Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I'm not an anarchist. I believe in Biblically limited government. I don't believe "will of the people" gives you a right to control others.
Militarized Police
- Thread starter Christ's Word
- Start date
I'm not an anarchist. I believe in Biblically limited government. I don't believe "will of the people" gives you a right to control others.
The Founders wrote the Bill of Rights specifically to be sure that it was clear that one's rights are not subject to the will of the people.
They believed that rights are inherent in every human, and that those rights are not subject to the approval of the government.
The courts have quite properly found that restrictions on freedom should can only be justified by a demonstrated compelling public interest in doing so. And I think the courts have tilted too far to the government side.
They believed that rights are inherent in every human, and that those rights are not subject to the approval of the government.
The courts have quite properly found that restrictions on freedom should can only be justified by a demonstrated compelling public interest in doing so. And I think the courts have tilted too far to the government side.
What is "Biblically limited" government?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Before 1 Samuel 8
drbrumley
Well-known member
no doubt
drbrumley
Well-known member
The will of the people crucified Christ, with their shouting "crucify Him." Take your will of the people and stick it.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Yeah, that would be the ideal. Everything done by local towns and very minimal set of enforceable laws. I don't know if the system could precisely be implemented in America because Jewish culture was far more tribally and family based than modern US culture. But a Christian magistrate should certainly never demand more of the people under him than the OT theocracy demanded of his people. I'd demand less, because of the differences between the Old and New Covenants. But, certainly no more.
IMJerusha
New member
Are you kidding? I am strongly against abortion but I'm not going to break the law to get my way. I'm going to vote for leaders who are also strongly against abortion. My miscarried child was taken away from me because the law required an autopsy/pathology report and my child was never returned to me for burial and closure. I work within the law for laws such as that to be overturned. I work with VAWA proponents to change the laws for rape victims rather than they be subjected to defense attorneys belittling and casting their integrity into question. Get off your butt and move to change the laws you don't like within the process provided. And if you don't like the fact that the majority is against you, look carefully at what it is you're proposing. Maybe, your proposals aren't good for the majority.
IMJerusha
New member
No, that's not what you believe in. You want what you want regardless of how what you want or want to do affects others in a negative manner. There's nothing Biblical about that attitude. You're using the idea of Biblically limited government to work against Godly behavior. There is nothing Biblical about lawlessness and God requires that we live according to the law of the land we live in.
Once again, your lack of education shines through.
It may come as a news flash to you, but our Founding Fathers
DID NOT set up a Democracy. Only a retard like you would espouse
such retarded dribble. Our Founding Fathers set up a.........
REPUBLIC
Any true American with a sixth grade
education knows the difference between
a democracy and a Republic. The simple fact
that you do not, means you are likely too
developmentally disabled to have an adult conversation.
I am embarrassed for you, disgusted by you, and
hold you in contempt for even insinuating you might be
an American. Stay out of the advanced topics, you are too
stupid to reason with and a giant waste of bandwidth and oxygen.
You training to be Nick? Try to act like a man. No man worthy of the name talks to a lady like that.
Get your act together.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
See, "good for the majority." That's the problem. Americans no longer define good and bad laws based on principles of right or wrong, but simply based on the "will of the majority." By the logic you are espousing, the government can take your children if the majority dislikes your parenting style sufficiently to vote to take your parenting rights away, and not only that, but the police who would then work to enforce this law would not be kidnappers but moral "law enforcers", and you'd have a moral obligation to obey.
If that's what you believe, you're a bad person. I don't care if Barbarian winds up saying that "makes me like Nick" because its the truth.
If that's not what you believe in, you need to think more carefully about the implications of supporting radical democracy.
Is democracy pragmatically the best way of preventing government from getting out of control? Maybe. There is no perfect form of government. You can make the case that democracy will help reign in abuses better than any other system.
You cannot make the case that all laws are justified just because they are "of the majority."
I think shaming the "law enforcers" and exposing the sham for what it really is is a more effective method than "working within the system" which tacitly admits the right of the majority to rule over us. But, there's a place for direct political action as well. Go for it. Don't actually work against the efforts for limited government by defending the law enforcers.
"live according to the law of the land we live in" is one thing, though even then, civil disobedience is sometimes justified per Acts 5:29, and rulers are only legitimate if they use the sword against the evil and reward the good per Romans 13:4. Its another thing to support ENFORCEMENT of unjust laws because you hate "lawlessness" rather than tyranny.
THall may have been mean in how he said it, but he's fundamentally right. The "law and order" types need to be shamed. It is only through shame and exposure of the fundamental violence they support that any change will be made. They don't support using violence for the one true God, but on behalf of their idol, the State.
IMJerusha
New member
You're mistaken CL if you think I am shamed.
A Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. A Democracy is government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Christians are law and order types, CL. You have to decide if you wish to represent God's Will or yours.
A Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. A Democracy is government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Christians are law and order types, CL. You have to decide if you wish to represent God's Will or yours.
IMJerusha
New member
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Looks like the founders intended for the United States to be based on the will of the people. At least that's what they put in the law.
Let's look at the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Again, the will of the people establishes the legitimacy of the government. The genius of the Founders was to moderate democracy with Constitutional law, making it difficult for the majority to establish its own tyranny over minorities.
Looks like the founders intended for the United States to be based on the will of the people. At least that's what they put in the law.
Let's look at the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Again, the will of the people establishes the legitimacy of the government. The genius of the Founders was to moderate democracy with Constitutional law, making it difficult for the majority to establish its own tyranny over minorities.
IMJerusha
New member
Exactly! A system of checks and balances.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
You know, its funny. Statist Christians misuse the term "law" in the Bible to refer to humanistic law when it actually refers to God's moral law. That's what you're doing. Your entire argument is made off a hermaneutical error.
Admittedly, some Christian libertarians do the same thing with "Christian liberty" {the concept, not me
}
The irony is that so many people who call themselves "liberarians" are actually in favor of removing the checks and balances that keep the strong from taking away the liberties of the weak.
It does not matter if the "law" is through a government, a warlord, a single wealthy patron, or a cabal of private businesses. If it takes away the freedom of the individual, then it's the enemy of libertarianism.
It does not matter if the "law" is through a government, a warlord, a single wealthy patron, or a cabal of private businesses. If it takes away the freedom of the individual, then it's the enemy of libertarianism.
IMJerusha
New member
You know, its funny. Statist Christians misuse the term "law" in the Bible to refer to humanistic law when it actually refers to God's moral law. That's what you're doing. Your entire argument is made off a hermaneutical error.
Admittedly, some Christian libertarians do the same thing with "Christian liberty" {the concept, not me
I was referring to the fact that God has instructed His people to obey the law of the land they live in. If I had been referring to God's Law, I would have capitalized the "L". Romans 13:1-5 It's a matter of basic respect for and love of God.
shagster01
New member
While I agree with this, I think that many people who call themselves libertarians like I do also have a different idea of what real liberty actually is.