To view this item online, visit
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=61671

Wednesday, April 16, 2008
OUR MORAL FOUNDATION
Homosexual
intolerance
Exclusive: Judge Roy Moore battles trend
of increasing court-ordered licentiousness
Posted: April 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Judge Roy Moore

In the past, homosexuals have always called for “tolerance” and “privacy,” but today they flaunt their perversion in public parades, “gay” television shows and Hollywood movies. Demanding laws for same-sex “marriages” and “hate crimes” legislation, they would require Christians and everyone else to recognize and never question their immoral lifestyle.

Now homosexual advocates are moving to mandate their agenda of calling evil good by court orders and government regulation. Two recent examples bear witness.

Last month in Scottsboro, Ala., two lesbian teenagers decided they wanted to attend the high school junior-senior prom as a couple. When the superintendent, Dr. Judith Berry, informed the students that they could not attend the prom together, the students’ parents hired a lawyer to intervene. Jackson County Circuit Court Judge John Graham issued a last-minute order prohibiting the Board from barring the girls from the prom. One girl, a 17-year-old senior, wore a dress while the other, a 16-year-old junior, dressed in a tuxedo.

Their attorney, Parker Edmiston, casually dismissed any concerns that school officials or parents had about the lesbian couple attending the prom by saying, “This is just a dance. Adults need not get involved.” Of course, the problem here is that adults – the attorney and judge – did get involved.

Attorney Edmiston not only exhibited hypocrisy but also helped set a precedent for mandating acceptance of homosexuality in the public school system. Pushing aside the right of elected school officials to regulate school functions, the court summarily disregarded the rights of parents and other students who depend on school officials to maintain moral standards. Intent on normalizing deviant behavior, the courts have once again imposed an immoral standard upon an unwilling community.

Just this past week, in another example of moral intolerance, Elane Photography, a family-owned photography business in Albuquerque, N.M., was ordered to pay $6,637.94 in attorney’s fees and costs to a lesbian for refusing to photograph her same-sex “commitment ceremony.” After a one-day trial in January, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found co-owners Elaine and Jon Huguenin guilty of “sexual orientation” discrimination when they did not do business in a manner that would have violated their Christian beliefs, despite the fact that under the law in New Mexico same-sex “marriages” and civil unions are not legal. Under such an oppressive nondiscrimination policy, would Elane Photography be forced to photograph a “commitment ceremony” between a man and his son, or between two sisters, or between a man and his three brides?

New Mexico is in essence demanding that small-business owners be forced to work against their will. As the Huguenins’ attorney said, “The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” but that is exactly what the New Mexico Human Rights Commission is doing.

The role of government is to protect an individual in the enjoyment of those unalienable rights of life, liberty and property given by God. One’s liberty, therefore, cannot be taken without due process of law under the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Sir William Blackstone defined “natural liberty” in the law prior to the drafting of the Constitution as follows:

a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation.

When the law of nature and the law of God are ignored and made inapplicable to man’s moral behavior, all limits on the concept of liberty are removed, resulting in mere license or licentiousness. James Wilson, an original Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, explained it this way:

Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.

Where law is warped to require a distorted view of liberty, licentiousness becomes court-ordered, as it did at Scottsboro High School. Judges, legislators and civil officers who believe that they must be “fair” to immoral conduct do not understand that without moral boundaries in the law, there is no true liberty, as Elane Photography will tell you. Whether in Alabama or New Mexico, the radical homosexual agenda must not be allowed to put the force of law behind its oppressive intolerance of Christianity and the moral law.

bitblt believes that the idea of justice comes from God. So to bitblt this “…a Christian worldview upon our national civil and legal traditions…” is all but a necessity, not by “…superimposing…” but by choosing.

In acknowledging a choice here, you’ve partly answered your third question. There are alternatives, and you narrowly conceive of justice as the application of the divine, but “justice” as a concept in recorded history extends to polytheistic cultures in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Moreover, Kantian ethics give us the categorical imperative, a rationally-derived code predicated upon the first formulation, which reads: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Deductively established, and yet mirroring one of Jesus’ primary and most consistent mandates: do unto others as you would have done to you. Ethics are not exclusively biblically derived. Not only do they predate the Bible, the codes of behavior within the Bible mirror other contemporary theologies, including Mithraism and Zoroastrianism.

Finally, in response to your second question, I’ll say this: self-interest. The Founding Fathers reckoned in Philadelphia with a system of government that would advance the general welfare without sacrificing unalienable individual rights (identified by John Locke–a rationalist–as natural, not divine, rights of man). To that end, the Constitution was founded to link the pursuit of self-interest by citizens, who Madison acknowledged were hardly angels, to the good of the state. Human beings have the capacity for self-limitation, and where they do not, law will suffice. Your interpretation of Christianity as the “something” holding us all together assumes a very low opinion of humanity, indeed, and smacks of an unsavory paternalism that is inconsistent with our political and cultural identity.

That said, I appreciate your civility.

What is this tautology day?

Fact is, bitblt believes the Jesus Christ is the Son of God. You make quote bitblt in stating that his faith is a fact.

You got something better?
________________

Amazing… just amazing.

Tautology…. do you even know what the word means?

Wonderful “influence” them Christians…

Wonder why they put that passage in the bill of rights about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…

But I digress. This whole argument started off with bitblt trying to pass off its personal beliefs as fact.

And bitblt is so prideful it cannot admit it is wrong.

Well, RP the Treaty of Tripoli is often quoted on TP. bitblt usually finds a quote from John Adams made at a later date to show that what the treaty explicitly said was not the only explicit thought of the founders.

Amazing, bitblt really has no disagreement with what you say in this post. bitblt doesn’t usually say that the U.S. is a Christian nation though he will quote those who say this like in the declarations from the US Supreme Court above.

What bitblt says is this; the U.S. was a nation for a Christian people.

This doesn’t seem to be contrary to your remark, “; to argue that the United States was explicitly founded on the Christian variant of monotheistic belief is both unhistorical and false,” at least to bitblt.

bitblt does promote the idea that without the influence of Christianity and the Bible there would not be a US – at least the US we know. This is not the same as saying the U.S. was founded to promote Christianity though it’s easy to find those who believe this.

The natural conclusion of this idea is will there be a US – at least a US worth preserving – without the influence of Christianity and Bible?

Being a pluralistic nation in no way prohibits your ability to worship and believe as you please; artificially superimposing a Christian worldview upon our national civil and legal traditions to somehow redefine the United States as a “Christian nation”, on the other hand, is not only unhistorical, it’s fascist.

Though bitblt doesn’t disagree with this paragraph, he finds it more troublesome. Rather that try to break it down bitblt will ask a couple of question. This is the first question: What is a better influence on the US than Christianity?

bitblt believes that there is a need for a common “something” to hold the nation together. For the founders part of that common “something” seems to be the morality associated with Christianity. For example, early state oaths of office included the declaration that the office holder was a Christian. This is because the belief was that an office holder was responsible to God because God had ordained government. So the second question is this: what in a pluralistic, diverse society is that “something” that will keep the united in United States?

BTW, bitblt believes that the idea of justice comes from God. So to bitblt this “…a Christian worldview upon our national civil and legal traditions…” is all but a necessity, not by “…superimposing…” but by choosing.

If a Christian worldview is not a necessity, what will replace it?
Guess that’s three questions.

We don’t call the founders fascists because they let their Christian view influence the government.

Whereas President Abraham Lincoln declared that the Bible `is the best gift God has given to men … But for it, we could not know right from wrong’

Blockquote from H.Res. 888

there ya go, bitblt…

You CAN’T prove this happened. It is a myth.

Your faith may be a fact, but that doesn’t make God a fact.

YOU’RE the one talking in tautologies. Not me.

You haven’t ONCE addressed my initial comment.

And NOTHING you’ve posted since then has anything to do w/ what I said.

Yer just blowing smoke out yer Cheney, pal.

bitblt’s believes are not facts.

bitblt’s belief in a Christian god doesn’t, in and of itself, make that God a fact.

bitblt is quite dishonest.

Very, very sad.

This just gets funnier by the post.

And yet here is bitblt, responding to me, again.

bitblt INSISTS on perpetuating its lies.

bitblt was never asked ONCE about the influence of ***cough…*** “Christian belief systems” on this country. Rather, bitblt was called out for trying to pass off bitblt’s PERSONAL beliefs as fact.

bitblt can post longer and longer excepts from wherever bitblt finds them, and this will not change one iota.

bitblt’s PERSONAL beliefs are NOT proof of the existence of a Christian god, no matter how hard bitblt tries to foist this nonsense off on others.

bitblt is very dishonest in its presentation.

bitblt is a hypocrit, a liar, and a phony.

Opinions, like beliefs, or faith, are NEVER facts.

bitblt can have all the faith it wants, but it CANNOT prove its god exists.

To say that spirituality and Christian theology have influenced the American experience is a historically reliable claim; to argue that the United States was explicitly founded on the Christian variant of monotheistic belief is both unhistorical and false. I don’t care what contemporary legislation you throw at me–it will still be false. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia supports that bill–you know, the guy who wanted to force a display of the Ten Commandments in public facilities, and yet could not name them when asked by Stephen Colbert?

Being a pluralistic nation in no way prohibits your ability to worship and believe as you please; artificially superimposing a Christian worldview upon our national civil and legal traditions to somehow redefine the United States as a “Christian nation”, on the other hand, is not only unhistorical, it’s fascist.

April 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Whereas the 1783 Treaty of Paris that officially endied the Revolution and established America as an independent begins with the appellation `In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity’;

Whereas in 1800, Congress approved the use of the just-completed Capitol structure as a church building, with Divine services to be held each Sunday in the Hall of the House, alternately administered by the House and Senate chaplains;

And bitblt continues to deliberately mislead and talk out the side of bitblt’s mouth.
Attacking bitblt instead of this ideas is so very Democrat of you.

Actually, bitblt is very predictable. He simply questions every question.
bitblt is so very predictable that TRoS probably knows what bitblt will posts before it’s written. Unless the “S” in “TRoS” is more that just a handle TRoS could probably just not read bitblt’s posts. You may have noticed that the poster’s handle is now at the top of the post.

bitblt says what he believes. There is nothing misleading in it.

Bitblt wasn’t asked about the INFLUENCE of Christian faith on this country.
The question that bitblt is currently considering is whether the U.S. will continue being a nation worth preserving without the influence of Christianity. Why is this question important on another thread about homosexuality?

Many conservative Christians believe the homosexuality will be the vehicle used to silence Christians.

In addition, bitblt believes he, as well as TRoS, enjoys the fruits of the past Christians who have made the U.S. the nation it is today. Further, bitblt believes TRoS has the responsibility to acknowledge that the U.S. would not be the nation it is today without the influence of Christianity and the Bible.

If TRoS can think of an influence – other than Christianity – that would have made or will make the US a better nation, bitblt would appreciate hearing about it.

Whereas in 1789, on the same day that Congress finished drafting the First Amendment, it requested President Washington to declare a National day of prayer and thanksgiving, resulting in the first Federal official Thanksgiving proclamation that declared `it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor’;

Bitblt was called out for trying to pass Bitblt’s OWN PERSONAL assumptions off as fact.
…called out…
Ok. I got it. bitblt will play Clint Eastwood and you can play Eli Wallach.

Again, no matter how much Bitblt wishes it to be so, faith and belief are not fact.

What is this tautology day?

Fact is, bitblt believes the Jesus Christ is the Son of God. You make quote bitblt in stating that his faith is a fact.

You got something better?

No matter how many frightened little bitblts desperately want to belive in this Christian god, their neediness doesn’t make it a fact that this god exists.
As bitblt previously said, your saying this doesn’t mean that you have disproved the existence of the Christian God. It doesn’t prove that one belief, or lack of belief, is better that another. It doesn’t really prove anything.

Besides, to whom, to what, do all the little TRoSs pray that there is no God?
It bitblt’s wrong, so what? If TRoS is wrong…uh…oh!

Faith is only faith, not fact.
What is this tautology day?
Faith is only faith, not fact. This is true.
That faith exists is a fact to which bitblt can atest, …

Whereas James Madison declared that he saw the finished Constitution as a product of `the finger of that Almighty Hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the Revolution,’ and George Washington viewed it as `little short of a miracle,’ and Benjamin Franklin believed that its writing had been `influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler, in Whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being’;

and so can others.

But the existence of faith, and of faith based on fact, is a fact. One to which bitblt will readily testify. Christianity is based on the accounts of Christ’s resurrection. Christians consider that resurrection a fact.

Believe the Bible has some comments on this very thing – the existence of faith.

The Bible says if you had the facts you wouldn’t need faith, and it also says that without faith it is impossible to be pleasing to God. Many Christians find this is a little confusing. bitblt is one of them. In essence, the faith arrangement means that God gets all the glory.

Since TRoS doesn’t appear ready to bow his knee to Christ, I guess he’s simply opted out.

That is what bitblt was questioned over. bitblt refuses to acknowledge that.

bitblt is a hypocrit.
Remains to be proven. bitblt doesn’t believe that one who believes nothing – which seems to describe TRoS though this is a very assumptive statement – has any special abilities in the area of judging Christians.
Since there seems to be something unattractive about this to TRoS, does he promise to not respond to the post by hypocrites – especially bitblt’s.

bitblt is also sneaky. Coming back onto a thread the next day, hoping to get the last word in and thereby appearing, falsely, to have somehow ‘won” the argument.
Didn’t realize there was a time limit and that TP had appointed TRoS the time keeper. Must have missed that memo,… again.
bitblt is a phony.
This is probably not true – as if it matters on an anonymous news blog. bitblt does have a good voice and stands up tall. And here bitblt has worried that his post were so repetitious that even he would start finding them boring.

Besides, bitblt is picky about those influences to which to responds, and you, TRoS, don’t make the cut – as if it matters on an anonymous news blog.

From one of the founders who wasn’t a deist.

Benjamin Rush – Signer of the Declaration of Independence

My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!

Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, George Corner, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1948), p. 166, Travels Through Life, An Account of Sundry Incidents & Events in the Life of Benjamin Rush.

First two block quotes are from H.Res. 888. The last one is from http://www.wallbuilders.com.

BTW, TRoS, believe TP posters need some references on that assertion that most of the founders were deists.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Those crazy Founding Fathers! Who knew they were Fifth Columns against Christian evangelism?

A fascinating, concise history of the influence of Christianity in our nation.

April 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
_________________

And bitblt continues to deliberately mislead and talk out the side of bitblt’s mouth.

Bitblt wasn’t asked about the INFLUENCE of Christian faith on this country.

Bitblt was called out for trying to pass Bitblt’s OWN PERSONAL assumptions off as fact. Again, no matter how much Bitblt wishes it to be so, faith and belief are not fact. No matter how many frightened little bitblts desperately want to belive in this Christian god, their neediness doesn’t make it a fact that this god exists.

Faith is only faith, not fact.

That is what bitblt was questioned over. bitblt refuses to acknowledge that.

bitblt is a hypocrit.

bitblt is also sneaky. Coming back onto a thread the next day, hoping to get the last word in and thereby appearing, falsely, to have somehow ‘won” the argument.

bitblt is a phony.