Morris and Moore, Provocative Special Elections

Marc Morris (L) Judge Roy Moore (R)

This has been a provocative special election season, hasn’t it?  Here in Forsyth County, we had our own special election to replace a Georgia House member who relinquished his seat.  Now the 26th District welcomes a new state Representative, Marc Morris. We wish him Godspeed as he represents the good people of his district.

But now we turn to the special election to replace Senator Jeff Sessions in Alabama, who took the job of Attorney General in Trump’s cabinet, an election which affects us all in many ways.
 
Practically everyone has an opinion on candidate Roy Moore, until fairly recently the odds-on favorite, and perhaps still might be, to win the seat.  Folks either feverishly support Alabama’s former Chief Justice, or vehemently attack him, very few in the middle.
 
Feeding the attacks on Judge Moore are the obligatory allegations of sexual misconduct against candidates who dare seriously challenge the establishment.  Regardless of any real evidence verifying misconduct from forty years ago, my observation is that most who claim Moore is guilty of these accusations, and should not be senator, do so not because of a heartfelt belief he would commit such behavior, but instead because they simply do not like his views. They have convicted this man in a way they would never convict others, whom they would defend to the death as innocent until proven guilty. They have entered Moore’s house without a warrant and snared him by force to restrict the freedom necessary to pursue his own life purposes. Any drug dealer, whose wares ended up in the hands of children, with evidence of crimes out the courthouse door, they would afford full constitutional protections, innocent until proven guilty. But here, forty years after any fact or no fact, they convict Judge Moore on mere allegations, statutes of limitations long expired, simply because they do not like his views.

To excuse their uncharacteristic behavior, some cite to me an interview on Hannity. And in their muddled frames of mind, having already convicted him, anything Judge Moore does not say can be used against him. How does one answer the question whether one still beats one's wife? To answer the question is to dignify the proposition.

Others excuse their hurried condemnation citing the station of life of Moore’s accusers. They are just "ordinary women in Alabama, unconnected to politics." Why are Moore’s detractors so ready to believe that? Do they know these women? Do they think it just coincidence that forty years after any involvement these women purport to have had with him, likely unprovable either way, the man they accuse of sex crimes is the most conservative-minded candidate who might ever own the prospect of winning election as US Senator? Just coincidence?

Let’s be real here.  Those who seek to convict Judge Moore without evidence do so because he steadfastly maintains that God is the authority over government and all that means.  In their ideologically-compromised mind states they take it that Judge Moore believes, "religious authority should supersede the state's authority." Now when did Judge Moore say anything about religion? In the Declaration of Independence, where do Jefferson or the American founding fathers say anything about religion? The term, "religion" is not there. It is not religion but, "God," the "Creator," the "Supreme Judge of the world" and "Providence" which together comprise the over-arching presumption governing the rationale by which America declared itself a sovereign nation among nations. The very charter of American freedoms documents that its founders "firmly relied on the protection of divine Providence" assuring them that God would bless the fruits of their deeds of July, 1776.

And when the war deciding the question whether God would protect their fledgling nation from the most powerful of man's earthly armies was decided, both warring nations, fully represented of their peoples, entered an agreement authorized not by men, not by holy men of some religion, but by the "Most Holy and Undivided Trinity," God of the Bible. Is the Treaty of Paris of 1783 some "religious document?" Of course not. That treaty declared for an entire world of nations to recognize that the Source of Authority for the two combatants concluding the war for American independence was God of the Bible. And it is that same God Who Judge Moore maintains is the authority over American law. How can Moore be wrong? Were the American founding fathers wrong? Were their successors who signed that treaty wrong? Were the members of the American Congress wrong when they ratified that agreement?

Those who make these arguments against Judge Moore presuppose that the very founding of our country was performed in error; that the Treaty of Paris of 1783 was also an error and thus invalid because it imposed someone's religious views on others who may not choose to abide by them.  They argue in vain.  Facts are facts.
 
As much as his detractors might choose to resist the truth, Judge Moore is right.  God is the Authority over American law.  Our founding documents reveal that truth to anyone who will honestly evaluate them.  And so on this Thanksgiving Weekend, I thank God for Judge Moore; I ask Providence to protect him; and I pray that this good man will soon begin a long and storied history following God’s calling in the US Senate.