Posted on 11/29/2008 10:08:31 AM PST by redk
"Western Civilization was built to ultimately become slave-free, prosperous, and thriving in the 21st century. Was Western Civilization a religious movement? Why worry about the "religiousity" of the thing? Are you embarassed?....Either way, it's certainly your salvation in a world that without Judeo-Christianity, would devolve into barbarism, as we see demonstrated all about us frequently."
Well done, Finny.
What section of the Constitution are you referring to?
Sorry for replying so late... Your reply got lost in my ping list.
Article IV (sect I, primarily), and all the law stemming there from, loosely referred to as the "Reciprocity Clause":
[Margin comment: Each state is required to recognize the laws and records (such as licenses) of other states and to enforce rights in its own courts that would be enforced in other state courts.] Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Who is suggesting otherwise? I seek to change nothing. Like you, I seek to change it back.
[roamer_1:] Abortion and homosexuality were unthinkable here for better than four hundred years. They were always wholly and utterly against the law for all that time ...
Against Federal law? Really? [...]
In regard to abortion being a legal enterprise, I would heartily say yes! The U.S Constitution protects the right to life for all citizens and their posterity. It has never been the right of the states to sanction death without due process/just cause. For that matter, that right is not even given to the federal government.
That right is specifically denied to all powers by the U.S Constitution, and the DOI before it, The right to life resides in each man, endowed upon him by his Creator, if you will recall, and it is the solemn, sworn duty of every level of the US governmental system to PROTECT that right to life. To suggest otherwise is simply absurd.
In regard to sodomy, no one is suggesting federal sodomy laws, the worst you might have to bear from the Christian Right is a protection of marriage, which is a justified position.
My position on both of these issues is already well fleshed out later in the thread: #138.
EXPANDED GOVERNMENT CAUSED THE PROBLEM -- why do you look to it now as a solution?
I do not look for an expanded governmental role, with the exception that I would support amendments, were they offered, simply for the clarity they would provide. IMO, though, as provided by my comments in the link, I think these are already legitimately federal issues on principle, and by the law.
LIMITED GOVERNMENT, limiting the Federal government to staying out of these things, which WAS DONE in the Constitution, is the ONLY way to enable true Social conservatism. The Founders knew this. Why don't you?
I do know that. And as a parting thought, let me suggest that barring a group of rebellious states breaking away from the federal teat and actually claiming their sovereignty, and redeeming themselves against these issues and so many, many more (which is really not going to happen), the teat will have to be torn from their mouths before anything near federalism will ever take place.
IF there were such states, rejecting the federal master, and IF the showdown were to be willingly engaged, I would agree with you that there would be more federalist options. I would be willing to abide with you and take the path you desire from the ground up. In that case, there would be many more options available.
NO.
It is very emphatic that other benefits were held not to be protected privileges and immunities. If your scenario were valid, I would simply go to New York and DEMAND that they honor my North Carolina concealed carry permit. I cannot do so. One state cannot trump another state's sovereign rights to govern its people as it sees fit. Even the most liberal interpretation of Article IV, clause 1 cannot be stretched that far.
Thank you.
I must diagree, however. Although Calvin may have been the greatest Theologian of the Christian religion since St. Paul, nevertheless, he did give in to his tyrannical nature in the Servetus incident and therefore as nice a guy as he may have been in other matters, Calvin was a tyrant.
So tell me, why did you bring Calvin into the tyrant discussion?
because Calvin is credited with bringing the doctrine of total depravity "front and center." Whether he should be credited over Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas is up for discussion, as these men taught the same stuff... with some reservations on Aquinas. Nevertheless, modern evangelicals are largely biblically illiterate, have a soft view of the depravity of man, and thus are suckers for the view that we should look for "godly men" rather than focus on being a nation of law.
Neither will help if we are a society determined to be depraved, but the rule of law provides a better defense against tyrants, as it restrains the so called "good"men like GW Bush, as well as the socialists. Further, because of the universal sinfulness of men, it is real foolishness to put your trust in men.
I was not trying to set up Geneva (a theonomic church/state entity) as the ideal at all. Rather, I was bemoaning the shallow view of the depravity of men and the consequent foolishness of the evangelicals who ignore their own bibles in attempting to hammer out a philosophy of political activism. Therefore "where is Calvin when you need him most?"
We can talk about whether the incident with Servetus (which I brought up, btw) is an anomaly or an indication of the tyrannical nature of Jean Calvin at another time. It is not germane to the issue at hand, which is whether or not men should be trusted to rule, or all men should be expected to submit to law. I thought we settled that issue with LEX REX vs the Divine Right of Kings.
Actually I think the "front and center" issue was simply the Reformist response the the 5 points of the Remonstrance. Calvin never put his theology into any 5 point acronym.
We can talk about whether the incident with Servetus (which I brought up, btw) is an anomaly or an indication of the tyrannical nature of Jean Calvin at another time. It is not germane to the issue at hand, which is whether or not men should be trusted to rule, or all men should be expected to submit to law. I thought we settled that issue with LEX REX vs the Divine Right of Kings.
When you mention it in that context, I think it is highly relevant, i.e., you have a godly man in a position of political power, who used that political power to eliminate someone with whom he had a theological disagreement. Certainly Servetus was a condemned man in most countries of the west, but Calvin had made his intentions known about wanting to have Servetus executed even before he came to town. Thus the tendency of even good men to be tyrants when given the power of the state is "front and center" (as you say) in the Servetus example.
BTW, I do believe that the founders strongly suggested that we need "godly men" to rule over us and thus they instituted the electoral college in order to assure that the President was elected as a consensus among communities rather than by the public at large. Undoubtedly they felt that wise men chosen from within the communities would be more likely to choose a godly and wise man as president since the tendency among the masses is to elect a king (as was represented by the Israelites insistence upon having a "King" like the heathen nations).
Yeah. People are surprised to hear that Calvin would not recognize the 5 points at all, at least not in the format from Dort.
As for the laws, understand that we have not only a federal government, but state governments as well. Traditionally, most everyday law enforcement has been done at a state level. States were always supposed to have “police powers.”
They could make whatever laws they wanted for the most part and enforce them. The feds stayed out of all of this except in certain limited circumstances. More and more though, we keep having federal criminal laws added to the books and the feds have taken an increasing role in enforcing laws against conduct the states already have laws against that they enforce. I think that a lot of this is redundant and unnecessary. If the states can handle it, let them. If it's an area where the feds have sole responsibility, that needs to be their priority. For example, every time I hear about ICE officers not picking up criminal aliens in our local jails to deport them it makes me angry because I know that the ICE officers will say they lack resources to pick these people up and I know we have federal law enforcement working other areas of law the states already have covered who could be reassigned to help get criminal aliens already in our jails deported. I think federal resources should be concentrated in areas where the feds have sole responsibility.
Another thing that irks me is when the feds get involved in things like professional sports. I'll see something on TV about Congress wasting all this time arguing about professional baseball and it just infuriates me. What the heck is the federal government doing getting involved in professional sports? Is this the sort of thing our founding fathers intended the feds to get involved in? It's a minor point I know, but it's just another of many examples of the federal government getting off track and getting involved with something they have no business being involved with, in my opinion. I want my federal tax dollars to go toward something useful, something worthwhile’ toward the things the federal government is supposed to be handling. When they squander our money it puts us in positions like we're in right now where the federal government owes something like $11 trillion dollars. Massive debt is the kind of thing that makes a country go the way of the Soviet Union. That's why we have to get it under control.
As for Plato, I haven't read anything he wrote in a long time, but I do recall not agreeing with him that being ruled by a tyrant would be better than a bad democracy. He was no fan of democracy. He favored instead philosopher kings, even though he knew that they would often end up being just tyrants. He worried too much for my tastes about the people having too much freedom. I'd rather live in a democracy that prizes freedom. I like that we have fifty small experiments in democracy in this country. I like that our founding fathers had the wisdom to try to limit the powers of the federal government and keep it small and out of the way of the people and the states for the most part. I'd like to see the federal government start paring back and concentrating on the things our forefathers wanted them to concentrate on. If they continue to expand and spend more and more money I don't think this country will last that much longer.
Historical revisionism. Either that or methinks you don't know what a real tyrant is.
Facts.
Either that or methinks you don't know what a real tyrant is.
A tyrant is someone who uses the power of the state to have a man with whom he has a theological disagreement executed.
It is you who is making an attempt at historical revisionism. Calvin (for all his good qualities) died with Servetus' blood on his hands. That is a fact.
I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you in the comfort of your 21th century PC culture.
However, Calvin lived in age when men believed (correctly) that it was the magistrate's duty to uphold both tablets of the Moral Law of God, that is, the Ten Words.
Your friend Servetus was already convicted of public blasphemy and heresy, etc in other civil jurisdictions. He fled to Geneva hoping to escape execution, which is what his public crimes deserved. The civil authorities in Geneva would not have any of this, and with the aid of Calvin as prosecutor, they put your friend to death.
So, you may examine the case to see this was not merely a matter of “theological disagreement” (e.g., red wine vs. white), but a direct violation of the Ten Words, which used to hold sway in both the civil and ecclesiastical realms until the Church and State in the West became infected with Enlightenment humanism.
So what you are now advocating is MORAL RELATIVISM.
Calvin's seeking the death penalty for Servetus was just as much a sin in 1550 as it would be in 2008. God is not a moral relativist. Calvin and you OTOH was/are.
Calvin was a tyrant even by the standards of 1550. Just because everyone was a tyrant in 1550, does not mean that Calvin wasn't.
When men like John Calvin and the civil authorities in Geneva look to God’s infallible Word in order to construct just laws for the nation, that is hardly moral relativism. When they read in God’s Law-Word that heretics and blasphemers are worthy of death, and carry out such punishments after due process, that is hardly moral relativism.
Moral relativism is using the antinomian views of the Enlightenment filtered through several hundred years of developing political correctness to judge men who in their day stood firmly on the Word of God. It is quite common today, even among Christians who ought to know better. But Christianity is infected by antinomianism (moral relativism) as well. Just watch all the smiley faces on misnamed "Christian TV" or read any of the numerous Christian "self-help" books.
Your friend Servetus was an anti-trinitarian blasphemer who got exactly what he deserved. His problem was that he lived in a day when Christian men were men and they took God’s Law seriously.
If he were alive today, no doubt he would have his own TV show and Christians would be sending him money.
"And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death." (Lev. 24:16)
Where in God's word does it state that it is up to the Church to burn heretics at the stake?
You guys crack me up. You claim that Calvin's Total Depravity doctrine is "front and center" and yet you refuse to acknowledge Calvin's own depravity in the Servetus mess. Instead you try to rationalize it as if Calvin himself was never once a victim of his own natural depravity. Let me make this clear CALVIN WAS A SINNER SAVED BY GRACE! His own sin is clearly on display and has been a wound to the Reformation movement since before he died.
But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out. (Numbers 32:23 KJV)
When they read in God’s Law-Word that heretics and blasphemers are worthy of death, and carry out such punishments after due process, that is hardly moral relativism.
Those were the same laws used to execute Jesus.
Your friend Servetus
Servetus is not my "friend". He was a rank heretic. He should not have been burned at the stake. BTW Calvin himself was considered a rank heretic by the Catholic Church, who instituted the practice of burning heretics at the stake.
"And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death." (Lev. 24:16)
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Leviticus 20:9 KJV)
You really want to go there?
Jos 1:18 Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death:
Seems to me Calvin may have rebelled against God's commanment to "Love your Enemies".
Should Calvin have been burned at the stake because he hated Servetus?
More historical revisionism (at least in this specific case). It was not the Church that put the blasphemer to death, it was the state, the civil authorities in Geneva.
I’m afraid your PC-influenced view of history is getting the best of you.
When you think you have the facts straight come back and we can talk more.
LOL! The Church and the state were married. The state WAS the Church.
When you think you have the facts straight come back and we can talk more.
You just can't admit that Calvin was wrong.
Tell us, do you get your knowledge of history from Jack Chick tracts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.