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]

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.
....
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?

You failed to do sufficient research. Instead you imply a person's race determines. It does not. Here's a good definition from an expert:
"With a mass shooting that is not connected to a group or cause, in which the perpetrator does not leave some sort of explicit explanation, we cannot interpret it as an act of terrorism."
http://www.futurity.org/mass-shooting-l ... e-1573452/

If and when the shootings in Las Vegas and Texas are found to be motivated by a cause and connected to a group they will be deemed acts of terror. In those cases, "... we appear to be dealing with a one-time act committed by one person who made no effort to tell us why he caused such enormous loss of life. So no, I don’t think it could be considered an act of terrorism."
ibid

BTW, you are also grossly and dangerously wrong when you claim the 2d Amendment gives people the right to perform acts of violence if they don't trust the government. The 2d Amendment gives the right to bear arms because a 'well regulated militia' was deemed necessary to protect a free society.

[JP Cusick]

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?

The point exposed above is that the claim of "terrorism" is an age old cry of the Bully and the oppressor governments against the people which are being persecuted and abused.

If we had a truly Theocratic America then we would be able to appeal based on religious values of truth and justice and righteousness, but by having an evil government based on being secular and Atheistic ideals then there is no appeal to stop the American terrorism of the entire world.

[Danmark]

The point exposed above is that the claim of "terrorism" is an age old cry of the Bully and the oppressor governments against the people which are being persecuted and abused.

If we had a truly Theocratic America then we would be able to appeal based on religious values of truth and justice and righteousness, but by having an evil government based on being secular and Atheistic ideals then there is no appeal to stop the American terrorism of the entire world.

Now you are reduced to quoting yourself. You are not responding to facts presented that show you are wrong. This does not indicate an ability to learn. Based on the virtually criminal positions you advocate and your insistence on turning the meaning of words upside down I have no confidence you even understand "truth, justice and righteousness."
Roy Moore, now accused by many of sexual perversion against minors, is a great example the evils of a theocracy. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Mohammad has been accused of being a child molester.
"... perhaps the most disturbing fact about Islam is that its founder had a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl."
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/ ... ophile.htm

[JP Cusick]

Now you are reduced to quoting yourself. You are not responding to facts presented that show you are wrong. This does not indicate an ability to learn. Based on the virtually criminal positions you advocate and your insistence on turning the meaning of words upside down I have no confidence you even understand "truth, justice and righteousness."

I just quoted the truest and most right comment of this thread ~ and then gave it a better explanation to make it easier to comprehend.

I am very happy with it.

Roy Moore, now accused by many of sexual perversion against minors, is a great example the evils of a theocracy.

I did say in my comment post #27 = "... we do not need to follow the person of Roy Moore but to follow the principle is long over due."

And I really do say that the girl waiting 40 years to complain is a bit excessive, and to wait just before a big election to make the declaration is highly suspicious, so I reject the accusation, and I hope he gets elected in spite of the smear tactic.

It is reprehensible when people jump to conclusions, and fail to give a person the benefit of doubt.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that Mohammad has been accused of being a child molester.
"... perhaps the most disturbing fact about Islam is that its founder had a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl."
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/ ... ophile.htm

You are again just jumping to a conclusion based on a hate-the-Muslims preacher, and it just radiates religious bigotry.

No one knows what really happened with the 9 year old girl, and so those baseless accusations are just lies based on bigotry.

Muhammad may have simply married the young girl to protect her from other people who would do her harm, or to give her a high position of authority, and there is no evidence that he had intercourse with the girl (except in the dirty minds of his accusers), and she never had a baby which is evidence that there was no intercourse.

Everyone must take off their prejudiced blinders if you want to see the reality.

[otseng]

Everyone must take off their prejudiced blinders if you want to see the reality.

Moderator Comment

Please do not insinuate that others have blinders on.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dlsmith2959]

I am a supporter of Roy Moore who has donated to his campaign, though I am not from Alabama. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a candidate who better represents my overall views. Everyone has an idea of how the constitution should be interpreted. I like the idea of original intent, but that’s considered irrelevant by many jurists, and it’s interpreted as a living document. Functionally this is true as it’s interpreted differently in different times by different people, I would say as fits their own view of justice.
I can’t say I’ve taken the time to really study Roy Moore closely, but he seems to have a Scalia like view that the 1st amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion is narrow in that it basically only prevents the legalization of a federal church. This is in my opinion the best and a healthy interpretation of the amendment, and I think was the original intent.
I want to see and I am praying for Roy Moore in Congress and about 60 others just like him. This will not happen without a large spiritual awakening.
I think it would be beneficial to society if the ruling legalizing homosexual marriage were reversed. Not that people would stop being homosexuals, but just from a standpoint of not legalizing a coupling that is unable to produce biological offspring, and thus legalizing what could become the extinction of our people, and the destruction of the biological family.
I think people could rest more freely knowing their rights are protected with a man like Roy Moore in the Senate, even those who disagree with him. I worry more about a senator like Bernie Sanders, who questioned the fitness of a OMB candidate Russell Vought on the basis of his views that Muslims are not saved, as in going to Heaven.

This would mean that any Christian how follows Jesus, who claimed to be a follower of Jesus is not fit to hold a federal position. Whatever his motivation, this should be concerning, as well as the those who backed Bernie for his questioning of Mr. Vought.
Similarly, Senator Diane Feinstein expressed concern about judicial candidate Amy Coney Barrett’s religious faith as pertaining to her judgeship.

It is Christians who should be worried about their rights being violated rather than non-Christians. It’s that idea that all men were created equal by God that spawned our country and free speech, when Christianity was the dominant religion. Freedom tends to disappear when God is take out of the equation as in the former Soviet Union or Communist Cuba.
I suggest also in understanding the positions of Judge Moore, read directly his positions page.
https://www.roymoore.org/Positions/

[Bust Nak]

I think it would be beneficial to society if the ruling legalizing homosexual marriage were reversed...

It is Christians who should be worried about their rights being violated rather than non-Christians.

You don't see any conflict between these two statements?

[JP Cusick]

You don't see any conflict between these two statements?

I do not see any conflict in the two.

The former is trying to bring humanity down into filth and depravity - therefore it would be better to reverse.

The latter is trying to pull humanity up into a better world - therefore this would be better to support.

That is in harmony - not in conflict.

[Bust Nak]

The former is trying to bring humanity down into filth and depravity - therefore it would be better to reverse.

dlsmith2959 was very explicit that homosexuality should be allowed, this is about marriage and not plain homosexuality, as such he made a point about procreation. What is your justification for such a claim?

The latter is trying to pull humanity up into a better world - therefore this would be better to support.

Better world from whom? Not for these who wants to marry the same gender.

[historia]

And I really do say that the girl waiting 40 years to complain is a bit excessive, and to wait just before a big election to make the declaration is highly suspicious, so I reject the accusation, and I hope he gets elected in spite of the smear tactic.

On the contrary, Corfman's account seems entirely credible, and is corroborated by court documents and nearly 30 witnesses.

That, coupled with the subsequent accusations of sexual assault that have surfaced since the original Washington Post article, have now lead even many leading Republican politicians and conservative commentators -- including Sean Hannity -- to seriously doubt Moore's innocence.

It would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss such evidence out of hand as nothing more than a "smear tactic."