By Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party 2008 Presidential Candidate
ChuckBaldwinLive.com
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, “What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone.” Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let’s be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let’s briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America’s political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject’s bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, “Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government”? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
Notice that civil government must not be a “terror to good works.” It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America’s legal documents–including the U.S. Constitution–are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).
The apostle clearly states that civil government is a “minister of God to thee for good.” It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul’s troops? Did Daniel violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king’s command to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God’s principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God’s principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God’s principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority–even civil authority–is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just “because they said so.” It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government’s laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America’s “supreme Law” does not rest with any man or any group of men. America’s “supreme Law” does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land.” Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that, in America, the “higher powers” are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every elected official to obey the U.S. Constitution (and his or her State constitution). Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
“Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God’s minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.
Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three of America’s founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html )
As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to “obey God rather than men” and defy their civil authorities.
The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore–and blatantly disobey–the “supreme Law of the Land,” the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?
99 responses so far ↓
1 Mik Robertson // Jul 19, 2009 at 1:01 pm
(Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
I wonder how God the Father and the Holy Spirit feel about this.
2 Mik Robertson // Jul 19, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The US Constitution also specifically and unnecessarily grants authority to Congress to levy a tax on income. If the income tax rate is set at 100%, are Christians obligated to obey?
3 Danny S // Jul 19, 2009 at 1:27 pm
The Roman Catholic Church gives the title of “Lord” to the Holy Spirit too.
4 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 19, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Hmmmmm, the Constitution Party seems to have little to do with the Constitution in particula or secular politics in general. Are these folk a political party or a church?
5 Cody Quirk // Jul 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Chuck is speaking as a Pastor here, since he is one after all.
BTW Don, what’s the matter with some party leaders speaking their mind about religious topics?
In fact this sermon seems to preach against totalitarianism in a Christian sense.
6 Michael Seebeck // Jul 19, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Not bad, if you’re a Christian.
Now if Baldwin wanted to be really ecumenical here, he’d do a similar essay for non-Christians.
7 Catholic Trotskyist // Jul 19, 2009 at 2:44 pm
it’s not Baldwin’s job to write about the theology of other religions. This is a great article, and while I disagree with the Constitution Party’s focus on the constitution, this argument about Romans 13 clearly provides a possibility for Christian libertarianism and Christian socialism, if one truly believes, as I do about socialism, that this is the true economic system of Jesus Christ.
8 Michael Seebeck // Jul 19, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Hey, Mik, define “income”? (opening box here)
(BTW, Mik, I’m not getting on your case here. You do make a very good point. I’m just making use of it to expand a little in a different direction.
)
The IRS defines it based on the application of the tax code (since it isn’t really properly defined in there) as 100% of what you get from your labor. Naturally they’re full of it, because we own our labor and we trade it for an equal amount of other property. In fact, if you define your labor as a set value, say $300/hr for example, and then you get paid less than that, you can’t claim a loss of income. That’s consistent with owning our own labor, but we aren’t allowed to apply it that way.
They think our labor is worth $0, or that we’re slaves.
So yeah, the government thinks so much of us, doesn’t it?
9 Michael Seebeck // Jul 19, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Trotskyite, even you in your insanity ought to know that Christonomics involves separating church and economy. Else Jesus would not have driven the moneychangers from the temple, but instead would have set up shop himself.
10 Mik Robertson // Jul 19, 2009 at 3:16 pm
@8 Yes, I see the point about income. If you agree to exchange a certain amount of labor for a certain amount of money, it is a wash. The “income” is offset by the hours of effort. I think even the law defines income not as what is earned from labor, but why should the IRS quibble?
11 Michael Seebeck // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:10 pm
It does, Mik. But you can’t tell the IRS that. They call it a “frivolous argument.”
12 Steven R Linnabary // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Not bad, if you’re a Christian.
Now if Baldwin wanted to be really ecumenical here, he’d do a similar essay for non-Christians.
I was thinking the same thing when I read this on FB a few days ago. I would have forwarded it to my list had it been something anybody could easily agree with.
PEACE
13 Catholic Trotskyist // Jul 19, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Christonomics (good term, by the way) is the hope of making the economy more church-like, and emerging the church into the way it should be, focused on Christ alone. Read bryan McLaren, liberal Protestant theologian, The Secret Message of Jesus, which speaks about Jesus’s prescription for the economy. Consider the economy as a profit-making machine which currently ignores Jesus’s injunction not to love money.
14 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 19, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Cody: Forced [or even induced] public prayer, benedictions connected to public meetings, religious symbols in secular public arenas, a national church, ‘In God We Trust’ added to the flag pledge, and infusion of religion into secular public administration are Unamerican to the point of being illegal.
Protect my spirituality —— keep your religion out of secular politics!
‘In God We Trust’ is allowed on money. Especially if you under stand the second half: “All others pay cash”
15 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 19, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Rob Hotakainen, McClatchy Newspapers Rob Hotakainen, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Sat Jul 18, 6:00 am ET
WASHINGTON — A California Republican congressman wants to do a little writing on the walls of Washington’s newest federal building. If Rep. Dan Lungren gets his way, Congress will spend nearly $100,000 to engrave the words “In God We Trust ” and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent spots at the Capitol Visitor Center .
Lungren’s proposal drew only a whimper of opposition last week when the House of Representatives voted 410-8 to approve it. Now, however, Lungren finds himself tussling with a national atheists and agnostics group.
The Wisconsin -based Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc. sued this week to stop the engraving, accusing Lungren of trying to force his religious beliefs on as many as 15 percent of all U.S. adults. That comprises “atheists, agnostics, skeptics and freethinkers, none of whom possess a belief in a god,” according to the lawsuit.
“It really is a Judeo-Christian endorsement by our government, and so Lungren is wrong,” said Dan Barker of Madison, Wis. , a co-president of the foundation. “Lungren and others are pro-religious, and they want to actually use the machinery of government to promote their particular private religious views. That is unconstitutional, and that’s what we’re asking the court to decide.”
The Senate has approved a similar plan introduced by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina . The congressional directive orders the Capitol architect to make the changes in the design of the $621 million center, which opened last December.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation , which has 13,500 members, sued in U.S. District Court in Wisconsin . It alleges that Congress is trying to make belief in God synonymous with citizenship and “discouraging nonbelief” among Americans, a contention that Lungren rejects.
Lungren said that the phrase “In God We Trust ” had a long history and was consistent with the beliefs of America’s founding fathers. He also said that the Declaration of Independence referred to rights given by a creator.
Lungren, a former California attorney general, said that while the proposed engravings incorporated religious references, they didn’t violate the Constitution.
“What we’re doing is making a specific historical reference to the beginnings of this republic,” he said. “To ignore this or to forbid this statement or something like it to appear is to distort history. . . . We’re not trying to change history. We’re trying to enshrine history in the Capitol Visitor Center .” Barker said history was better left to others.
“It’s not the job of our government and our government buildings to do that,” he said. “Historians can point out that many of our founders were indeed religious. But saying ‘In God We Trust’ in the visitors center of the Capitol is not just some historical reference. It’s actually government speaking for all of us Americans.” Barker said the foundation had been waiting for the right case to challenge “In God We Trust .”
said government actions could be challenged on state-church grounds if they had specific religious agendas. In this case, he said, backers of Lungren’s plan have provided “the smoking guns” by giving specific, overt religious reasons for doing the engraving.
Barker said that atheists regarded the phrase “In God We Trust ” as rude, uncivil and un-American.
“Tens of millions of really good Americans don’t believe in God,” he said. “In fact, there’s many more nonbelievers than there are Jews, and we wouldn’t think of offending Jews on our national monuments. . . . Why is it wrong to offend a Jewish minority but it’s not wrong to offend those of us who serve in the military and sit on juries but we don’t believe in God?”
He said no hearing had been set. Lungren is confident that a federal judge will allow the engraving to proceed.
“I never thought I’d see the day when someone would sue to stop us putting in the United States Capitol a statement of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance,” he said. “Suggesting that the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto is un-American in some way — talk about turning ideas on their heads.”
MORE FROM MCCLATCHY /Sacramento Bee
16 Cody Quirk // Jul 19, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Don,
You sound like an atheistic fascist.
The squealing about seperation of Church/State is always overblown in order to fit the atheist/humanist agenda of removing ALL religious symbols and religion from the public eye and destoring religious liberty in America and the world.
17 tab // Jul 20, 2009 at 1:52 am
The squealing about seperation of Church/State is always overblown in order to fit the atheist/humanist agenda of removing ALL religious symbols and religion from the public eye and destoring religious liberty in America and the world.
So you wouldn’t mind putting In God, Buddha, Allah, Zeus, etc. on the dollar as to not favor one religion over another?
18 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 20, 2009 at 2:03 am
Cody: this is a political site, you are a loose cannon that party leader after party leader has to apologize for your inappropriate behavior, to the point where Chris is no longer your partner.
Religious liberty? Great, on your own time and off of government property, secular government property!
My back ground is none of your bees wax. [And you would be so surprised .....]
19 Melty // Jul 20, 2009 at 7:40 am
Did Onan violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he tossed off? How bout Pee Wee Herman?
20 Melty // Jul 20, 2009 at 7:45 am
tab, I like your equal opportunity dieties notion, and would love to see it artfully implemented! Skip Muhammed though.
21 Melty // Jul 20, 2009 at 7:49 am
Oh . . . and put Jesus on it too, but don’t make m out to be a long wavy haired blue eyed whitey . . . save that for Odin.
22 Cody Quirk // Jul 20, 2009 at 11:23 am
So you wouldn’t mind putting In God, Buddha, Allah, Zeus, etc. on the dollar as to not favor one religion over another?
= There is no religious figure on the dollar or any current American curracy, FYI.
‘In God We Trust’ takes care of your suggestion.
23 Cody Quirk // Jul 20, 2009 at 11:30 am
Cody: this is a political site, you are a loose cannon that party leader after party leader has to apologize for your inappropriate behavior, to the point where Chris is no longer your partner.
= I am indeed a loose cannon somewhat, but nobody has had to apologize for me. BTW, Chris was the one that went off the deep end and pissed off the IAP with his rants and behavior, get your facts straight!
Religious liberty? Great, on your own time and off of government property, secular government property!
= One problem, our government is NOT 100% secular. We have opening prayers before a congressional or legislative session starts, when we are elected, we swear on the Bible. In the US Constitution, it has the phrase “In the Year of Our Lord”. And FYI, to take anything religious out of our government would be a violation of the 1st Amendment and a infringement upon the exercise of Religious Liberty.
Get REAL Don!
24 scatterbrain // Jul 20, 2009 at 11:35 am
“…all of America’s legal documents–including the U.S. Constitution–are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law.”
I think I can assume that Baldwin has never read the Treaty of Tripoli…
25 CQIAP // Jul 20, 2009 at 11:41 am
It said that America wasn’t founded on the Christian religion, NOT that it wasn’t founded upon ANY religious principles.
26 paulie // Jul 20, 2009 at 11:50 am
Yes, that’s a problem.
Yep, that should all be done away with immediately, if not sooner.
ROFL. That’s really stretching to get religion into the constitution.
Absolutely not. In fact, quite the opposite: having religion in government is an establishment of religion, exactly what the Amendment confirmed government should not be doing.
27 paulie // Jul 20, 2009 at 11:52 am
“In God We Trust” was added in the 1950s in response to silly paranoia about atheistic communism. It should be removed forthwith. Furthermore, there is no good reason whatsoever to have monopoly money, and lots of good reasons to open the market in currency issuing to free market competition.
28 paulie // Jul 20, 2009 at 11:56 am
Religion remains very much in the public eye without being advanced by the Satanic state.
What’s more, any religion which is promoted by the regime is thereby bastardized and blasphemed, unless that religion is satanism.
29 Michael Seebeck // Jul 20, 2009 at 1:08 pm
One point to clarify paulie being 100% right @26 and @27:
“In God We Trust” is a very slight variation of Psalm 91:2.
Therefore we’ve putting a Bible quote on our money.
Seems to me to be a pretty clear SOCAS violation.
Besides, “E pluribus unum” is much better anyway.
30 Michael Seebeck // Jul 20, 2009 at 1:12 pm
However, paulie gets the “under God” in the Pledge mixed up with “In God We Trust” on the money. The former was done in the 1954 as paulie says. The latter started back in the 1860s with the 2-cent coin in 1864. It appeared first on paper money in the 1957 $1 silver certificate.
Just minor details. The thrust of it is spot on.
31 Steven R Linnabary // Jul 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm
… when we are elected, we swear on the Bible…
Actually, we can use ANYTHING we want when we are sworn. I seriously doubt that any of the many persons of the Judaic faith use the Bible at their swearing ceremonies.
Indeed, last year one elected Congressman from Minnesota used the Holy Koran! It was in fact the copy of the Holy Koran that was borrowed from the collection of Thomas Jefferson.
As a matter of fact, some religious orders prohibit “swearing”, and those persons are allowed to “avow” to uphold the US Constitution.
PEACE
32 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 20, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Thank you Steve! So many of the alternative organization types are running on primarily passion and are very spotty on the details, including such gems as:
“How many years for a Congress Member’s term in the House of Representatives?”
——— Amazing the folks that slept thru Civics. Lots of alternative political types have not a clue! Every two years for the house FOR ALL REPRESENTATIVES. About one third of the US Senators every two years, for six year terms!
As mentioned by others, Under God, In God We Trust, military chaplins, public meeting benedictions, ten commandments [10 suggestions ?????] on the wall are all, like political parties, post Constitutional inventions. You know, like the [so called] Constitutional Party?
Any religious reference is some religious reference!
As a Christian, I DO NOT WANT theological, spiritual, religious propaganda on nasty bad stuff like the Federal Reserve monopoly money! Doesn’t Cody’s icons deserve better than that?
And Cody, I have had MANY personal meetings and telephone conversations about other pols reaction to your energetic rants. So Chris did not finally throw his hands up in disgust?
33 tab // Jul 20, 2009 at 7:25 pm
here is no religious figure on the dollar or any current American curracy, FYI.
‘In God We Trust’ takes care of your suggestion.
False. Not everyone believes in a God or the Christian concept of God which is what that statement clearly refers to.
“In God We Trust” was added in the 1950s in response to silly paranoia about atheistic communism.
It is hilarious to see how many Christians actually believe the statement was on the original dollar or that the original pledge contained words “under god.”
34 paulie // Jul 20, 2009 at 7:43 pm
The pledge itself was a latter day invention. For historical details see
http://rexcurry.net
35 paulie // Jul 20, 2009 at 7:47 pm
It is hilarious to see how many Christians actually believe the statement was on the original dollar or that the original pledge contained words “under god.”
BTW Palin is a good example of that.
And getting back to the original topic, an even better takes on Romans 13 and some other passages……..
http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf
36 pdsa // Jul 20, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Mik Robertson #1 – Please refrain from implying that your heretical trinitarianism is an essential element of Christianity, rather than the blasphemous dogma forced down all of Christianity’s throat at the point of a sword after First Council of Nicaea, by a faction of pure-pro-politiking Bishops, led by the evil dwarf, Athanasius, which turned The Pure Early Church into Satan’s Whore in pagan ritual of Ecumenicalism.
———————————-{
“No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority.”
Thomas Jefferson; Letter To James Smith; December 8, 1822
}———————————-
37 Mik Robertson // Jul 21, 2009 at 1:03 am
@36 “Please refrain from implying that your heretical trinitarianism is an essential element of Christianity, rather than the blasphemous dogma forced down all of Christianity’s throat at the point of a sword after First Council of Nicaea, by a faction of pure-pro-politiking Bishops, led by the evil dwarf, Athanasius, which turned The Pure Early Church into Satan’s Whore in pagan ritual of Ecumenicalism.”
I think the “Pure Early Church” was in fact many little factional churches. Certainly the ideas of Jesus’ brother James of the Jerusalem Church differed from those of Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus). That’s not to mention the various Gnostic sects that had varying degrees of Christian thought in them.
I think one of the things the Emperor Constantine wanted was to recognize the Christian Church, but he wanted one Catholic (universal) Church, not a bunch of factions who spent a lot of time fighting with each other. Thus the Council in 325 AD to hammer out the differences and come up with something the Emperor could work with. If I recall correctly, one of the things the council voted on was the divinity of Jesus Christ, and I don’t think it was a unanimous vote.
The council was able to cobble together a religion the Emperor could include, but that doesn’t mean the various other Christian factions disappeared. It took another 1,000 years for the Catholic Church to finally wipe most of them out.
So really, Ron Paul was sort of acting like Constantine when in the last presidential race he brought all the candidates from the different factions of alternative parties together to show that they are all really the same. Well, almost all of them, anyhow.
Maybe the alternative parties will take heed and lay their differences aside. Maybe they will even unite under the Fringe Alliance and begin a 1,000-year reign, Amen.
38 Melty // Jul 21, 2009 at 2:25 am
yeah, even as a child I was offended by the “In God We Trust” on the money
39 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 21, 2009 at 3:28 am
Melty: me too, and the pledge, WITH OUT THE PHRASE ‘under God’ was first coined by a Socialist Pro Union Baptist in 1892! ‘Under God ‘was put on six decades later!
40 paulie // Jul 21, 2009 at 4:41 am
Which god do the monopoly money masters trust in?
Clue: That eye on top of the Egyptian pyramid…that ain’t Jesus or IHVH, folks.
LOL, and some “Christians” think it’s their God? Sorry, folks, you got punk’d
41 Nate // Jul 21, 2009 at 5:03 am
“Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors.”
Really, even Judas? And here I thought he killed himself…
Paulie:
“Religion remains very much in the public eye without being advanced by the Satanic state.
What’s more, any religion which is promoted by the regime is thereby bastardized and blasphemed, unless that religion is satanism.”
Satanism, for the most part, is one of the more tolerant religions. There are different groups which claim to be “satanists”, some of which as insane as more conventional religions, but LaVeyan Satanists, for example, tend to be decent folk. Please don’t insult them by claiming they are linked to the government.
42 paulie // Jul 21, 2009 at 5:49 am
Nate,
Satanism deletes the last part of “do whatever you want if it harms none” and makes it into “do whatever you want.” I won’t discuss to what extent literal Satanists are in the top levels of the pyramid (all the closer to Sauron’s eye), as such topics easily veer off into unprovable conspiracy theories. But “do unto others first lest they do unto you” seems to be the operative credo of the ruling pyramid cult, and as William Blake once said, they worship Satan and call him Jesus and IHVH.
43 mdh // Jul 21, 2009 at 6:52 am
Actually, Satanism as per LaVey is more about the necessary other side of the non-aggression principle. Satanism does not in any way condone the initiation of force and in fact in many places is visibly against it and tends to agree with the NAP.
What Satanism provides however is a clear and uncompromising principle which in fact complements the NAP – the principle that one should never let anyone get away with initiating force against them!
44 mdh // Jul 21, 2009 at 6:55 am
LaVey was a better philosopher than most, and a half-way palettable author. His books definitely have some good insight, and I’d say overall his philosophies lean in a relatively libertarian direction.
45 mdh // Jul 21, 2009 at 7:05 am
On another note, I think having “in god we trust” on the US dollar is a good idea – after all, there’s nothing else backing it as a currency.
46 paulie // Jul 21, 2009 at 7:25 am
Matt,
As I said, I’m not talking about LaVeyan PR in using the term Satanism here. The type of satanism the regime adheres to is much more like the satanism of Christian demonology.
Off topic: car is fully loaded and ready to go as soon as my driver is ready. I’d like to work out that one last detail I mentioned at the end of lunch yesterday, if we can do that fast. I’ll give you a call shortly.
47 mdh // Jul 21, 2009 at 7:35 am
Well, the term Satanism is commonly used to describe LaVey’s philosophy.
Generally when speaking of Crowley’s adherents or other Christians who simply worship the devil, I use the term Christian devil worshippers. This is appropriate, descriptive, and much better, imho. To actually worship the devil, one must believe in Christian mythology and hence for all intents and purposes be a Christian. Satanism does not require (and in fact explicitly rejects) belief in Christian mythology.
48 paulie // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:28 am
Well, the term Satanism is commonly used to describe LaVey’s philosophy.
It predated and postdated him significantly. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism
49 mdh // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:37 am
And liberal once meant libertarian. Times change and terms change.
50 paulie // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 am
And can again, now that the people who appropriated the term liberal no longer want it while neocons and dixiecrats alike wish to now be called libertarian.
Obviously. You don’t think I inferred otherwise, do you?
51 Cody Quirk // Jul 21, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Absolutely not. In fact, quite the opposite: having religion in government is an establishment of religion, exactly what the Amendment confirmed government should not be doing.
= By doing just that, it’s prohibiting the free exercise thereof; the 1st Amendment says the Congress cannot respect the establishment of religion, nor can they prohibit it. So that government has no right to regulate religious freedom or expression whether by members of Congress or the public. Unless we want to get toltalitarian on the matter.
“In God We Trust” was added in the 1950s in response to silly paranoia about atheistic communism. It should be removed forthwith. Furthermore, there is no good reason whatsoever to have monopoly money, and lots of good reasons to open the market in currency issuing to free market competition.
= The motto was in U.S. curracy from time to time before the 50’s, especially during the civil war.
Religion remains very much in the public eye without being advanced by the Satanic state.
= Old habits die hard, especially when we’re talking about anti-religious regimes such as the USSR and China; religion simply went underground.
What’s more, any religion which is promoted by the regime is thereby bastardized and blasphemed, unless that religion is satanism.
= You do have a good point here. That’s why I’m NOT a Republican and I hate Huckabee.
52 Cody Quirk // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:16 pm
“In God We Trust” is a very slight variation of Psalm 91:2.
Therefore we’ve putting a Bible quote on our money.
= Depending on how you interprit it, but in the verse, it also refers to God as ‘him’ or a male figure, while the motto does not.
So I disagree with your argument.
53 Cody Quirk // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Actually, we can use ANYTHING we want when we are sworn. I seriously doubt that any of the many persons of the Judaic faith use the Bible at their swearing ceremonies.
= Either or, they are religious scriptures that you take an oath by.
54 Cody Quirk // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:22 pm
And Cody, I have had MANY personal meetings and telephone conversations about other pols reaction to your energetic rants. So Chris did not finally throw his hands up in disgust?
= Yeah, ET must be crying over my statements about Tampa. LOL!
And again you can’t get your facts straight, the solid majority of the IAP threw up their hands in disgust at Chris last year when he started saying outrageous things on the old Party website, including rants about the “Mormon Mafia”, I got disgusted myself in his idotic actions.
So get your facts straight from now on Don, because you’re saying things that cannot be backed up here.
55 Cody Quirk // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:30 pm
False. Not everyone believes in a God or the Christian concept of God which is what that statement clearly refers to.
= Too bad, they may have the right to worship, speak of, and live their beliefs and views however they please in this Country, but they don’t have the right to shove their beliefs down our throuts or make it official policy without the majority’s consent.
Even in a true Republican form of government, the minority may always have rights and freedoms, but the majority always rules, that’s how it is.
Another thing, since some people think atheism is a religion and some humanist groups use atheism in a religious manner, wouldn’t our government be adopting the religion of atheism if we get rid of all religious belief and mentioning any higher power in government?
56 Cody Quirk // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:31 pm
It is hilarious to see how many Christians actually believe the statement was on the original dollar or that the original pledge contained words “under god.”
= See Post 51
57 Cody Quirk // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Well, looks like my articles are encouraging a lot of interesting debate and attention!
You’re Welcome IPR.
58 Michael Seebeck // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Disagree all you want, Cody, but the fact remains. Gender is irrelevant.
59 Cody Quirk // Jul 21, 2009 at 9:25 pm
…Or as Bill O’Reilly puts it ‘agree to disagree’.
60 Cody Quirk // Jul 21, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Well, looks like my articles are encouraging a lot of interesting debate and attention!
…That and my views too.
61 Cody Quirk // Jul 21, 2009 at 9:34 pm
However, I do add that in my own religious views, gender IS relevent to the Nature and Orgin of God.
62 Erik Geib // Jul 21, 2009 at 10:08 pm
You don’t have to take the oath on a religious scripture; some have done it on the Constitution. Many choose to do so on a religious scripture out of tradition.
“In God We Trust” and “One Nation, Under God” are not in any original documents. Any reference to a ‘Creator’ was made out of appeasement to idiots for poetic purposes, but still by no means implies an active Judeo-Chrisitan god. The founders were largely deists and agnostics (look up the popularity of Paine’s ‘The Age of Reason’).
You also appear to misunderstand a republican form of government – it’s supposed to be ‘majority rule with minority consent’ – not the tyranny of the majority you endorse (and our founders were deathly afraid of). You need to re-read your Jefferson and Madison.
Cultural socialists are equally as repugnant as economic ones – hopefully someday you’ll hear the statist lunacy in what you preach.
63 libertariangirl // Jul 21, 2009 at 11:12 pm
must be talking about Chris Hansen , havent heard hide nor hair of him lately although I do have a copy of his book THE TESTAMENT.
64 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 22, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Chris [Nevada] put up [he said numerous times to me personally on the tele phone] with Cody’s tangential comments, which, Budda Bless him, is free to make, no matter how inappropriate, due to Cody’s go go attitude ! And the ‘Morman Mafia’ is code name for …………
Mimicked by a half dozen folks in California ………
65 tab // Jul 22, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Too bad, they may have the right to worship, speak of, and live their beliefs and views however they please in this Country, but they don’t have the right to shove their beliefs down our throuts or make it official policy without the majority’s consent.
Irony anyone?
You already quoted the 1st amendment. Putting “In God We Trust” is government giving preference to one religion over another.
Since the courts already declared atheism to be a religion (which it isn’t) then you are bias against atheists.
66 CQIAP // Jul 22, 2009 at 11:25 pm
“In God We Trust” and “One Nation, Under God” are not in any original documents.
= “In the Year of Our Lord” is in the US Constitution, as I said before. God is of course mentioned more then once in the Declaration of Independence.
And the full-length Star Spangeled Banner mentions “In God is our trust”.
Any reference to a ‘Creator’ was made out of appeasement to idiots for poetic purposes, but still by no means implies an active Judeo-Chrisitan god.
= So all men are NOT endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
= Yeah, I guess “In the Year of Our Lord” isn’t Judeo-Christian at all.
The founders were largely deists and agnostics (look up the popularity of Paine’s ‘The Age of Reason’).
=Not all, and many still spoke favoribly of religion, while condemning the superiority of one religious faith over another.
67 Erik Geib // Jul 22, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“In the Year of our Lord” was commonspeak, even among the non-religious. This does not a Christian heritage make.
“The Star Spangled Banner” was written well after the Revolution. You’re really bad at this whole ‘research’ aspect of debating, aren’t you?
‘Creator’ does not imply a Christian god, or even a god at all (at least not necessarily; we could argue semantics all day, however). It was just a clever way of appeasing the masses without actually saying much of anything at all. It still doesn’t make our nation of Judeo-Christian heritage.
You seem to be repeatedly making the classic mistake of confusing government and society. Just because society was largely consisting of Christians, it does not mean the government is of Christian heritage.
68 tab // Jul 22, 2009 at 11:42 pm
“In the Year of Our Lord” is in the US Constitution, as I said before. God is of course mentioned more then once in the Declaration of Independence.
And the full-length Star Spangeled Banner mentions “In God is our trust”.
Any reference to a ‘Creator’ was made out of appeasement to idiots for poetic purposes, but still by no means implies an active Judeo-Chrisitan god.
This is honestly some of the worst attempts to skew the actual historical facts that I’ve ever seen.
Please point out the references to God in the Declaration. “Nature’s God” and “divinity” do not necessarily mean God.
So all men are NOT endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
“THIER” being the keyword.
Yeah, I guess “In the Year of Our Lord” isn’t Judeo-Christian at all.
That is how dates were kept so I don’t really see how that means we were built on Christianity. I still say BC and AD.
69 CQIAP // Jul 22, 2009 at 11:54 pm
You also appear to misunderstand a republican form of government – it’s supposed to be ‘majority rule with minority consent’ – not the tyranny of the majority you endorse (and our founders were deathly afraid of). You need to re-read your Jefferson and Madison.
= They believed in ‘majority rule’ as well.
“The will of the people… is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801
“The measures of the fair majority… ought always to be respected.”
–Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792
“[We acknowledge] the principle that the majority must give the law.”
–Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788
“This… [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law.”
–Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786
“The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail.”
–Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809
“The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided.”
–Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800
“[A]ll power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.
That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people;
which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property,
and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right
to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse
or inadequate to the purpose of its institution.”
–James Madison
Cultural socialists are equally as repugnant as economic ones – hopefully someday you’ll hear the statist lunacy in what you preach.
= The complete bias and hatred of religious freedom, and Christianity, that you spew is itself statist and collectivist.
70 CQIAP // Jul 22, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Chris [Nevada] put up [he said numerous times to me personally on the tele phone] with Cody’s tangential comments, which, Budda Bless him, is free to make, no matter how inappropriate, due to Cody’s go go attitude ! And the ‘Morman Mafia’ is code name for …………
= You actually believe Chris over me and the rest of the IAP?
HAHAHAHAHA! What a maroon!
71 CQIAP // Jul 23, 2009 at 12:01 am
You already quoted the 1st amendment. Putting “In God We Trust” is government giving preference to one religion over another.
Since the courts already declared atheism to be a religion (which it isn’t) then you are bias against atheists.
= So if you’re taking the side that atheism is a ‘religion’, then we would be upholding one religion (atheism), or another (Judeo-Christianity, or monotheism) if we get rid of that motto from our currancy.
Even if atheism isn’t a religion, its still a belief nevertheless, and government would be adopting the belief of atheism by getting rid of all religious displays and expression from the government and public grounds.
So its almost like a double edged sword.
Think about it.
72 CQIAP // Jul 23, 2009 at 12:08 am
“In the Year of our Lord” was commonspeak, even among the non-religious. This does not a Christian heritage make.
= Yet a Christian phrase that was spoken by all. Kinda like with you say ‘Jesus Christ!’ as a shocked exclaimation, or ‘God-dammit’ as a swear word. It’s still comes from Christianity, whether you like it or not, and still is in our Constitution.
“The Star Spangled Banner” was written well after the Revolution. You’re really bad at this whole ‘research’ aspect of debating, aren’t you?
= Yet it came when our nation was young and starting out. You really are bad at trying to portray our orgional government as secular humanistic.
‘Creator’ does not imply a Christian god, or even a god at all (at least not necessarily; we could argue semantics all day, however).
= Yes it does, or do you think the founding fathers thought that people were made like toys from a more superior man?
It was just a clever way of appeasing the masses without actually saying much of anything at all. It still doesn’t make our nation of Judeo-Christian heritage.
= Would you like me to give all those quotes from the founding fathers?
You seem to be repeatedly making the classic mistake of confusing government and society. Just because society was largely consisting of Christians, it does not mean the government is of Christian heritage.
= Our government may not have been necessarly founded on Christianity in general, but it is founded on some Christian principles, no doubt.
73 Erik Geib // Jul 23, 2009 at 12:35 am
Let’s dissect this one by one, shall we?
@69:
I can see you can Google ‘majority quote.’ And yet, even taken out of context as these are, they still do nothing to dismantle the fact that they stated it was for the purpose of ‘majority rule with minority consent.’ This does not give your notion of 51% tyranny anymore credibility than it had (or didn’t) before.
Moreover, I’ve never once ’spewed’ hate towards religious freedom. I encourage religious freedom. You seem to completely misunderstand the notion, however. Freedom means your tyrannical majority must respect my minority rights by not having taking official stances through the hand of government. By explicitly endorsing Christian ideology you propose, through government, not to respect those who disagree with you (by using their tax dollars for statements of your belief). Your statements are the opposite of freedom.
You can display as much as you want via provate enterprise – that way others aren’t forced via government to fund and endorse your beliefs.
74 Erik Geib // Jul 23, 2009 at 12:39 am
@71:
First of all, atheism isn’t a religion. But for the sake of argument, say it is.
Government items would have to say ‘in no god we trust’ to be an endorsement of atheism. Being religiously neutral (by mentioning no religion at all) does not promote or endorse atheism – it promotes and endorses nothing.
[For the record, I don't consider myself an 'atheist' either]
75 Erik Geib // Jul 23, 2009 at 12:54 am
@72:
So I suppose if I use the phrase “1972 AD” I’m endorsing Christianity too? Hardly. It just means I’m speaking in a manner that communicates to others in a way they can understand. And exclaiming ‘Jesus Christ!’ does not, and would not, make something of government matter. Again, you confuse society and government, particularly on the issue of heritage (perhaps you should brush up Ón your Bastiat).
The “Star Spangled Banner” was written during the War of 1812, hardly during our foundation, and wasn’t written by a founder of government, but by an ordinary citizen. Moreover, it was not immediately adopted as our national anthem. Additionally, you had to go to the full-length version, which is not what is commonly sung, nor am I sure that the full-length version is what is ‘officially’ adopted (compared to, say, what is commonly sung).
‘Creator’ can imply many things without being a Judeo-Christian god. It can be ‘god’ in the sense of existence, like Eastern philosophies preach; it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (‘pasta be thy name’). The point is, Creator does not necessarily equal God (‘God’ being the Judeo-Christian god), and therefore does not place a preference or state a heritage of one religion over another.
Finally, once again, *people* having a Christian heritage does not mean the government has a Christian heritage. Moreover, as stated, many of said people were deists and humanists rather than Christians. Our *society* certainly has a Christian heritage – our *government* does not. It doesn’t matter if those serving in government were Christians (which, again, many weren’t), because they’re part of society.
If Muslims build a park, does it make the park a Muslim park? Not necessarily. The park would have to be stated as being a Muslim park. Otherwise, it’s just a park that happened to be created by Muslims.
76 Michael Seebeck // Jul 23, 2009 at 1:32 am
Erik, well said all around.
I never understood why we have a redone beer hall song as our national anthem…
77 paulie // Jul 23, 2009 at 8:34 am
Huh? Why would it uphold atheism? It wouldn’t say you can’t believe in God, multiple Gods, or no God(s). The government has no business taking any position on the issue.
78 paulie // Jul 23, 2009 at 8:38 am
Thought about it. Your argument makes no sense.
You still have the right to have any religious displays you want on your own property, but you should not be allowed to force me to subsidize your religion. Why do you need religious displays on government property? Is God somehow diminished by not receiving donations collected under the threat of duress (taxes)? God gave us free will, so that is actually contrary to the religion you say you follow.
Do you want Atheist and Satanist displays on government property also?
79 paulie // Jul 23, 2009 at 8:48 am
Absolutely not. In fact, quite the opposite: having religion in government is an establishment of religion, exactly what the Amendment confirmed government should not be doing.
= By doing just that, it’s prohibiting the free exercise thereof; the 1st Amendment says the Congress cannot respect the establishment of religion, nor can they prohibit it. So that government has no right to regulate religious freedom or expression whether by members of Congress or the public. Unless we want to get toltalitarian on the matter.
Members of Congress certainly have, and should continue to have, freedom of religion. What they should not have is the right to express their religion with other people’s money.
Members of Congress should also not be allowed to use the public treasury to funnel money to their political parties, although of course they should have the personal right to belong to them and to express their beliefs.
Do you understand the difference?
80 paulie // Jul 23, 2009 at 8:50 am
Well, looks like my articles are encouraging a lot of interesting debate and attention!
You’re Welcome IPR.
Perhaps they are, but I posted this article here.
81 paulie // Jul 23, 2009 at 8:51 am
Even in a true Republican form of government, the minority may always have rights and freedoms, but the majority always rules, that’s how it is.
That’s why I prefer individual sovereignty over Republican government.
82 Michael H. Wilson // Jul 23, 2009 at 9:16 am
One of the reasons for the seperation of religion and the state is not to keep religion out of state business, but to keep the state out of the religion business. If we decide that this is a Christian nation then we get to play whose Christian religion. I’ll bet you dollars to doughnut that there are a lot of people who don’t want my Christian religion being the state religion.
83 Cody Quirk // Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I can see you can Google ‘majority quote.’ And yet, even taken out of context as these are, they still do nothing to dismantle the fact that they stated it was for the purpose of ‘majority rule with minority consent.’ This does not give your notion of 51% tyranny anymore credibility than it had (or didn’t) before.
=According to your interpretation, though some may disagree.
Moreover, I’ve never once ’spewed’ hate towards religious freedom.
= You seem to spew hate towards religious expression by government officials, and anything religiously said, acted, engraved upon, written, drawn, etc. by people in the government and government institutions.
I encourage religious freedom.
= Except the expression of it in public land, and you seem ethusiatic in doing away with it from anything related to the government.
You seem to completely misunderstand the notion, however. Freedom means your tyrannical majority must respect my minority rights by not having taking official stances through the hand of government.
= That is not ‘respecting minority rights’, rather it is a small intolerant minority having a chokehold on what the government can express or say. It sounds more like the minority has more power then the majority in controlling what the government does and say.
And yet the only governments besides us that I know of that have done away with all religious symbols and expression from their institutions are the various Soviet governments and other toltalitarianistic nations
By explicitly endorsing Christian ideology you propose, through government, not to respect those who disagree with you (by using their tax dollars for statements of your belief). Your statements are the opposite of freedom.
= If that’s ‘religious intolerance’ or ‘religious persecution’ to you, then I laugh at your paranoia.
Rather doing away with the long held religious symbols, icons, and expression that have been in our government since the colonial era is the opposite of freedom.
BTW, remember that the solid majority of taxpayers are practicing christians and others that are openingly religious, so I think a good majority of them wouldn’t object to their dollars going to something that they believe in.
You can display as much as you want via provate enterprise – that way others aren’t forced via government to fund and endorse your beliefs.
= So what are your views of a non-profit church group holding a short service in front of a courthouse or government building, on government property? Would you oppose something like that?
84 Cody Quirk // Jul 27, 2009 at 9:53 pm
First of all, atheism isn’t a religion. But for the sake of argument, say it is.
Government items would have to say ‘in no god we trust’ to be an endorsement of atheism.
= Then again, it can also NOT have anything religious on the items, that would also be an endorsement of atheism, just like a Ten-Commandments monument being a endorsement of Christianity. The expression of atheism can actually be more broader then simply saying “There is No God”
Being religiously neutral (by mentioning no religion at all) does not promote or endorse atheism – it promotes and endorses nothing.
= I know plenty of people that would disagree with your take on that.
[For the record, I don't consider myself an 'atheist' either]
= Neither do I advocate for Theocracy or for one religion infringing upon the rights of others, but I oppose censoring and prohibiting ANY religious expression and freedom, since that would be the opposite totalitarian extreme.
85 paulie // Jul 27, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Cody, once again:
Members of Congress certainly have, and should continue to have, freedom of religion. What they should not have is the right to express their religion with other people’s money.
Members of Congress should also not be allowed to use the public treasury to funnel money to their political parties, although of course they should have the personal right to belong to them and to express their beliefs.
Do you understand the difference?
86 Cody Quirk // Jul 27, 2009 at 10:12 pm
So I suppose if I use the phrase “1972 AD” I’m endorsing Christianity too?
= Well, it certainly has Christian orgins.
Hardly. It just means I’m speaking in a manner that communicates to others in a way they can understand. And exclaiming ‘Jesus Christ!’ does not, and would not, make something of government matter. Again, you confuse society and government, particularly on the issue of heritage (perhaps you should brush up Ón your Bastiat).
= Then can you tell me just who this ‘Lord’ guy is that the phrase is reffering to?
BTW, the phrase was also very common back then because people at that time were more religious. The JC exclamation you stated is also from the influence of Christianity, just like how middle easterners say ‘Allah be praised’ as a public expression that of course comes from the Muslim religion.
The “Star Spangled Banner” was written during the War of 1812, hardly during our foundation, and wasn’t written by a founder of government, but by an ordinary citizen.
= Yet it became our official national athem later on… By the Government.
Moreover, it was not immediately adopted as our national anthem.
= Yet its been our national athem for a long time, and I believe that our previous national athems had religious language in the lyrics as well.
Additionally, you had to go to the full-length version, which is not what is commonly sung, nor am I sure that the full-length version is what is ‘officially’ adopted (compared to, say, what is commonly sung).
= The whole version isn’t commonly sung because it can be too long. Even at my Church, the SSB is included in our Hymnbooks and sometimes we sing only half of the whole song in order to shorten the time of the meeting, or service.
‘Creator’ can imply many things without being a Judeo-Christian god.
= I have to admit that you could be right on this part, even though I believe the founders were speaking of the Christian/Jewish God.
It can be ‘god’ in the sense of existence, like Eastern philosophies preach; it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (’pasta be thy name’). The point is, Creator does not necessarily equal God (’God’ being the Judeo-Christian god), and therefore does not place a preference or state a heritage of one religion over another.
= Yet it still refferences a higher, perhaps spiritual power, and seems to offend the militant atheist.
And I do not believe that any of the founding fathers believed in the ‘Flying Spagetti Monster’.
Finally, once again, *people* having a Christian heritage does not mean the government has a Christian heritage.
= But a lot of Judeo-Christian notions and Principles also play a role in the function of government and congress.
Moreover, as stated, many of said people were deists and humanists rather than Christians.
=Yet opposed removing any religious expression from government.
Our *society* certainly has a Christian heritage – our *government* does not.
It does have, or I should say previously had, certain principles in government that related to the Judeo-Christian belief.
It doesn’t matter if those serving in government were Christians (which, again, many weren’t), because they’re part of society.
= Yet the overwheming majority of them believed in a high power, still.
87 Cody Quirk // Jul 27, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Huh? Why would it uphold atheism? It wouldn’t say you can’t believe in God, multiple Gods, or no God(s). The government has no business taking any position on the issue.
= But then again, since the expression is on the currency, removing it and other religious artifacts would be taking a position on the issue.
Since atheism doesn’t believe in any kind of religious expression, so that could be interpreted by many as the government bowing to the atheist belief in no god or any kind of higher power.
88 paulie // Jul 27, 2009 at 10:20 pm
But then again, since the expression is on the currency, removing it and other religious artifacts would be taking a position on the issue.
Not at all. If the currency said “In Democrats we Trust” removing it would not be an endorsement of Republicans. Same thing here.
89 Cody Quirk // Jul 27, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Thought about it. Your argument makes no sense.
= Neither does the argument of doing away with religious expression in any part of government a secular libertarian notion, but the opposite of Libertarianism in general.
You still have the right to have any religious displays you want on your own property, but you should not be allowed to force me to subsidize your religion.
= Neither should I have to put up with all the religious and Christian bashing here.
Why do you need religious displays on government property?
= Why do you need to remove them in the first place. It’s almost like the Taliban blowing up those buhddist statues.
Is God somehow diminished by not receiving donations collected under the threat of duress (taxes)?
= if you want to remove icons, language, and anything else on government and public property, it is a attempt to diminish his influence.
God gave us free will, so that is actually contrary to the religion you say you follow.
= Removing anything religious from the government is suppressing free-will of those within it to express their beliefs, and removing other items is supressing the free will and beliefs of the founders.
Do you want Atheist and Satanist displays on government property also?
= Looks like its going that way with people like Michael Newdow getting their way.
90 Cody Quirk // Jul 27, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Members of Congress certainly have, and should continue to have, freedom of religion. What they should not have is the right to express their religion with other people’s money.
= Then they ought to simply have a law that says it can be done on government property, but through private or personal funding. Would that make you happy?
Members of Congress should also not be allowed to use the public treasury to funnel money to their political parties, although of course they should have the personal right to belong to them and to express their beliefs.
Do you understand the difference?
= I understand where you’re coming from, but from the attitude here, it sounds like people are advocating for the government to do more then just prohibit taxpayer funding of anything religious.
91 Cody Quirk // Jul 27, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Perhaps they are, but I posted this article here.
= Yes.
That’s why I prefer individual sovereignty over Republican government
= Getting rid of all the religious aspects in government isn’t a exercise of individual sovereignity, but rather that of secular totalitarianism.
92 Cody Quirk // Jul 27, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Not at all. If the currency said “In Democrats we Trust” removing it would not be an endorsement of Republicans. Same thing here.
= Yet at the same time, such a action would be seen as a benifit to Republicans, since we’re still a two-party system… For now.
93 Trent Hill // Jul 28, 2009 at 12:27 am
Cody,
You’re quite wrong and your arguements are circular. Quit trying to legitimize religion by use of government–it wont work. A religion can only be HARMED by shackling it to the State.
94 Steven R Linnabary // Jul 28, 2009 at 12:47 am
So I suppose if I use the phrase “1972 AD” I’m endorsing Christianity too?
There is no law that states we must use Christian dating. Indeed, many communities use the Judaic calender and others use Muslim years.
There have been others, the French for a short time used Napoleonic years, and Kampuchea for a short time had their own.
You might have noticed that learned people have been using “1972 CE” the past generation or so.
And BCE instead of BC.
They seemed odd to me the first time or two I saw them, but are certainly more inclusive. Even if it is still based on Christian years.
PEACE
95 Donald R Lake // Jul 28, 2009 at 1:49 am
Trent Hill: “Thank you for some sanity!”
BCE as in Before The Common Era
ACE as in After The Common Era ………
Basically the non existent Roman Year Zero!
96 paulie // Jul 28, 2009 at 7:48 am
Libertarianism dictates that people should not be forced to subsidize what they do not agree with. Minimal statist libertarianism posits that the amount to which people are forced to subsidize things against their will should be reduced to the amount they believe is necessary to maintain law and order. To the extent that there remains such a thing as government property, it should not be used to promote the religious or political beliefs of some over others. Lack of religious displays on government property is no more a religious display in itself than lack of partisan political displays would constitute endorsement of – what? No party membership? Not voting?
What Christian bashing? I’m reasonably sure that some of the people you think are “bashing” Christians would consider themselves Christians as well, where as others aren’t but have no interest in bashing anyone. Furthermore, I’ve already provided sources to demonstrate that mixing church and state goes against Christian teachings, if you go back to their source.
Not even close. The Buddhist statues were ancient relics and part of the world’s architectural heritage. I have no idea whether they were on private property. but even if they weren’t, no one could reasonably interpret that they constituted any attempt by the Afghani government to identify with or promote Buddhism, given that there are virtually no Buddhists in Afghanistan today. Similarly, no one interprets government symbols which harken back to, for instance, ancient Greek and Roman religion as being some attempt to reinstitutionalize the worship of the Greek or Roman pantheons. And to demonstrate that Christianity is not being singled out, no one (except apparently you) thinks using “AD” and “BC” constitutes some Christian practice in today’s society. On the other hand, everyone including the people doing it understands and acknowledges that putting up Christian displays on government property is a conscious attempt to mix religion and government.
Now that I have answered your deflection, how about answering the original question: Why do you need religious displays on government property?
No it isn’t. God does not need coerced money and stolen property (which all government property is); such things are of the devil.
Absolutely not. Individuals within government always have the free will to express their religion, just as they have the free will to express their political affiliation. They should not, however, be given to express either with other people’s money.
97 paulie // Jul 28, 2009 at 7:53 am
Government property is in and of itself other people’s money.
The attitude, as far as I can tell, is only in your imagination.
98 paulie // Jul 28, 2009 at 7:55 am
How so? Individual sovereignty does not require a monopoly government, much less one that tries to impose a one size fits all solution to religious issues.
99 paulie // Jul 28, 2009 at 8:00 am
The point is that it shouldn’t say “In Democrats We Trust,” “In Republicans We Trust,” “Voting is for Suckers,” “In God We Trust,” “We Trust in Many Gods,” “In Satan We Trust,” “Trust No One But Yourself”…or anything like it. It should simply not address those issues. Of course, if competing private currencies were legal, as they should be, this would not be an issue.
Leave a Comment