Roy Moore Says Religious Liberty ‘Comes From God,’ Not The Constitution

Nov 2, 2017

By Antonia Blumberg

Alabama Senate GOP candidate Roy Moore doesn’t think reporters understand the concept of religious liberty.

Moore was questioned by reporters as he entered the U.S. Capitol to meet with GOP senators on Tuesday. The Senate candidate deflected most of the journalists’ questions, including several about a previous comment he made claiming Muslims shouldn’t serve in Congress.

After several failed attempts to get Moore to comment, a reporter asked: “Why can you talk about these issues in Alabama and not in Washington?”

Moore finally offered a response, saying, “Reporters don’t understand religious liberty and where it comes from.”

He continued: “It comes from God, not from the Constitution.”

Moore, who previously served as the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, has a long history of placing his Christian faith before the duties of public office.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

4 comments on “Roy Moore Says Religious Liberty ‘Comes From God,’ Not The Constitution

  • @OP – Moore finally offered a response, saying,
    “Reporters don’t understand religious liberty
    and where it comes from.”

    Perhaps they don’t understand where HIS brain-addled legal concept of religious liberty comes from!

    He continued:
    “It comes from God, not from the Constitution.”

    Which means he is incompetent at reading or administering the law of the land, and lets his god-delusion make up the law as he goes along! !
    – Obviously he is an advocate of those Trumpian Republican “alternative facts”! Who needs Law School or law books? 🙂

    Perhaps an overseas legal refresher course on Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia, might help clear his mind, and help him determine if religious freedom comes from Allah!



    Report abuse

  • I see that some children in the DR Congo have been reaping “the benefits” of “religious freedom”, and living with those who take “supernatural divine advice”, from spiritual leaders.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-41941365

    Eighteen militiamen are on trial in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo on charges of raping 46 children.

    Some of the victims from the village of Kavumu were just 18 months old.

    The men allegedly targeted young girls between 2013 and 2016 because a spiritual adviser told them that their blood would grant them supernatural protection.

    The alleged militia leader, Frederic Batumike, a provincial legislator, and the other defendants deny the charges.



    Report abuse

  • @OP – Moore, who previously served as the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court,
    has a long history of placing his Christian faith before the duties of public office.

    That’s the US problem with bigoted ignorant politicians, appointing uneducated ignorant bigoted judges!

    In the UK there is a different approach!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42057009

    A UK Supreme Court judge has launched the first of a series of scientific guides for the judiciary.

    Lord Hughes has overseen a project to help the judiciary deal with scientific evidence in the courtroom.

    The first primers cover DNA fingerprinting and computer techniques to identify suspects from the manner of their walk.

    Guides on statistics and the physics of car crashes are to come next and one on “shaken baby syndrome” is planned.

    The project is run with the help of The Royal Society and The Royal Society of Edinburgh.

    In a rare interview, Lord Justice Hughes said he was convinced that the legal primers would be of great benefit.

    “Thanks to the link with the two Royal Societies, we have access to top notch scientists who have been prepared to give time voluntarily to answer the questions in the terms that ordinary judges are asking them,” he told BBC News.

    “I would like to hope that on some occasions the primer has equipped the judge to see better whether the argument that is being advanced on both sides has a proper basis in science or not”.

    The primers are short documents, between 30 and 60 pages long.

    They give judges the answers to the questions that they themselves have asked about scientific evidence they have to deal with in the court room.

    They cover complex topics but are written clearly and without any jargon to enable judges to grasp the key issues from a legal perspective.

    They are produced by scientists who are the foremost experts in the topics covered by the primers.
    For example the DNA fingerprinting guide has one of the technique’s inventors, Prof Sir Alec Jeffreys, and Nobel Prize winner Prof Sir Paul Nurse on the editorial board.

    The guides also cover the limitations of the science and possible difficulties with its interpretation in real life situations.

    The DNA fingerprinting primer is on a field in which experts are in agreement on the science.

    Its focus, therefore, is on assessing its admissibility in light of the way the material has been gathered and the weight of evidence to be placed on the results.

    The legal primers project is the initiative of Dr Julie Maxton, executive director of the Royal Society.

    “We are very pleased to be building on this piece of work and playing a leading role in bringing together scientists and the judiciary throughout the UK to ensure that we get the best possible scientific guidance into the courts – rigorous, accessible science matters to the justice system and society.”

    The board which commissions the primers has three judges on it, each from a different court. They are Lord Justice Hughes from the Supreme Court, Lady Justice Rafferty from the Court of Appeal and His Honour Mark Wall, QC, representing criminal trials judges.

    “The emphasis nowadays is for courts to be more proactive to actually challenge the prosecution for example and say ‘why is this report admissible? How is it going to help you? Is it really the right report for the issues in this case?

    “And the primer, I’m confident will enable a judge in advance of the hearing to read up on the science to a reliable overview of the state of the science and then ask the right questions.

    “And so that evidence which is not helpful is excluded and evidence which is helpful is presented in a way which a jury will understand and which will advance the understanding of the issues in the case generally.”

    According to Lord Hughes, the aim of the primers is not to do away with expert evidence where there is scientific disagreement.

    “The primers are about the common ground they’re not about resolving the cutting edge of the limits of science”.

    The guides have been produced with the help of Prof Charles Godfray and Prof Angela McLean of Oxford University who have worked on a related project to provide evidence summaries for civil servants and ministers to help them on policy issues.

    Prof Godfray said that the judges absorbed the information in the primers “like sponges”.

    “We’ve found the judges are really hungry to find out more about the underlying science and being judges they have a fabulous capacity to master a brief very quickly.

    This sounds like it is a long way from Moore’s “god-did-it” gapology, patches over his ignorance of law, science, and evidence!



    Report abuse

  • @OP Moore was questioned by reporters as he entered the U.S. Capitol to meet with GOP senators on Tuesday. The Senate candidate deflected most of the journalists’ questions, including several about a previous comment he made claiming Muslims shouldn’t serve in Congress.

    Deflection and distraction, do seem to be part of his standard issue dodging strategies!

    After several failed attempts to get Moore to comment, a reporter asked: “Why can you talk about these issues in Alabama and not in Washington?”

    Probably because there are more questioning critical thinkers in the Washington media, and less unthinking happy-clappies cheering in the audience!

    Talking of diversionary distractions, I see that the propagandist doubt-mongers have been trying to pretend that real news is fake news and fake news is real, in order to discredit mains-stream reputable news sources!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42150322

    The Washington Post says it has uncovered a failed “sting operation” by a group trying to peddle a sensational but false story to its journalists.

    A source told the newspaper she had been impregnated as a teenager by US politician Roy Moore.

    The Post said its research debunked her story, and that she worked for a group called Project Veritas, which it said “targets the mainstream news media”.

    The group said the Washington Post was reporting “an imagined sting”.

    But in an email sent to US followers – including journalists – it admitted its “investigative journalist” had had their cover blown.

    The Washington Post said it was originally approached by a woman the day after it published allegations that US Senate candidate Roy Moore had once initiated a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl.

    The woman, who used a fake name, claimed to have had a sexual relationship with Mr Moore when she was 15. “She said that she got pregnant, that Moore talked her into an abortion and that he drove her to Mississippi to get it,” the newspaper said of the conversations.

    Project Veritas has posted a series of tweets claiming to expose bias at the Washington Post. It claimed the newspaper was attempting to divert attention by inventing the “sting operation” story.

    ^^^^^^^^^^

    “Veritas” – is an obvious example of an “alternative fact” name label, of asserted TRrrrooooff, told by liars! – Followed up by more asserted lies to try to cover up the earlier lying, and the exposure of the lying!

    ^^^^^^^^^^

    But many journalists on social media claimed the attempt to prove the Washington Post had published unverified claims had backfired – and showed the opposite.

    The Washington Post has done everyone a good service by exposing these conspiring charlatans!

    Media ‘lies and deceit’

    The Washington Post reporter conducted a series of interviews over two weeks with a woman who revealed her name as Jaime Phillips.

    But the Post did not publish a story about the unsubstantiated claims.

    Instead, it noted that Ms Phillips had said she lived in Alabama only for a summer while a teenager, but her phone number had an Alabama area code. It reported that it also could not verify her background story about where she worked.

    According to the Post, researchers also found a fundraising page from a person with the same name who said they were moving to New York having “accepted a job to work in the conservative media movement to combat the lies and deceit of the liberal MSM [mainstream media]”.

    At the next meeting, the Post said its reporter confronted Ms Phillips about the possible links, and brought videographers, eventually telling her she was being recorded.

    Ms Phillips told the Post she was not working with any organisation that targets journalists.

    It reported that after several minutes Ms Phillips ended the conversation, and Post staffers then followed Ms Phillips to the offices of Project Veritas.

    The newspaper published video of the interview, and Ms Phillips’ previous off-the-record comments. Its executive editor, Martin Baron, defended the unusual move, saying the agreement was “solicited in maliciously bad faith”.

    Project Veritas says its mission is to “investigate and expose corruption”.

    Its founder, James O’Keefe, has a criminal record for a previous “sting” in 2010, when he entered a senator’s office in a federal building under a false identity. He was sentenced to three years’ probation, a fine, and 100 hours of community service.

    So we have the “deceptive right” with corrupt lying criminals, posing as “champions of truth”, allegedly exposing invented corruption in reputable publications to discredit true accounts!! – Perhaps an indication of the levels OF corruption, and the levels of gullibility of some American audiences!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.