Another thing is that Roy Moore and Mike Peroutka have been very good pals to each other.

...I’ll take Chuck over Roy please.

It is well-known that Baldwin will run if asked. And most (if not all) of us would prefer to ask Baldwin than to run Grundmann or Rieske or Templin.

Also, if you think that Christians thinking homosexuality to be wrong even without ANY political implications is not now considered by the liberal, enlightened cosmo set a thought crime in and of itself then you haven’t been paying attention. Let me introduce you to something the rest of us like to call Political Correctness. Great example. Ron Paul, a 72 year old Baptist, was castigated as a homophobe because he was, in the words of our pal Eric Dondero, “uncomfortable” with homosexuality. The horror. If a 72 year old Baptist isn’t “uncomfortable with homosexuality then there is something wrong with him. Since at that age he missed out on the PC indoctrination drum beat that is modern education and society.

And Dave spare me the concerns about Roy Moore’s “idolatry.” I hardly think that the state of Roy Moore’s soul is your principle objection.

It is a hallmark of our tradition that we have eased the once severe penalties for unspeakable private affairs, and have done fairly well at securing personal privacy in such regards (admittedly with exceptions, and the ever-present possibility for abuse of power).

Is it merely coincidence that, as our liberties to life and property disappear on a daily basis, anarchists call for ever-more libertine relaxation of traditional moral judgement in maintaining societal order?

We have at last gone from the common law condemnation of perversion to not even being allowed to consier it in child custody – without being called an extremist of criminal proportions.

I give you Blackstone for a reference point from where we’ve come:

OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSONS OF INDIVIDUALS

Book V Chapter 15

IV. What has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity [than the crime rape!]; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out: for if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.

I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it in it’s very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; “peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum k.” A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans l; “ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt rei.” Which leads me to add a word concerning it’s punishment.

This, the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not “merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the same, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made felony without benefit of clergy, by statute 25 Hen. VIII, c. 6, revived and confirmed by 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et consentientes pari paena plectantur q 7.

That’s bullshit and you know it. Know one’s asking that you or any one else stop believing as you/they wish. The issue; there is danger from extremists ‘round every corner. All with their own agenda, religious or secular. And to have those agenda’s imposed against an individuals will, well, that must be stopped.

Or take away your kids if you eat pork, I should add.

Nonsense. I don’t care if Roy Moore and you write articles and deliver speeches condemning homosexuality, adultery, contraception, or sex outside the classical missionary position.

Using government force in a child custody case to enforce your personal religious preferences is an entirely different matter.

If you can’t tell the difference, you don’t belong anywhere near a court – except, possibly, as a defendant if you attempt to force your preferences on others.

It’s not the job of a government judge to post his religious symbols in court, legislate from the bench against voluntary sexual behavior or have religious prayers in a government court.

Last I check, Christianity and the Bible explicitly condemned homosexuality as a sin.

Last time I checked, that is none of the government’s business.

Are you suggesting that a Bible believing Christian can think homosexuality is OK?

No, I’m suggesting that if they can not separate that opinion from their job, they do not belong on the bench. A religious Jewish or Muslim judge
can’t think eating pork is OK, but if they try to put you in jail for it, they should be removed from office. See the difference?

It is kind of hard to get past those verses explicitly condemning the act isn’t it?

Not really, but that’s completely irrelevant, since it should have nothing whatsoever to do with secular law or politics.

No one is worshipping a rock.

Except the idolater Roy Moore.

The issue is that posting the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court is not a violation of the First Amendment as the Federal Court wrongly and illegitimately decided.

You have a very narrow case to make based on the idea that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. Of course, even if true, this would be irrelevant, since the states – including Alabama – have their own state constitutions which protect freedom of religion.

If the bible says gay people are sinners, why should the followers be concerned about other peoples life styles, then join ranks to subjugate? Aren’t Christians supposed to turn the other cheek and all that jazz? Isn’t GOD the one and only judge?

From Matthew…”Judge not, least ye be judged yourself.”

I’m from that part of the states, and I can tell you all about the intolerance projected towards anyone who isn’t a Baptist. And that is what is wrong with this fucked up country. And I made a point to say ‘fucked up’ because I know how much you like to read swear words hear at Gordons free speech forum.

No one is worshipping a rock. The issue is that posting the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court is not a violation of the First Amendment as the Federal Court wrongly and illegitimately decided. Moore was brave and right to defy the illegitimate court order. It is a shame that fewer so-called conservatives and Christians supported him.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Show me anything I have said against Christianity.

On the other hand, Roy Moore practices rock idolatry, presumes to judge in the place of God, and then there’s this…

Matthew 6

Prayer

5”And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.