky round for inciting violence and already in danger, and that would be the first to be outlawed, should the freedom of speech ever be removed?

[Danmark]

... a bomb exploded near the cartoon office and again it was a direct warning and the cartoonist continued with total disregard, and then much later and at last some warriors went into that office building and specifically only targeted and shot the cartoonist....

As such - it was done by rightful procedure - and that is praiseworthy.

Wow! This is unbelievable! You actually think killing people for drawing cartoons that offend you is just cause for murder. Then you justify murderous violence as 'praiseworthy.' Do you justify your view by your religious beliefs? Do you have a scripture you can cite to support your position?

Even children learn "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." By claiming murder is justified because you do not like the content of someone's free expression, you are yourself engaging in violent hate speech. Bust Nak is correct, what you've written comes perilously close to being criminal conduct since you are advocating terrorism against those whose expression of ideas offends you.

[JP Cusick]

Your post right here speaks for itself, you don't tell anyone to shoot cartoonists, but it is rightly so that cartoonists are shot.

Now that it is done then ever-after it is complete and finished, so now it does not need to be done again.

It is a real example of enforcing the law, and now the criminals of the world are corrected and now they know the law.

This is a simple matter of comprehending right from wrong.

And if you really must know it is because you are infected with the old poisoned knowledge of good and bad, because you view the hateful cartoonist as "good" and to shoot them as "bad" and by that poisoned knowledge you can not see right from wrong based on truth and justice.


---------------------------------------------------------

Do you justify your view by your religious beliefs? Do you have a scripture you can cite to support your position?

Here in the USA a person has the right to a 2nd Amendment solution whenever the government fails to protect the population from a criminal act, and that same 2A principle applies to every person on the planet earth and beyond.

And the Bible gives justification in Romans 13:1-7, and this too applies to every person anywhere.

Plus the event in France - as already said - the Muslim warriors gave long advanced warning to stop it, and they gave an advanced notice of a bomb and the criminal cartoonist would not heed, so the use of violence was done as the last resort.

To the OP = Yes the beliefs like Moore's is appropriate in the United States, and it is long over due, and we do not need to follow the person of Roy Moore but to follow the principle is long over due.

[Bust Nak]

Now that it is done then ever-after it is complete and finished, so now it does not need to be done again.

It is a real example of enforcing the law, and now the criminals of the world are corrected and now they know the law.

You do know the magazine is still in business and has continued as it had before, right? Now what? All the prior stuff didn't stop the cartoons. I dread to think how you think you can escalate from shooting the staffs.

This is a simple matter of comprehending right from wrong.

Ironic thing for someone who advocate for terrorism to say.

And if you really must know it is because you are infected with the old poisoned knowledge of good and bad, because you view the hateful cartoonist as "good" and to shoot them as "bad" and by that poisoned knowledge you can not see right from wrong based on truth and justice...

And this is why religious fundamentalism is so dangerous. Your views are so extreme I am starting to doubt that you are a theist at all, but an atheist troll looking to shock others and give Christians a bad name.

And the Bible gives justification in Romans 13:1-7, and this too applies to every person anywhere.

Those verses asks you to obey the law of the land, here you are using them to justify breaking the law.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 24 by JP Cusick]


Moderator Warning

We encourage members to speak their opinions, but please keep in mind the idea of civil debate.

7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

Praising violence of terrorism can be considered inflammatory and flame bait.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JP Cusick]

This is a simple matter of comprehending right from wrong.

Ironic thing for someone who advocate for terrorism to say.

We really must understand that the word "terrorism" is a political slogan taken up by the USA because Americans get afraid and they feel terror and thereby the name = terrorism.

Some people go to horror movies to get terrorized, other get onto double loop roller coasters to get terrorized, but they do not call their terror as terrorism.

The USA uses aircraft and Drones to drop bombs onto cars and into houses and into crowds of people and the point of the USA military is to instill terror into the Muslim world - but the Syrians and Iraqis and Afghanistan do not call our attempt to terrorize them as being terrorism - because they do not define acts of war and murder by the feelings of fear or cowardice.

People who commit sins and commit crimes need to fear the wrath of God - the criminals need to fear the justice and righteousness of God - and that is what makes a person's fear into a tool for stopping crime.

I did a little history on the terminology of terrorism, and it has always been violent governments declaring any resistance by the people to thereby be terrorism.

Started in France as the French government used the guillotine as the infamous "Reign of Terror".
Then it was the people against Czarist Russia who were called terrorist.
The Hindus of India fighting against the British Empire were called terrorist.
The Jews in Palestine started out as terrorist and terrorism until they took power.
The African people resisting Apartheid South Africa were called terrorist and terrorism.
The Catholic resistance in Ireland were called terrorist and terrorism.
The Vietnamese people were called terrorist against the French rule, but when the USA invaded we changed the name to the Vietcong.
And there are lots more examples of civilian citizens fighting against evil government who are always called terrorist and terrorism - and that name calling is all wrong and unjust.

Now the USA calls Muslims who strike back against our imperialism as terrorism, and it is the same old political garbage going on again.

And yet the guy shooting up Las Vegas is not called a terrorist because he was a white American, and the guy shooting up the church in Texas is not called a terrorist because he too was a white American, and so why do people play along with these kinds of old lies from our government?