Chief Justice Roy Moore at Oak Brook College of Law and Government Policy

Law and Government Policy Leadership Forum

One Nation Under God - Oklahoma City, OK — November 6-8, 2003

"Speakers include:

Justice Roy Moore is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and is committed to preserving and restoring the moral foundations of law in America. In 2001, he placed a monument in the Alabama Judicial Building on which were inscribed historic quotes and excerpts from documents that declare the governmental philosophy of this nation is one “under God.”

http://www.obcl.edu/downloads/files/pf-registration.pdf

 

So what’s your point? Should leaders who believe in God be banned from graduation ceremonies? Atheists speaks at colleges and universities all the time and nobody posts a link here.

Oakbrook has clearly stated their mission and goals and anyone who doesn’t like it can go somewhere else.

 

Well, at the MOMENT, the good Chief Justice is suspended pending the outcome of the ethics investigation.

I have never heard of a state Chief Justice being suspended before, but then I've never looked into it. Certainly, there have been federal and state judges suspended and sent to prison for corruption but this is a new one on me.

The Alabama State Bar is being as non commital as possible.

 

Hi Randy,

I posted this because:

1. I have a great interest in Chief Justice Moore's legal stand.

2. This is the off-topic discussions forum and the subject matter is germane to current events.

3. There is a DL connection. Oak Brook is one of the more successful DL law schools.

I think I'm relatively modest in the quantity and quality of my posts, but I do not restrict my posts to whatever "nobody" has already posted.

 

So it's improper for anyone accused of ethics violations to speak to law students/graduates?

 

Where did Nosborne say that?

 

Possibly John poindexter and Oliver North will speak on "Law and Ethics" at the next AMU gathering.

 

The Alabama Supreme Court allowed the removal of the Ten Commandments monument. I wonder if Mr. Chief Justice Moore will address "interposition" and "nullification" as constitutional concepts when he addresses Oak Brook students.

 

David,

I do not speak for AMU/APUS, but I tell you this - I would much rather listen to a speech given by either Admiral Poindexter or Lieutenant Colonel North than from some United States hating phony.

"Admiral John Marlan Poindexter
'National Security Advisor'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Marlan Poindexter - born in Washington, Ind. on August 12th, 1936 - a vice admiral in the U.S. Navy, succeeded Robert C. McFarlane as President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser in December 1985. He held that post until November 1986, when he resigned following disclosures of his role in the Iran-Contra Affair. In July 1987, testifying before U.S. House and Senate committees investigating the scandal, Admiral Poindexter declared that he had authorized the diversion of funds to the contras but that he had deliberately not informed President Reagan of his action.
Poindexter attended the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating first in his class of 1958; he had the further distinction of being the brigade commander of his class. In 1964 he earned a Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the California Institute of Technology, where he studied under Nobel laureate Rudolph Mossbauer. During his career in the Navy, he commanded the guided missile cruiser England and a squadron of destroyers. He saw duty in the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean, and South Pacific. From 1971 to 1978, Admiral Poindexter made his mark as an aide to the secretary of the Navy and the chief of naval operations. For the next three years he served as the deputy chief of naval education and training, moving on to the National Security Council (NSC) in 1981.

Prior to being named national security adviser, he served as the deputy to McFarlane, heading the NSC's "crisis pre-planning group." In that capacity, he played a central role in the administration's handling of the "Achille Lauro" hijacking in October 1985 and other terrorist incidents. Following the resignation of McFarlane, Poindexter became national security adviser on December 4, 1985. In this post he played a key role in the covert sale of U.S. armaments to the government of Iran, the negotiations for release of Americans held hostage by terrorists, and the diversion of funds from the arms sales to support the contra guerrillas in Nicaragua. Following public revelation of these events, President Reagan accepted Poindexter's resignation on November 25, 1986.

In later testimony before the joint Congressional committee investigating the situation, Poindexter declared in July of 1987 that he had never told Reagan about the diversion of funds to the contras, wishing to "provide some future deniability," presumably to protect the president from any possible negative consequences of the arms scandal. Poindexter officially resigned from the Navy on September 29th, 1987. On March 8th, 1990, Poindexter was brought to trial in Washington, D.C., on five criminal charges, including conspiracy, obstruction of Congress, and making false statements to Congress. On April 7th, Poindexter was found guilty on all five charges, and he was sentenced, on June 11th , to six months in prison. Poindexter appealed the conviction, and on November 15th, 1991, a federal appeals court panel reversed the conviction."

http://www.hpoindexter.com/jmarlan.htm

"Oliver L. North is a combat decorated Marine, a #1 best-selling author, the founder of a small business, an inventor with three U.S. patents, a syndicated columnist, the host of a nationally-syndicated daily radio show and the host of "War Stories" on the Fox News Channel, yet claims his most important accomplishment as being "the husband of one and the father of four."

North was born in San Antonio, Texas, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and served 22 years as a U.S.Marine. His awards for service in combat include the Silver Star, the Bronze Star for valor and two Purple Hearts for wounds in action.

Assigned to the National Security Council Staff in the Reagan administration,Colonel North was the United States government's Counter-Terrorism Coordinator from 1983-1986 and was involved in planning the rescue of medical students on the Island of Grenada and played a major role in the daring capture of the hijackers of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. After helping plan the U.S. raid on Muammar Gaddafi's terrorist bases in Libya, North was targeted for assassination by Abu Nidal, one of the world's deadliest assassin.

Oliver North broadcasts his nationally syndicated Common Sense Radio,monday-friday, 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. eastern time, from the studios of Radio America in Washington, D.C. Additionally, his award-winning weekly documentary, "War Stories" airs each Sunday night on the FOX News Channel.

His first two books, Under Fire and One More Mission were international best sellers. His latest book, "Mission Compromised" also rose to the New York Times best seller list. North is also the founder of Freedom Alliance, a foundation which provides scholarships for the sons and daughters of service members killed in action."

http://www.northamerican.com/bio.htm

 

Who is this Bill Gothard that started Oak Brook?

 

http://billgothard.com/aboutme/

http://www.pfo.org/evol-fad.htm

 

Here's a thing from the March 2003 'Christianity Today' on Gothard:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/003/35.77.html

 

A more general question: What relationship is there (if any) between Oakbrook and/or Justice Moore and that family of theological positions known as 'dominion theology', 'theonomy', 'kingdom theology' or 'Christian reconstructionism', associated with the names like Rousas Rushdoony or Gary North?

 

I don't get it. I thought Christianity as early as Paul rejected the idea that males must be circumcised? Isn't there a Christian principal, as there certainly IS a Jewish principal from the end of d'varim, that you must not ADD or SUBTRACT from the religious duties God imposes?

 

EEEEEUUUUUWWWWW! I had no idea.

Thanks for the info, guys.

My church maintains the practice of confession and absolution. We have a public rite as a sort of preface to the mass; there is no enumeration of sins, etc. There is also private confession, which is part of my job as pastor. However, we teach that any baptized Christian can hear confession and absolve, and that the conscience-stricken individual can also ask God directly for forgiveness. The point of C&A is reassurance, not "gatekeeping".
This "submission" business and requiring thought-struggle is what happens when an improper distinction between law and gospel is made, especially when parachurch gimmicks are substituted (seminars, techniques, political activism, etc., etc.) for spiritual formation through word and sacrament.

As to the circumcision bit: I bris-tle at the thought! The NT makes it really clear that circumcision is not to be required (or forbidden). The Christian view is that Christ has fulfilled the Law for us--neither adding not subtracting anything--and that to impose legal obligations on Christians, the fulfillment of which somehow in turn obligates God, is to make the cross of Christ of no effect. If, say, Christians of Jewish background wished to practice circumcision as a matter of family tradition--or, if there were a community of such, as a community ritual--I can't see what objection would be possible. But for a Gentile Christian to go about promoting this as a sort of stipulation, well, if he wants to go the law route then he's obligated to keep the whole shebang--neither adding nor subtracting anything.

What a dilettantish parody of Judaism and Christ-despising, justification-destroying travesty on Christianity! Robbie Burns put it well: "the man o' independent mind, he looks and laughs at a' that." Paul (as Nosborne pointed out) put it even better: "For freedom Christ has set you free; do not be tied up again with the yoke of bondage."

 

Bill Dayson, Uncle Janko, and Nosborne,

Thanks for the homework. Fascinating web-surfing! Beginning with "that family of theological positions" introduced by Bill, I came accross several discussions about state religious freedom restoration acts. Which led me to Alabama's very own Religious Freedom Amendment.

"AMENDMENT 622 RATIFIED

Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment.
SECTION I. The amendment shall be known as and may be cited as the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment.

SECTION II. The Legislature makes the following findings concerning religious freedom:

(1) The framers of the United States Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the framers of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, also recognizing this right, secured the protection of religious freedom in Article I, Section 3.

(2) Federal and state laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise.

(3) Governments should not burden religious exercise without compelling justification.

(4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the United States Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion.

(5) The compelling interest test as set forth in prior court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests in areas ranging from public education (pedagogical interests and religious rights, including recognizing regulations necessary to alleviate interference with the educational process versus rights of religious freedom) to national defense (conscription and conscientious objection, including the need to raise an army versus rights to object to individual participation), and other areas of important mutual concern.

(6) Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C., § 2000bb, to establish the compelling interest test set forth in prior federal court rulings, but in City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional stating that the right to regulate was retained by the states.

SECTION III. The purpose of the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment is to guarantee that the freedom of religion is not burdened by state and local law; and to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious freedom is burdened by government.

SECTION IV. As used in this amendment, the following words shall have the following meanings:

(1) DEMONSTRATES. Meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

(2) FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The free exercise of religion under Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901.

(3) GOVERNMENT. Any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under the color of law) of the State of Alabama, any political subdivision of a state, municipality, or other local government.

(4) RULE. Any government statute, regulation, ordinance, administrative provision, ruling guideline, requirement, or any statement of law whatever.

SECTION V. (a) Government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Government may burden a person's freedom of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:

(1) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) A person whose religious freedom has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.

SECTION VI. (a) This amendment applies to all government rules and implementations thereof, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the effective date of this amendment.

(b) Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.

(c) Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address those portions of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution permitting the free exercise of religion or prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion, or those provisions of Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, regarding the establishment of religion.

SECTION VII. (a) This amendment shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial and deterrent purposes.

(b) If any provision of this amendment or its application to any particular person or circumstance is held invalid, that provision or its application is severable and does not affect the validity of other provisions or applications of this amendment.

http://alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACASLogin.asp

Do you think Chief Justice Moore engineered this showdown specifically to test Alabama's Religious Freedom Amendment?

 

Okay, class, raise your hand if you get the joke. Or, given the topic, raise whatever you like.


Ooh, I didn't just say that, did I?


Tom Nixon

 

Aw c'mon, don't be a shmuck!

 

Gothard's website discusses circumcision here:

http://www.billgothard.com/topics/circumcision.php

His website does recommend circumcision, but it specifically says that it is not required.

"In the first century, false teachers told believers that in order for them to be saved they must be circumcised. The Apostle Paul firmly rebuked those who taught this. However, he also affirmed that there are benefits of circumcision and used it as a positive analogy of removing the impurities that we conceal in our hearts. (See Colossians 2:11; Romans 2:25, 28–29, 3:1–2.) ..."

"Circumcision in the Lives of New Testament Believers
Circumcision is not required of believers for salvation. To make this profoundly clear, Paul—who circumcised Timothy—refused to circumcise Titus because to do so would be to confirm the claims of false teachers that circumcision was necessary for salvation."

 

I would presume you realize North stole from the US government and deceived the US Congress. Certainly not someone I would want to listen talk about ethics.