Bob vs. Atheist Michael Newdow

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by KurtPh
Oh, and the advocating of any religion other than Christianity was also a criminal offense, though I can't recall whether it was a capital offense or merely required the "criminal" be flogged.

Neither one. Please don't begin your return with slander. Either provide a quote from Enyart or retract your accusation.

Ah, the memories are all coming back.

From some dream you had. They're sure not based in reality.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by the Sibbie

Clete, I have to disagree that a king cannot be convicted.


Here is a set of verses stating a king is not above the law:

Deut. 17:14-20
14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

***

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: [but] in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Lev 19:15

***
Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: Acts 10:34


I'm not sure how you would go about judging/convicting a king or who would do it, but by no means is a king outside of the law.

Well that's just it, you couldn't! Anyone who could would then be the sovereign ruler instead of the king. Don't misunderstand me to be saying that there is some "divine right of kings" or anything like that. The king will answer to God for any injustice for which he is guilty. But while he is king, he cannot be convicted of a crime or even brought up on charges. There is no authority in the land that would be high enough to do it, and even if someone tried, he, as the highest judge, could declare himself not guilty and there would be no appeal beyond him.
There is one thing that would keep the king in check and that is the command of the law for people to disobey any unjust law that the king attempts to pass. Thus civil disobedience toward any laws other than those that God Himself has given would serve to reign in an evil king’s ambition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Granite]

"But while he is king, he cannot be convicted of a crime or even brought up on charges."

Well this is a recipe for disaster...

 

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Well that's just it, you couldn't! Anyone who could would then be the sovereign ruler instead of the king. Don't misunderstand me to be saying that there is some "divine right of kings" or anything like that. The king will answer to God for any injustice for which he is guilty. But while he is king, he cannot be convicted of a crime or even brought up on charges. There is no authority in the land that would be high enough to do it, and even if someone tried, he, as the highest judge, could declare himself not guilty and there would be no appeal beyond him.
There is one thing that would keep the king in check and that is the command of the law for people to disobey any unjust law that the king attempts to pass. Thus civil disobedience toward any laws other than those that God Himself has given would serve to reign in an evil king’s ambition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I still would think that if there are judges under the king, that are not corrupt, they should be able to convict him simply based on the law.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by granite1010

"But while he is king, he cannot be convicted of a crime or even brought up on charges."

Well this is a recipe for disaster...

Perhaps. The only guarantee is that there will be the occational evil king. In fact, evil kings will probably out number the righteous ones. But a constitutional monarchy is the system that God would have us set up and I can say with confidence, based on that one single fact, that there is no better system available to us. Humans are not perfect and any government run by humans will therefore not be perfect either. But any system you could come up with will be worse.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Perhaps. The only guarantee is that there will be the occational evil king. In fact, evil kings will probably out number the righteous ones. But a constitutional monarchy is the system that God would have us set up and I can say with confidence, based on that one single fact, that there is no better system available to us. Humans are not perfect and any government run by humans will therefore not be perfect either. But any system you could come up with will be worse.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I don't recall Israel having anything resembling a "constitution," or parliament, for that matter.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by the Sibbie

I still would think that if there are judges under the king, that are not corrupt, they should be able to convict him simply based on the law.

How would they do it?

The king is a judge himself who has the authority to appeal any verdict of a lower judge. If this were not the case then you would have simply a committee of judges who ruled rather than a king.

I understand why you would be nervous about such a system but that's the way God set it up. There is no better way than God's way, even if it makes us uncomfortable.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[billwald]

"we've let the athiests take over a country that was mainly based on Christian morals!"

Christian morals = Jewish morals.

 

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by billwald

"we've let the athiests take over a country that was mainly based on Christian morals!"

Christian morals = Jewish morals.

Minus, the symbolic law, of course.

 

[billwald]

"remember that Mr. Enyart did say that Michaelangelo's "David" was obscene, as well as any other art form depicting the nude human form, and ought to be destroyed.


You gots to be kidding!

For access to most Reconstructionist theonomist material see

www.freebooks.com

 

[Flipper]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob vs. Atheist Michael Newdow

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob vs. Atheist Michael Newdow

Originally posted by Turbo

What does that have to do with religious freedom?

Not much to do with freedom to worship, but lots to do with freedom from religious laws. After all, Bob Enyart says that homosexuality is damaging society, but lots of people (gay and otherwise) say that it doesn't. Bob can't really demonstrate exactly how it's damaging society but he would still make, say, running a gay club a capital offense.

That's a major encroachment on liberty, and one based largely on an narrow-viewed implementation of religious strictures.

 

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Neither one. Please don't begin your return with slander. Either provide a quote from Enyart or retract your accusation.

Slander? Really?

http://www.kgov.com/errata.html

Death Penalty: As late as the 1990s, while I urged the return to the Bible's death penalty commands, I forgot to rightly divide the Mosaic Law. I should have excluded ordinances that were applicable only to God's national covenant with Israel. Christ replaced the Jewish priesthood, and many of the Jewish laws have also changed. "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law" (Hebrews 7:12). This principle has been an important part of my teachings for 20 years, but I am ashamed that I overlooked it regarding the death penalty (2 Tim. 2:15). I forgot that only in Israel did God outlaw other religions, so for example, their government had authority to prosecute cursings and witchcraft. But since the law changed, God's national covenant with Israel is no longer enforceable. Today's governments should implement the criminal code that is embedded within the Mosaic Law, which God based upon four of the Ten Commandments, prohibiting murder, theft, sexual immorality, and perjury, including the death penalty where appropriate.

From my reading, it appears that Mr. Enyart at one time believed that other religions should outlawed, though he appears to have modified this statement and admits it was an error based upon an omission on his part which he attempts to correct. I didn't actually go quite so far as to claim that Mr. Enyart wants other religions in the United States (under his Constitutional Monarchy) outlawed in my claim. What he did say on his programme that although other religions would be tolerated under a Constitutional Monarchy, that these faiths would be forbidden to prostelitize. Now, if this has changed in the years I've been away, I'd be very interested to know.

Perhaps Mr. Enyart would be kind enough to clarify his stance on this issue himself?

 

[Zakath]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob vs. Atheist Michael Newdow

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob vs. Atheist Michael Newdow

Originally posted by Jefferson

So you're saying that seeing all of that made you think murder is not such a bad idea?

No, I'm saying that working around those conditions up to my armpits in another accident victim's blood and body parts desensitizes me to thinking your avatar represents anything beyond another photo of dead tissue.

From my perspective, dead tissue is just carbon and a few other elements waiting on entropy to place it back into the biocycle.

I don't grieve about corpses for which I can do nothing. I save my energy for the living who can be helped or at least comforted.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by KurtPh

Slander? Really?

Yes, really. Bob had made that adjustment in his theology well before you debated his views here on TOL.

 

[KurtPh]

No,no, no... I'm quite certain that he mentioned more than once on his Internet programme as well as his programme on LeSEA that while he didn't believe in outlawing other religions from operating under a Constitutional Monarchy, that he still believed that attempting to gain new converts to the religion should be a criminal offence. If he's changed his mind on this issue, no one will be happier than I.

 

[Granite]

Without a quote from Enyart this is going nowhere real fast...

 

[cattyfan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob vs. Atheist Michael Newdow

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob vs. Atheist Michael Newdow

Originally posted by Flipper

Bob Enyart says that homosexuality is damaging society, but lots of people (gay and otherwise) say that it doesn't.

plenty of miscreants think their behavior isn't harmful...some even are under the misapprehension their behavior is helpful.

Many pedophiles say they're helping the young "learn how to love." (and before you jump all over me, I am not saying all gays are pedophiles.)

there are thieves who say they're "only taking what society owes them."

there are rapists who say "the woman asked for it, and what's the big deal...just another slice off the loaf."

Just because a reprobate isn't able to acknowledge the damage their behavior inflicts doesn't mean the damage is any less destructive to themselves, to other individuals, or to society.

being intentionally blind to the consequences doesn't excuse someone from blame.

 

[Poly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob vs. Atheist Michael Newdow

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob vs. Atheist Michael Newdow

Originally posted by cattyfan

plenty of miscreants think their behavior isn't harmful...some even are under the misapprehension their behavior is helpful.

Many pedophiles say they're helping the young "learn how to love." (and before you jump all over me, I am not saying all gays are pedophiles.)

there are thieves who say they're "only taking what society owes them."

there are rapists who say "the woman asked for it, and what's the big deal...just another slice off the loaf."

Just because a reprobate isn't able to acknowledge the damage their behavior inflicts doesn't mean the damage is any less destructive to themselves, to other individuals, or to society.

being intentionally blind to the consequences doesn't excuse from blame.

POTD :up: