Did you ever wonder why Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were the only three Hebrews that refused to bow down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar erected in the plains of Shinar? I suspect that a distant relative of Russell Moore was on the scene misquoting Romans 13 to the others.
For those of you that are confused, Russell Moore, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, was quoted criticizing Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore’s instruction for state officials to disregard a Federal judge’s ruling and NOT issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Russell Moore (no relation to Roy) was quoted in the February 12 edition of the Baptist Press to say, “As citizens and as Christians, our response should be one of both conviction and of respect for the rule of law (1 Peter 2:13; Romans 13). Our system of government does not allow a state to defy the law of the land.”
Read the whole article: An Open Letter to Russell Moore - BarbWire.com.
Robert A. J. Gagnon also weighed in on it as follows:
I find it hard to believe that the majority of Southern Baptists would support Russell Moore's untenable position that Judge Roy Moore is wrong when he courageously defies the dictatorial edict of unelected rogue federal judges to invalidate his state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The Constitution does not in fact support the role of federal judges to act as legislators in redefining the nature of marriage.
The absence of the mention of marriage from the Constitution (though, to be sure, presumed and accepted by all the Founders of the Constitution as male-female in character) indicates that it is a matter for the state legislatures to resolve. Robert George's appeal to Lincoln's defiance of SCOTUS on the Dred Scot Case (see previous posting) is the better route. It is rogue judges with a homosexualist ideology who are defying the "rule of law," not Judge Moore. It is ludicrous for the Left to assert that the 14th Amendment requires same-sex marriage. This is simply abuse of judicial power, where unelected, unresponsive functionaries find the thinnest of reeds to justify transgressing into legislative authority.
Jefferson was right: “One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation” (Letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825).
Lincoln was right: “…The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal" (First Inaugural, 1861).
As noted in the posted article, Madison was right as well. "James Madison clearly stated in Federalist #45: 'The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.' ... So what is the proper recourse if the Federal Government exceeds its limits? In 1798, ... Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolutions: '…in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.'”
Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is wrong.
The secular Left will give Russell Moore kudos for his stance which contributes to the erosion of the very religious liberties that his position is supposed to protect. But he should receive no such kudos from his fellow Christians. I wish that every state Supreme Court Chief Justice in the land took the position of Judge Roy Moore.
This is not the first time Russell Moore has taken a problematic approach to issues. At the ERLC Conference on Homosexuality last October, Moore denounced reparative therapy for persons seeking help with same-sex attractions, essentially throwing under the bus the one movement in secular psychology providing help for ssa-persons who want to live a godly life (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/28/evangelical-leader-russell-moore-denounces-ex-gay-therapy/). He also provided little or no platform in the Conference for ex-gay transformation ministries that offer hope for change in same-sex attractions. His position doesn't strike me as all that different from court decisions to prevent youth from receiving counseling for unwanted same-sex attractions.
Russell Moore should be advocating for the views of Southern Baptists. As things now stand, I think he is just representing his own views, which are out of sync not only with most Southern Baptists but also with many orthodox believers outside of the SBC. Yet the secular world can claim that Russell Moore speaks for Southern Baptists as a whole and use that stick to destroy those seeking to preserve the correct definition of marriage in the public sphere.
If Roy Moore continues after the US Supreme Court mandates homosexual marriage nationwide, the federal government will move to arrest him. The federal government might not wait (likely). The only thing left to the states will be to go along with the US Supreme Court's edict or secede, which any such secession will give rise to another civil war if those states do act to fight to the death over the matter.
The problem with "states' rights" is the direct connection in the public mind with racism and slavery. How to overcome that is a major hurdle.
The federal judiciary looks good in general to many because it has often rightly stood up for the Bill of Rights. The homosexualists have worked and worked and worked to more than insert homosexuality into those rights to the point where free exercise (though never unlimited) relative to the right of homosexuality, is to be relegated to the "trash heap of history," at least until sufficient numbers stand up for free exercise even on pain of death.
Of course, the logical conclusion of homosexuality trumping Christianity will mean the end of Christianity proper via judicial edict ostensibly under the US Constitution without that document being expressly amended.
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. (The Federalist Papers : No. 78)
No matter what, the issue still comes down to express free exercise versus the supposedly implied homosexual right to marry, to be held equal in that institution.
Judges have definitely been asserting their will rather than the judgment Hamilton meant.
Robert A. J. Gagnon contributed the following terrific link: "Lincoln's take on judicial supremacy," by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
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.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)