« choose coffee. | Main | fo shizzle, hatchizzle! »

moore-on

Here lies Roy Moore
forgot what a courthouse was for
No judge, no more.

roysign.jpg

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference moore-on:

» Moore No More: Alabama Chief Justice Removed from Captain's Quarters
But -- but -- that order was a lawful order, given by a superior court with proper jurisdiction, and Moore was bound by his oath as an officer of the court to obey it. An oath, by the way, invoking the same God he claims to defend! [Read More]

» Read Ted Rall--While You Still Can from DiVERSiONZ
Me thinks Ted Rall did not get enough attention as a child.  And boy is the blogosphere taking the bait, [Read More]

» Finally, Sense Prevails from Shelby's Life and Whatnot
Alabama Chief Justice Removed from Office. Judge Moore is the guy who installed a giant monument of the ten commandments in the courthouse and refused a direct court order to remove it, claiming God has higher authority than the courts.... [Read More]

» 10 commandments, Roy Moore update from Arguing with signposts...
Roy Moore was removed from his seat on the bench. I'm not surprised, and I can't say he doesn't deserve it. The whole point of civil disobedience is that you pay the price for your stand on principle. I don't... [Read More]

Comments

Hurrah!

A friend of mine back in Alabama said that Moore just said something along the lines of "I'll make an announcement next week that may alter the course of the country."

Maybe Roy Moore's Prayer Warriors will take on the Feds.

Something I have not heard explained in all the hoorah - why was this a matter for a federal district court in the first place, and what was the basis for the order?

Can this be explained simply, or is there extensive legal theory that must be known to understand this?

Not trolling - really want to know. All I ever heard was - the feds said he had to move it, with a presumption that the answer to my question must be either obvious or widely known.

Any help for someone who 'missed that class'?

Thou shalt not be a dumbass.

I think the best part of all this was Moore being removed by his fellow judges. Basically, his work buddies called him an ass and sent him packing.

Don't we all wish we could do that?

Re: Parker...
A civil suit (actually two) were brought against Moore in an Alabama District Court. The District Court (last november) held that the monument violated the Establishment Clause (separation of church and state). In December ('02) that district court entered a permanent injunction forcing Moore to remove the monument. All of his appeals failed.

He was removed because he violated a lawful court order, not (directly) because he had a monument.

I think the ruling violared MOORE's 1st ammendment right.
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... ."

Congress made no law and Moore had his free exercise prohibited.

And he didn't force anyone to be Christian.

I only concur with the fact that he refused to obey a court order and should be punished for that.

Just one pagan's opinion.
SondraK

Parker,

Are you actually asking why interpreting the First Amendment to the federal constitution is a matter for a federal court? Most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically including both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1947).

Thus, given that federal law is binding on the states, a state judge is obligated to obey the orders of a federal court interpeting that law whether he agrees with them or not. See art. VI, para. 2, U.S. Const. ("This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.")

Roy Moore had some semi-credible arguments available to make, but being a pompous ass with a martyr complex, repeatedly refused to make them. None of this comes as any great surprise.

SondraK, nobody was stopping him from expressing his opinions. He was being stop from expressing them in an official capacity as Cheif Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He spoke for the court and took actions on their behalf.

Had he displayed the monument in his living room or front yard, nobody would've cared.

Roy Moore just forgot that it wasn't actually his courthouse.

The funny part is, all those people praying and chanting and stuff to protect a graven image, in violation of the second commandment:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the water under the Earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them

Indeed, shell: I remember one of them screaming something like "get your hands off of my god" and thinking "your god is Roy's stupid rock?!"

Now, no one, but no one, should allow it to be forgot it was CONSERVATIVES..all 9 other judges who removed Moore...a move the NYTimes in its usual condescending tones figured the rubes in Alabama would never do.

OT...good lord, Ted Rall has really slipped his rails this time.

"Dear Recruit:

Thank you for joining the Iraqi resistance forces. You have been issued an AK-47 rifle, rocket-propelled grenade launcher and an address where you can pick up supplies of bombs and remote-controlled mines. Please let your cell leader know if you require additional materiel for use against the Americans."

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/index.html?uc_full_date=20031111

If you have a high gag factor, read the whole vicious mess.

If you want the skinny on Roy Moore, go read Mac Thomason's website. No one has more information on Judge Nutcase than Mac.

The War Liberal

Thank you for your explanations, citations, and discussions.

The background is more clear to me - my reservation in this case is one I always have when I see the phrase 'separation of church and state' in close conjunction with the phrase 'Establishment Clause' - since the language of the former does not appear in the latter. It seems that the meaning of 'establishment' is at the heart of the matter.

I assume that requiring a religious test for public office did not figure in the case in any way - that being the only other part of the Constitution that would seem to be potentially on point.

It'd be nice if the state of Alabama billed him for the cost of his little temper tantrum--thinking the ACLU is a bunch of meddling nincompoops is not a license to waste public funds on quixotic battles where the outcome is certain from the beginning.

I haven't seen anywhere that he was ruling any cases based on his religious beliefs.....
And I do not see how a statue forces religion on anyone.
It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM.
And what about swearing an oath "So help me G*D"?
It's done all the time in an official capacity.
What about a judge wearing a cross on a chain while in chambers? Does that violate anyone's 1st Ammendment righs?
I think the 1st Ammendment bastardization has gone a little too far.
And for the record, I am not sticking up for Moore in anyway directly, just as an example of the above points and these things do not threaten me at all.
Not abiding a court order does.

Most courts do not use the "so help me God" line anymore - nor do people swear on a bible.

Indeed, SondraK: the point is not whether the federal courts got the First Amendment right, the point is that a state judge must uphold the order of a federal court interpreting federal law regardless. The alternative is anarchy. As I said from the outset of this, if Roy Moore wanted to engage in civil disobedience to protest the egregiously secular spin put on the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, that's ultimately his prerogative, but he has to hang up his robe first.

Our president swears on a bible when he takes office.

And Michele, you say "most" and "not anymore". I assume that when it used to be common practice no one was magically poofed into a Christian because of it.

Your confusing me with other people, Sondra. I never said that he was shoving his religion down other people's throats. I just take issue with the fact that he couldn't obey the laws he was sworn to uphold.

That, and the guy is a total tool.

I guess I'm just a little biased....
I like the 10 Commandments and especially Christians who do:)

I have one question. (seriously)
I thought the statue was removed from the rotunda much earlier on and put in a storage room. Did he just keep dragging it out and putting it back?

I haven't seen anywhere that he was ruling any cases based on his religious beliefs.....

He told a gay woman, from the bench, when ruling in a custody case, that it was prima facie impossible for a lesbian to be a good mother. In fact, he said that
. . . homosexuality "an inherent evil" and a criminal act that "is destructive to a basic building block of society—the family." "If a person openly engages in such a practice, that fact alone would render him or her an unfit parent," Moore wrote.

And I do not see how a statue forces religion on anyone.

A statue put up by the Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court, in his official capacity as Chief Justice, which enshrines particularly the Protestant version of the Commandments, and which the judge himself said he did for specifically religious reasons? You don't see how this fails the Lemon test? Do you even know what the Lemon test is?

It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM.

Blah, blah, blah. Can you at least discuss this at a level beyond nickel aphorisms?

And what about swearing an oath "So help me G*D"?
It's done all the time in an official capacity.

The oath of office is specifically written out in the Constitution, and does not contain the word "god." Perhaps, if you actually read or understood the Constitution, you would know this.

Really, educate yourself.

I would just like to interject for the record that not all conservative Christians agreed with Moore on this one. Even Pat Robertson and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention thought he was going too far with this fight.

It's convenient to lump it into a Christian vs. society argument, but there are shades of disagreement even on this issue.

Phil, really, read my comments in context. They all don't naturally apply to each other.
And if swearing on a Christian Bible doesn't infer swearing to G*d, then where's the problem with a statue and why wasn't he thrown out for making those comments?
I was going to thank you for enlightening me to Moore's comments on homosexuality but then remembered I know a few non-Christians who think it's wrong as well. So it's not exclusively an ignorant Christain or even an exclusively religious belief.
And then you topped it off by turning into an asshole and got personally insulting.

I'll go educate myself now.

Phil says: "The oath of office is specifically written out in the Constitution, and does not contain the word 'god.' Perhaps, if you actually read or understood the Constitution, you would know this."

Funny, although I'm the last person to defend Roy Moore, that word certainly does appear to be in the oath he swore, as I read it, at least. Section 279 of the Alabama Constitution provides:

All members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I, …, solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God." [emphasis mine]

The oath may be administered by the presiding officer of either house of the legislature, or by any officer authorized by law to administer an oath.

If you want to condescend to people about how they need to educate themselves, you might want to do the same lest others accuse you of hypcrisy. Not that I'd ever do such a thing.


President of the United States1

I, _______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.2


Supplemental Endnotes

1 Authority: United States Constitution, Article 2., Section 1., Paragraph 7 requires that this oath or affirmation be taken before a president enters into the execution of the office.

2 When George Washington added the phrase "so help me God" to his presidential oath on April 30, 1789, he set a historical precedent that other U.S. presidents have followed by acknowledging the sovereignty of God over the affairs of nations. It is also customary for an incoming president or other elected official to take an oath with their right hand raised and their left hand placed on a Bible. This historic tradition is in no way contrary to the provisions of the first amendment to the Constitution. For a distinction must be made between the existence of religion as an institution and the belief in the sovereignty of God. To ask for the assistance of the Almighty on one’s first day in office is altogether proper and fitting in a Nation whose motto is: "In God we trust."

Hey! I just educated myself!

Dave, I was specifically referring to the Presidential Oath of Office, which is why I referred to the Constitution. Most people understand that to mean the Federal one. The Constitution also specifies that no religious test shall be required for holding public office; the Alabama constitution is, as your post shows, not quite so forward-thinking.

Sondra, I can't even figure out what your post of 6:29 means. Did you look up Lemon v. Kurtzman or not?

Also, I don't know where you found the material in your 6:39 post, but I've actually laid eyes on the actual Constitution, and the words "so help me God" do NOT appear in it. Given the footnote -- which fails to mention that the original motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum, "From Many, Comes One," was changed to "In God We Trust" in 1956, two years after "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance at the request of the Catholic Knights of Columbus -- I suspect it's from a site with an agenda to promote.

Phil, I'm not playing with you anymore. You're not very nice.

Hey, both of you to the corner for a time out. NOW.

But you started it.
:)

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Bt two Wrights made an airplane.

[Don't ask me, my mother used to say that]

Phil, I didn't see you refer specifically to the presidential oath of office, and Sondra's initial remarks on the subject just said "an oath." From that, I took the logical leap to examine what I thought to be the most relevant oath in question, i.e., the one that Roy Moore actually swore. Forgive me for thinking that state constitutional law might be worth at least looking at in discussing the removal of a state judge.

My mother used to say "You're like a fart in a mitten" when I wouldn't sit still.

The picture is way funny. I mean, really, what pull would God have with the Courts these days?

I'll say it: He's shoving his religion down other people's throats.

Used to live in Alabama. Don't live in Alabama anymore. He's a very big reason why.

"I, …, solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God"

hm. Ah'm jus' country folk an' all but seems to me that it's askin' God's aid in' upholdin' the constitution o' Alabama, not Alabama's aid in proppin' up God!

Seems to me, ifn' He was needin' that sorta help... maybe we'd be needin' to look foah a viable replacement.

but tha's jus' me, an' Ah live in a Trailor, so Ah'm sure Ah mus' be missin' some highfalutin' principle heah.

....

Or not.

You're right, Dave, I should have been more specific.

To be painfully honest, it never even crossed my mind that even as retrograde a state as Alabama would actually have it enshrined in their Constitution. It effectually disqualifies nonbelievers for public office, since they could not truthfully take the oath.

......... but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture........

Posted on Thu, Nov. 13, 2003
Court rules Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol
Associated Press

AUSTIN - The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the state's position that the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds is not an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion.

Thomas Van Orden, a homeless man living in Austin, had sued to have the monument removed, calling it an endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs by the state government.

The state countered that the 6-foot tall red granite monument is more historical than religious, with key segments of law founded on the moral and cultural ethics provided by the commandments.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott applauded Wednesday's appeals court ruling.

"The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture," Abbott said Thursday. "The Texas monument has stood for over 40 years, and the court's decision affirms that the monument is entirely consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution."

The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument to the state in 1961.

Phil, requiring someone to include the "so help me God" in their oath or be denied public office clearly violates the First Amendment. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). However, whether officially including it but allowing people to opt out would do so is, I'd think, a separate question.

The prohibition on religious tests in the US Constitution specifically applies only to federal officeholders; however, Section 3 of the Alabama Constitution contains virtually identical language, which would appear to conflict with the oath of office in Section 279. Under the usual canons of construction, when two laws of equal force irreconciliably conflict, the later in time governs, so knowing whether question could be answered based on state law alone would require access to the amendatory history of the Alabama Constitution that I don't have (or at least can't find) here at home without Westlaw. If they were adopted at the same time, the specific normally controls over the general, so it would appear the general prohibition on religious tests would have to yield to the specific terms of the oath; however, another canon of construction is to construe the law to so as comport with constitutional requirements whenver possible, thus, I would think, allowing Alabama courts to construe the priority of these provisions in the opposite direction in order to meet federal requirements.

Roy's heart was in the right place, but he was fighting the wrong battle at the wrong time and playing into the hands of the wrong people.

Moore ignored a lawful order. Incited the public to support him. His removal was justified.

All that said, I wonder who the next Governor or Senator from Alabama will be?

I don't disagree with his position, I disagree with his methods.

Michele, "Most courts do not use the 'so help me God' line anymore - nor do people swear on a bible". Opinion? Evidence? Curiosity on my part.

And I loved your mom's line about the Wright Bros.

Dave

Meryl Yourish (November 13, 2003 03:44 PM): If you want the skinny on Roy Moore, go read Mac Thomason's website. No one has more information on Judge Nutcase than Mac.

The War Liberal

Oh, I don't know about that. Check out

Prayer and Arrogance in Alabama and Elsewhere: The Antics of Governor Fob James, Jr., (former!) Judge Roy Moore,Attorney General Bill Pryor, and other symbols and players in the move to Christianize America

and

Scary Quotes: Judge Roy Moore

Judge Moore can now be considered a religion hustler in the very same way Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are considered Race hustlers.

"Roy's heart was in the right place..."

I'm sorry, I'm going to need an autopsy and a coroner's report before I'll concede that one.

I always wonder how people can claim the 10 Commandments are the basis of law in the US when most of them aren't even illegal.

I still don't understand why people were so grossed out by that rock. The plaintiffs claimed its presence forced them to avoid the building. Why? Were they going to get God cooties if they walked past it, even if they deliberately avoided looking at it?

Moore and his supporters may have been ascribing a little too much to that rock, but so are those who wanted it removed.

But that's just my opinion.

McGehee: I still don't understand why people were so grossed out by that rock. The plaintiffs claimed its presence forced them to avoid the building. Why? Were they going to get God cooties if they walked past it, even if they deliberately avoided looking at it?

The subtext of having a 10 commandments monument in the middle of a courthouse suggests that non-Christians won't be treated in the same manner as Christians. Talking to Judge Moore only enforces this idea. When the goal of any court is equal justice under the law, that's a very disturbing concept.

A few years back, during a visit to my uncle in Alabama, I was talking to my uncle's neighbor in Montgomery. This neighbor and his wife were getting a divorce. The agreement had been settled, everything divided, and the amount of alimony finalized. All Roy Moore had to do was sign the paper, and the divorce process would be finished. Just as he was about to sign, he looked at the couple and asked, "Are you Christian?".

Now, were I put in that situation, I'd like to think that I would reply, "Well, since both Christians and non-Christians have a right to equal justice under the law, I'm not sure the answer has any bearing on this divorce."

Moore and his supporters may have been ascribing a little too much to that rock, but so are those who wanted it removed.

But that's just my opinion.

The main legal reason for the removal of the 10 commandments monument is that it fails the "Lemon Test" for First Amendment constitutionality in a most spectacular manner.

On a semi-related note, does anyone realize that the list displayed on Roy Moore's monument are NOT the 10 commandments?

The list on there is usually referred to as 10 commandments, but there's no bible passage anywhere that refers to this list by that name. Moses came down and recited these lines verbally. Only later did he go back up the mountain and return with two tablets of stone. These were never read, but rather they were smashed when Moses saw his followers worshipping the golden calf.

Moses then went up the mountain again and returned with another set, which, according to the Bible, had exactly the same laws that the first set of tablets had written on them. Here are the laws that were on the second set, according to the Bible:

1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
 
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
 
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
 
4. All the first-born are mine.
 
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
 
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
 
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
 
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
 
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
 
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk. (Translation: "You shall not boil a young goat in the milk of its mother".)

This is the ONLY list referred to as the "Ten Commandments" anywhere in any bible passage. Check the story out for yourself, in Exodus 19-34. If you don't have a Bible handy to verify this, try the Bible Gateway.

I read this...

"Just one pagan's opinion.
SondraK"

And then I read your other posts with things like how you spelled G*D in them, and the notion that you like the Ten Commandments--a set of 'divine' principles that specifically forbid being pagan(at least by any definition that I am aware of) and I'm confused.

Exactly what type of pagan are you?

I try to respect everybody, Jack, until they give me reason not to.

The subtext of having a 10 commandments monument in the middle of a courthouse suggests that non-Christians won't be treated in the same manner as Christians.

Why? Leave Judge Elmer Gantry out of it -- what is it about that rock that proclaims non-Christians won't be treated equally? Let's also dispense with the potential "gotcha" from the fact that Jews believe in the Commandments too.

ScottC's argument is a common assumption in a lot of this discussion, and I'm very much interested where it comes from.

McGehee: Why? Leave Judge Elmer Gantry out of it -- what is it about that rock that proclaims non-Christians won't be treated equally? Let's also dispense with the potential "gotcha" from the fact that Jews believe in the Commandments too.

ScottC's argument is a common assumption in a lot of this discussion, and I'm very much interested where it comes from.

In a discussion concerning the 10 commandments monument, it's a little hard to leave Roy Moore, the man who fought so hard to put it there, out of the discussion.

When you go into a courthouse, you have a right to expect equal justice under the law. When a monument is placed in a prominent place in a courthouse, espousing a particular religious view, it suggests that those who share that religious view will be treated preferentially over those who don't share such a view. This view is given credence by Roy Moore's actions and words. He himself has said that his god and belief in his god-view is more important than the law.

Buddhists, atheists, Muslims and others have no reason to expect equal justice under the law in such circumstances. Nevertheless, they have a right to it in this country.

When a monument is placed in a prominent place in a courthouse, espousing a particular religious view, it suggests that those who share that religious view will be treated preferentially over those who don't share such a view.

All you've done is reassert the assumption.

Christian displays existed in public buildings, including courthouses, for over 150 years before the Supreme Court decided that this assumption was true. I'd be very much interested to learn of actual cases from that prior era when non-Christians actually did not receive equal justice because of a Christian display being present.

Look, justice is supposed to be blind.

And you have to look at context. His election slogan was "worship with your vote."

Another monument containing all the roots of modern law, including the ten commandments, Magna Carta, the code of hamurabbi and others passed a challenge with no difficulty, becase it really WAS a monument to the roots of the law.

This one, in context, is a clear advisory that no damn athiest babykillers better give him an excuse to give them what they deserve.

"We've voted in a government
     that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges who
     throw reason out the door,
Too soft to place a killer in
     a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
     before he leaves the womb.

-- Judge Roy Moore, anti-atheist sentiments in a poem by a man elected for his impartiality, from "America the Beautiful" by the judge."

Courtesty http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/scar_m.htm#MOOREROYJUDGE

I really do not understand why Conservatives, even Conservataive Christians are supporting this man; this guy is so extremely biased that it makes it seem reasonable to assume that all people who support more acknowlegement of an appropriate spirituality in public life are equally brain-damaged.

Anyway, aside from failing the appropriate constitutional test, it's tacky. And I've always found that the degree of tackyness in religious expression directly correlates to it's lack of spiritual validity.

Oh, and just to forestall the howls of outrage - religious tolerance does not mean I have to take your religous practices SERIOUSLY. Or vice vesa, for that matter.

And that's a good thing. Especially for 7th Day Adventists and Moonies.

I too feel that Justice Roy Moore, has violated
any ones rights to religion, what the U.S. Surpreme Court forgot, they don't have the right
to make laws. That little item belongs to the pervue of Congress.

No where in the constitution, as the Highest Court in this country says, does the phrase: "Wall
of Seperation Church and State" reside. Then why
is the Supreme Court making it a law? Since they
have done so, I call for the Impeachment of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court. As they have
exceeded their authority, as stated in the Seperation of Powers, portion of the Constitution.
And in so doing, reinstate, Chief Justice Roy Moore to his former position.

I also ask, that each and everyone of you who read
this pray to God, and ask him to call the members
of the Supreme Court into Judical Review. We have the Right to Justice even before God, and he is the most Supreme Judge of all.

We the people of this planet forget, we but guests on this planet, as God owns it, and his laws have more says as what goes on than Mans laws do.

Here is a quote from James Madison, fmr President of the United States: "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections
on human nature? If men were angels, no government would
be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external
nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

For anyone to say that the Founding Fathers of the
United States didn't have God in mind, or that they weren't a very religious group of men, in my
opinion, doesn't know what they are talking about.

So I don't blame Justice Moore for putting a
monument with the 10 Commandments for all to see
as they enter the Alabama Supreme Court House, and highly praise him for doing so, since they are
not being taught in Church like they should be.

When we as mortals die, we'll stand before God to
answer for what we have done during our mortal
lives, whether it be good or bad, He has a record
of what we have done, ( Hosea 13:12 ).

in the first line, has should read hasn't, in my post.