Yale libertarian plans drastic 'Free State Project'

Yale Daily News ^ | Wednesday, October 23, 2002 | EMILY ANTHES

[#3Fan]

1 Kings 8: 31-32. Trespass is Forbidden.

Neighbor to neighbor before the cricifixion. Read the story of the good Samaritan to find out who a neighbor is. Drug dealers are not neighbors to me or civil authority.

Since you've cited NO verse which authorizes Believers to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication, the Commandment against Trespass stands uncontested.

Since you've cited no verse that allows the limitation of a brother's velocity, then you should not support speed limits according to your philosophy.

Which means that the State cannot "vote itself the authority" to commit such a Trespass, as such a usurpation would be in violation of the Biblical Commandment against Trespass.

Commandment? I don't remember any commandment that says that law is not to be enforced at a person's home. You need to learn the difference between a commandment and an ordinance. Do you also still perform blood sacrifices? Romans gives civil authority their ordainment.

Irrelevant.

Very relevant. You're trying to add to God's word.

The State cannot Morally make a Law which entitles it to violate the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing.

Which commandment would that be?

If the State authorizes itself to invade Property for a Cause which the Bible does not authorize, that's a Trespass -- and therefore Forbidden.

It's authorized in Romans.

The State owns the Public Roads -- ergo, it is not "trespassing" thereupon.

But speed limits are not specifically authorized. I thought you wanted biblical precedent for every law. Why are you sanctioning a person's home as a sanctuary? God's word doesn't do that.

Not so Private road-tracks on Private Property (i.e., NASCAR). The State does not own Private Property, and so it cannot "enforce the speed limit" ON Private Property.

It could if it wanted to. Should real gladiator games be allowed on private property? Guaranteed death at with every match? Your philosophy is not logical.

That would be a Trespassing.

Show me where the law cannot be enforced at a person's home.

The State cannot Morally make a Law which entitles it to violate the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing.

Which commandment is this?

If the State authorizes itself to invade Property for a Cause which the Bible does not authorize, that's a Trespass -- and therefore Forbidden.

It's authorized in Romans.

No, the State is not bound only by the Ten Commandments, but be ALL Biblical Law -- including the Biblical Law against Trespass.

So do you still perform blood sacrifices? There's a difference between ordinances and laws.

The State does not have the Authority to overthrow the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing in the first place.

There is no commandment against enforcing the law at a person's home.

In other words, the State may ONLY make Laws which entitle it to invade Property on those specific issues where the Bible specifically permits the invasion of Property (i.e., to prevent Murder, etc).

Romans gives it the authority.

The State cannot Morally make a Law which entitles it to violate the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing. If the State authorizes itself to invade Property for a Cause which the Bible does not authorize, that's a Trespass -- and therefore Forbidden.

There is no commandment that forbids enforcement of the law at a person's home.

BZZZZT... sorry, no dice. This was God's answer to Elijah. Ergo, Paul is describing an event which already happened.

You are biblically illiterate. Do you even believe in biblical prophesy?

Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Rev 7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

Rev 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

Don't tell me you think all this happened thousands of years ago.

I challenge you to show me ONE Scripture which indicates that this is a Prophetic description of the Future -- whereas Paul says that it is an event which took place in the past.

Look above, oh ye of little wisdom.

You botched that one pretty badly.

You're biblically illiterate.

Sorry, this does not prove that the State cannot prohibit the practice of False Religions. As I said before, they'll still be Tares; they'll just be Tares in Jail, right?

Reread that verse very carefully. Look at exactly what it's saying. It's saying that if we attempt to root up the tares we will uproot the wheat also. God is saying that we cannot judge who is right and who is wrong to the point of uprooting those that we think are wrong. If we try we will make mistakes and uproot the righteous, in other words we don't know the difference well enough.

If you believe that the State can authorize itself to commit Trespass, show me one verse which forbids the State from outlawing False Religions.

Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

After all, if this is your proof-text: "But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them." -- it applies equally well to Drug Users as any other sort of Tare.

According to that logic we would not be able to jail murderers. We are specifically told not to interfere with a person's beliefs in God, except to plant seeds. We are not specifically told not to interfere with drug use.

Which means that it blows up your entire argument.

There's a difference between drug use, beliefs, murder, theft, etc.

"But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them."

Tares in respect to beliefs.

If the State Orders that a person or persons is not Legally allowed to Live, then it's just enforcing the Civil Law, right?

We are forbidden to commit murder. We are not forbidden to enforce the law at a person's home.

If the State can use the "Civil Law" to authorize itself to commit Trespass, why can it not use the "Civil Law" to commit Killings?

Murder is against a commandment.

The fact is, you're behaving like a Bible cherry-picker -- you want to keep the State bound by the Commandment against Killing, but unbound by the Commandment against Trespass. But you can't have it both ways.

There is no commandment that forbids the enforcement of law at a person's home, nor tresspass against an enemy. Apparently you still perform blood saccrifices since you think every ordinance is a commandment.

If the State must have a Biblical-authorized reason to Commit a Killing, then... The State must have a Biblically-authorized reason to Commit a Trespass on Private Property. (And I remind you, you do not have ONE VERSE stating that it is Morally Proper to commit a trespass to prevent Private Intoxication)

Romans says to obey civil authority.

And your "the State is just enforcing the Law" argument won't WORK here... because if Trespassing to prevent Private Intoxication is just "enforcing the Law", then the State Killing of those whom the State has declared Unfit to Live is just "enforcing the Law".

Murder is a violation of a commandment. There is no commandment that forbids the enforcement of law at a person's home.

You can't have it both ways.

I know the difference between ordinances and commandments. Apparently you think the ordinances concerning blood sacrifices are still in effect. Even so, there was never even an ordinance which made a person's home a sanctuary from the law. If there was show it to me. An enemy is not a neighbor.

You have made the State your God, now show me how you intend to cram the genie back in the bottle.

God ordained the state, not I.

My interest (one among many) is in divorcing alleged "christians" from the Idolatry of the false, and dangerous, "Divine Right" theory of Government.

As it relates to drug use. You're cherry-picking. You seem to have no problem with some government laws that have no biblical precedent, such as speeding laws. Do you think the old testament laws on blood sacrifices are still in effect?

[#3Fan]

If the State commits a Trespass without a Biblically-valid reason to Commit the Trespass, then the State is violating God's Law against Trespassing.

There is no biblical law that forbids enforcement of the law at a person's home. Do you think the old testament ordinances on blood sacrifices are still in existence?

Nor can you argue that "if the State says Private Intoxication is against the Law, it is not Trespassing, it's just enforcing the Law" -- for by the exact same token, "if the State says that a person is Unfit to Live, then it is not committing Murder, it's just enforcing the Law".

Murder is against a commandment. There is no commandment against enforcement of the law at a person's home.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Even so, Hitler was leader of the Germans, not of Christian America. God saw to it I was born American, not German. I had no worry of having to support Hitler's crimes. God decides who's souls get put in what situations.

Say, #3Fan... when Hitler's storm troopers invaded the Private Property of Germany's Jewish population and turned them out of their shops and homes, were they committing Trespassing and Theft? Or were they just, y'know, enforcing the Civil Law against Jews owning private property?

[#3Fan]

...Founded by that great Fundamentalist, anti-evolutionist, and Anti-Prohibitionist Dr. J. Gresham Machen, personal tutor to Francis Schaeffer (the greatest Protestant theologian of the modern age).

Just as I thought, the orthodoxy to justify libertarianism.

[#3Fan]

Irrelevant to my question.

You asked the difference between Islam and Christianity. I told you.

False. You have repeatedly argued against such a proposition.

Post #407 is one of many.

"Romans says the higher powers are of God and there is no place in the bible that prohibits enforcement of civil law at a person's home. If civil law does not conflict with biblical teachings, it is of God and is ordained of God."

Can you read?

[#3Fan]

Say, #3Fan... when Hitler's storm troopers invaded the Private Property of Germany's Jewish population and turned them out of their shops and homes, were they committing Trespassing and Theft? Or were they just, y'know, enforcing the Civil Law against Jews owning private property?

Theft is against a commandment.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

1 Kings 8: 31-32. Trespass is Forbidden. Neighbor to neighbor before the cricifixion. Read the story of the good Samaritan to find out who a neighbor is. Drug dealers are not neighbors to me or civil authority.

Show me specifically in the Bible where it says that a Man is not your neighbor, and not entitled to neighborly treatment, because he becomes intoxicated on his own Private Property. Cite a specific verse.

Do you think that none of the Jews of Israel ever became intoxicated? Do you think that the Law of God permitted Trespass to prevent Intoxication if they did?

If so, show me where. Show me specifically in the Bible where it says that a Man is not your neighbor because he becomes intoxicated on Private Property. Show me specifically in the Bible where it says that, without a "civil law" to authorize the Trespass, you may commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.

...Because if you don't have BIBLICAL authorization for the Trespass in the first place, prior to the making of any law (e.g., America, circa 1900) then the State is violating the Law against Trespassing if it usurps such "civil authority" unto itself.

You are biblically illiterate. Do you even believe in biblical prophesy? Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. Rev 7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Rev 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. Don't tell me you think all this happened thousands of years ago.

Revelation aside, I was referring to your ridiculous "7,000 very elect" dogma. You took a verse which specifically detailed God's response to Elijah (thousands of years ago) and eisegetically read it into the Future.

As I said, you botched that one horribly.

There is no biblical law that forbids enforcement of the law at a person's home. Do you think the old testament ordinances on blood sacrifices are still in existence? Murder is against a commandment. There is no commandment against enforcement of the law at a person's home.

Say, #3Fan... when Hitler's storm troopers invaded the Private Property of Germany's Jewish population and turned them out of their shops and homes, were they committing Trespassing and Theft? Or were they just, y'know, enforcing the Civil Law against Jews owning private property?

Same goes for Murder... many Prohibitionist states have defined the Death Penalty for drug usage. Is that Murder, or is it just "enforcing the Civil Law"?? What about Hitler's concentration camps... weren't they just "enforcing the Civil Law" against Jews drawing breath?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Theft is against a commandment. 446 posted on 11/02/2002 8:12 PM PST by #3Fan

So, what are you saying...

• The State can't morally Steal someone's intoxicants?
• Or, you are saying that it's not theft if the State outlaws the Property??

Well, if that's the case... when Hitler's storm troopers invaded the Private Property of Germany's Jewish population and turned them out of their shops and homes, were they committing Trespassing and Theft? Or were they just, y'know, enforcing the Civil Law against Jews owning private property?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

...Founded by that great Fundamentalist, anti-evolutionist, and Anti-Prohibitionist Dr. J. Gresham Machen, personal tutor to Francis Schaeffer (the greatest Protestant theologian of the modern age). ~~ Just as I thought, the orthodoxy to justify libertarianism.

Actually, Christian orthodoxy is Libertarian.

Surprising as it may seem, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not about breaking into someone's house and putting a gun to their head to prevent them from becoming intoxicated.

I realize that may come as quite a shock.

[#3Fan]

Show me specifically in the Bible where it says that a Man is not your neighbor, and not entitled to neighborly treatment, because he becomes intoxicated on his own Private Property. Cite a specific verse.

In reference to drugs:

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The manuscript word for sorcerers is "pharmakeus" in which we derive our "pharmaceutical". God considers them evil. God said civil authority is a terror to the evil, therefore drug dealers and the civil authorities are not neighbors.

Do you think that none of the Jews of Israel ever became intoxicated? Do you think that the Law of God permitted Trespass to prevent Intoxication if they did?

If there were biblical ordinances against intoxication, then yes. The same as there were ordinances against adultery. Adultery no doubt was almost always committed on private property. I don't live this intoxication issue like you Libertarians do and I don't know what the ordinances against intoxication were.

If so, show me where. Show me specifically in the Bible where it says that a Man is not your neighbor because he becomes intoxicated on Private Property. Show me specifically in the Bible where it says that, without a "civil law" to authorize the Trespass, you may commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.

See above. Drug dealers are evil and so are terrified of civil authority. Very true, isn't it? Look at pro-druggies howl about the civil authority.

...Because if you don't have BIBLICAL authorization for the Trespass in the first place, prior to the making of any law (e.g., America, circa 1900) then the State is violating the Law against Trespassing if it usurps such "civil authority" unto itself.

There is no commandment against enforcement of the law on private property.

Revelation aside,...

Revelation aside?! That's hilarious. You don't like what it says so you just shove it aside?! LOL

...I was referring to your ridiculous "7,000 very elect" dogma. You took a verse which specifically detailed God's response to Elijah (thousands of years ago) and eisegetically read it into the Future.

Jesus has reserved 7000 that will not bow to antiChrist. If you reserve something you save it for the future. Have you no common sense?! LOL

As I said, you botched that one horribly.

You don't know the meaning of reserved. LOL It's clear whose botching what here. You've had to run from several statements you've made. I've had to run from none.

Same goes for Murder... many Prohibitionist states have defined the Death Penalty for drug usage. Is that Murder, or is it just "enforcing the Civil Law"??

The bible says to apply the death penalty against murderers and rapists. I wouldn't apply it to drug dealers unless they knew that people would die directly by their actions.

What about Hitler's concentration camps... weren't they just "enforcing the Civil Law" against Jews drawing breath?

They committed murder which is against a commandment.

You ignored my question. It's my belief that those that won't answer questions don't have much faith in their philosophy. I'll try again. You like to cite the old testament Kings ordinace against tresspass on a neighbor. Do you believe that the old testament ordinaces concerning the blood sacrifices are still in effect?

[#3Fan]

So, what are you saying... The State can't morally Steal someone's intoxicants?

By civil law that person was not allowed to have his intoxicants in the first place so it's not theft.

Or, you are saying that it's not theft if the State outlaws the Property??

Yep.

Well, if that's the case... when Hitler's storm troopers invaded the Private Property of Germany's Jewish population and turned them out of their shops and homes, were they committing Trespassing and Theft? Or were they just, y'know, enforcing the Civil Law against Jews owning private property?

They were in violation of Paul's golden rule commandment.

[#3Fan]

Actually, Christian orthodoxy is Libertarian.

Except for the part that says drug dealers are hellbound, and the part that says civil authority is ordained of God, etc.

Surprising as it may seem, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not about breaking into someone's house and putting a gun to their head to prevent them from becoming intoxicated. I realize that may come as quite a shock.

Prove it with a verse. What's you opinion of God telling the Israelites to massacre every man woman and child where they lived? Was that a Jesus like activity?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

In reference to drugs: Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. The manuscript word for sorcerers is "pharmakeus" in which we derive our "pharmaceutical". God considers them evil. God said civil authority is a terror to the evil, therefore drug dealers and the civil authorities are not neighbors. Drug dealers are evil and so are terrified of civil authority. Very true, isn't it? Look at pro-druggies howl about the civil authority.

Well, this verse also includes "unbelievers" and "idolaters" -- ergo, they are not "neighbors" by your reading also. Should the State also be a terror to unbelievers and idolaters?

If there were biblical ordinances against intoxication, then yes. The same as there were ordinances against adultery. Adultery no doubt was almost always committed on private property. I don't live this intoxication issue like you Libertarians do and I don't know what the ordinances against intoxication were.

There weren't any, you Biblical-illiterate. There are 613 juridical Laws in the Old Testament. NOT ONE sanctions State Action against Intoxication. Do you suppose that God just... forgot?

...I was referring to your ridiculous "7,000 very elect" dogma. You took a verse which specifically detailed God's response to Elijah (thousands of years ago) and eisegetically read it into the Future. ~~ Jesus has reserved 7000 that will not bow to antiChrist. If you reserve something you save it for the future. Have you no common sense?! LOL

have you no common sense? If these particular 7,000 were reserved together with Elijah to Belief in God rather than Ba'al, thousands of years ago then this Event has already happened, thousands of years ago.

Which means that it is NOT a prophecy about the Future, it is a description of an accomplished event. Finis. End of Story.

NOT a prophecy of the Future.

Which means that you botched this quite horribly.

You ignored my question. It's my belief that those that won't answer questions don't have much faith in their philosophy. I'll try again. You like to cite the old testament Kings ordinace against tresspass on a neighbor. Do you believe that the old testament ordinaces concerning the blood sacrifices are still in effect?

No, Hebrews says that the Sacrificial Laws have been fulfilled in Christ.

Hebrews says nothing about the Law against Trespass being eliminated.

So, show me specifically in the Bible where it says that a Man is not your neighbor, and not entitled to neighborly treatment, because he becomes intoxicated on his own Private Property. Cite a specific verse.

And try not to use a verse which would force you to include idolaters and unbelievers in the same grouping, as it ruins your argument -- since if they are not "neighbors" either, then the State can throw them in Jail too, eh??

What about Hitler's concentration camps... weren't they just "enforcing the Civil Law" against Jews drawing breath? ~~ They committed murder which is against a commandment.

Ahh, but you also acknowledge that Theft is against a Commandment.

Theft is against a commandment. 446 posted on 11/02/2002 8:12 PM PST by #3Fan

So, what are you saying...

• The State can't morally Steal someone's intoxicants?
• Or, you are saying that it's not theft if the State outlaws the Property??

Well, if that's the case... when Hitler's storm troopers invaded the Private Property of Germany's Jewish population and turned them out of their shops and homes, were they committing Trespassing and Theft? Or were they just, y'know, enforcing the Civil Law against Jews owning private property?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Well, if that's the case... when Hitler's storm troopers invaded the Private Property of Germany's Jewish population and turned them out of their shops and homes, were they committing Trespassing and Theft? Or were they just, y'know, enforcing the Civil Law against Jews owning private property? ~~ They were in violation of Paul's golden rule commandment. 451 posted on 11/02/2002 8:53 PM PST by #3Fan

Cite the verse to which you are referring, please.

[rb22982]

Alcohol isn't as addictive as hard drugs.

It's definately up there.

Addictive Qualities of Popular Drugs

Comparing Addictive Qualities of Popular Drugs (Higher score indicates more serious effect)
Drug	Dependence	Withdrawal	Tolerance	Reinforcement	Intoxication
Nicotine	6	4	5	3	2
Heroin	5	5	6	5	5
Cocaine	4	3	3	6	4
Alcohol	3	6	4	4	6
Caffeine	2	2	2	1	1
Marijuana	1	1	1	2	3

Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.

Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.

Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."

[Demidog]

Don't tell me you think all this happened thousands of years ago.

70 AD in fact. Have you ever read the very first Paragraph of John's Revelation?

[#3Fan]

Well, this verse also includes "unbelievers" and "idolaters" -- ergo, they are not "neighbors" by your reading also. Should the State also be a terror to unbelievers and idolaters?

God said that the state is a terror to the evil. If you're terrified of a civil authority that follows God's law, then you're part of the evil. Not necessarily all the evil are terrified of civil authority.

There weren't any, you Biblical-illiterate.

LOL Do you know the meaning of "reserved" yet?

There are 613 juridical Laws in the Old Testament. NOT ONE sanctions State Action against Intoxication. Do you suppose that God just... forgot?

Hard drugs didn't exist then. Alcohol was obviously OK.

have you no common sense? If these particular 7,000 were reserved together with Elijah to Belief in God rather than Ba'al, thousands of years ago then this Event has already happened, thousands of years ago.

Earth to OP: the antiChrist has not reigned yet. LOL

Which means that it is NOT a prophecy about the Future, it is a description of an accomplished event. Finis. End of Story.

And when did this event take place? You're hilarious. Do you actually believe that antiChrist has already had rule as spoken in Revelation?

NOT a prophecy of the Future.

Yipper. 7000 will not bow a knee to antiChrist. That is on the way.

Which means that you botched this quite horribly.

Do you believe the events of Revelation have already taken place?

No, Hebrews says that the Sacrificial Laws have been fulfilled in Christ.

Cite scripture on that so I can see where you're coming from. With you, it's hard to tell.

Hebrews says nothing about the Law against Trespass being eliminated.

Cite scripture.

So, show me specifically in the Bible where it says that a Man is not your neighbor, and not entitled to neighborly treatment, because he becomes intoxicated on his own Private Property. Cite a specific verse.

God says drug dealers are evil.

And try not to use a verse which would force you to include idolaters and unbelievers in the same grouping, as it ruins your argument -- since if they are not "neighbors" either, then the State can throw them in Jail too, eh??

The state is specifically prohibited from interfering in false belief. The state is not specifically prohibited from enforcing the law on private property.

Ahh, but you also acknowledge that Theft is against a Commandment.

Yep.

So, what are you saying... The State can't morally Steal someone's intoxicants? Or, you are saying that it's not theft if the State outlaws the Property??

They weren't allowed to have it in the first place so it's not theft.

Well, if that's the case... when Hitler's storm troopers invaded the Private Property of Germany's Jewish population and turned them out of their shops and homes, were they committing Trespassing and Theft? Or were they just, y'know, enforcing the Civil Law against Jews owning private property?

Do you enjoy repeating yourself? They broke Paul's "Do unto others" commandment.

[#3Fan]

Cite the verse to which you are referring, please.

You are biblically illiterate.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

[#3Fan]

Those liberals that do those studies consider a few beers a week an "addiction". They're nuts.

[Demidog]

You asked the difference between Islam and Christianity. I told you.

I didn't ask you what the difference was. I know the difference. In your world, the State may tresspass to enforce the law. That is the same with the extremist Muslim nationalists as well. They believe that it is proper for the state to administer God's law. That would include entering a home to kill a person accused of walking unescorted in some Muslim theocracies and if you are to be consistent, then the State would be within its rights to execute unbelievers. After all, if all of the commandments are under the civil powers, "Thou Shalt put no other God's before me" is fair game for the magistrate.

"Romans says the higher powers are of God and there is no place in the bible that prohibits enforcement of civil law at a person's home.

Irrelevant. If the civil law provides the authorization to trespass (something forbidden in the Bible as has been pointed out to you) where there is no known crime being committed (harm against another individual) then the civil law has just fallen out of God's favor and authority.

If you are going to hold fast to this farce you have erected, then you need to admit that freedom to practice a religion other than Christianity makes the civil law of the US unclean.

If civil law does not conflict with biblical teachings, it is of God and is ordained of God.

So you do then agree that the Constitution is not of God?

Can you read?

Absolutely.