Re: 2248 - Theocracy ?
Luz Shosie and Ned Vare
on 8/15/02 10:39 AM, [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote:
Joyce wonders:
The amendments to our Constitution include #1 - the so-called establishment
clause -- that made state-funded or state-promoted religion unlawful. Before
that time, churches had close ties to local governments -- towns elected the
leaders of the large congregations to run the towns (in New England
especially) Not that there was anything wrong with that, but one main effect
was that it made religion and government into one (cozy) thing, with
financial ties very common.
That separation of church and state has led to recent arguments against
vouchers, but those arguments have been declared invalid by the supreme
court in the case of Cleveland, because there is no direct tie between the
money spent by the state and the religious schools where it might end up --
that is a parent's choice after the money is in the parents' hands. Like
food stamps -- no tellin' where they'll be spent or on what, or whether the
money they represent will support the unsavory habits of store keepers who
accept them.
The founding fathers wanted to break the bonds (binds) between church and
state, thus they did NOT want a theocracy. They wanted UNtheocracy.
But HSLDA does seek theocracy. That's what Patrick Henry College is about,
training young evangelical fundamental christians to be politicians who will
change laws in order to turn the country into a theocracy based on their own
personal ideas of "Theo."
Ned Vare
"If I owned Texas and Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in Hell"
---- Philip Sheridan
"In heaven all the interesting people are missing." --- Nietzsche
[email protected] wrote:
Joyce wonders:
> But the founding fathers intending the US to be a theocracy?Ned agrees:
The amendments to our Constitution include #1 - the so-called establishment
clause -- that made state-funded or state-promoted religion unlawful. Before
that time, churches had close ties to local governments -- towns elected the
leaders of the large congregations to run the towns (in New England
especially) Not that there was anything wrong with that, but one main effect
was that it made religion and government into one (cozy) thing, with
financial ties very common.
That separation of church and state has led to recent arguments against
vouchers, but those arguments have been declared invalid by the supreme
court in the case of Cleveland, because there is no direct tie between the
money spent by the state and the religious schools where it might end up --
that is a parent's choice after the money is in the parents' hands. Like
food stamps -- no tellin' where they'll be spent or on what, or whether the
money they represent will support the unsavory habits of store keepers who
accept them.
The founding fathers wanted to break the bonds (binds) between church and
state, thus they did NOT want a theocracy. They wanted UNtheocracy.
But HSLDA does seek theocracy. That's what Patrick Henry College is about,
training young evangelical fundamental christians to be politicians who will
change laws in order to turn the country into a theocracy based on their own
personal ideas of "Theo."
Ned Vare
"If I owned Texas and Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in Hell"
---- Philip Sheridan
"In heaven all the interesting people are missing." --- Nietzsche
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/16/2002 2:54:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nedvare@... writes:
That was ME wondering. Someone said that Recons, or HSLDA, want to *return*
the US to "the theocracy that the Founders intended it to be." I responded
with the above, as if to say "when and where and how did the Founders ever
intend such a thing?" knowing full well that they feared nothing more, and
were well aware that Americans in their individual states could handle
religion on their own.
In my readings of Recon and HSLDA material, I don't doubt that the intention
to create a theocracy may be their motivation, but I don't think I have ever
read anything by them wherein they admitted to believing the Founders
intended a theocracy. The Recons aren't illiterate. Crazy? Yes, but not
ignorant. I also believe they can be highly and intentionally deceptive. For
example:
Just yesterday Gary North had a wonderful piece at LewRockwell.com, on the
late and estimable Robert Nisbet. Everything in the piece was very good
(until the end when North diverges into his Medieval rant about "covenants"),
and his take on Nisbet's view about the Founders was right on the money,
i.e., the Founders would be beside themselves at the state of America (pun
intended), especially the bloated war machine, and the "loose individual"
(title of one of Nisbet's chapters in The Present Age).
Now, why would Gary North write a praise piece about Nisbet, when all that
North stands for flies in the face of what Nisbet stood for. It is deceptive
to say the least. Robert Nisbet would consider Gary North a sociopath if he
read some of North's writings, which indeed look to the day when America will
be ruled by the Old Testament.
Bob Sale
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nedvare@... writes:
> Joyce wonders:Ned,
> >But the founding fathers intending the US to be a theocracy?
>
> Ned agrees:
That was ME wondering. Someone said that Recons, or HSLDA, want to *return*
the US to "the theocracy that the Founders intended it to be." I responded
with the above, as if to say "when and where and how did the Founders ever
intend such a thing?" knowing full well that they feared nothing more, and
were well aware that Americans in their individual states could handle
religion on their own.
In my readings of Recon and HSLDA material, I don't doubt that the intention
to create a theocracy may be their motivation, but I don't think I have ever
read anything by them wherein they admitted to believing the Founders
intended a theocracy. The Recons aren't illiterate. Crazy? Yes, but not
ignorant. I also believe they can be highly and intentionally deceptive. For
example:
Just yesterday Gary North had a wonderful piece at LewRockwell.com, on the
late and estimable Robert Nisbet. Everything in the piece was very good
(until the end when North diverges into his Medieval rant about "covenants"),
and his take on Nisbet's view about the Founders was right on the money,
i.e., the Founders would be beside themselves at the state of America (pun
intended), especially the bloated war machine, and the "loose individual"
(title of one of Nisbet's chapters in The Present Age).
Now, why would Gary North write a praise piece about Nisbet, when all that
North stands for flies in the face of what Nisbet stood for. It is deceptive
to say the least. Robert Nisbet would consider Gary North a sociopath if he
read some of North's writings, which indeed look to the day when America will
be ruled by the Old Testament.
Bob Sale
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 8/16/02 7:35 PM, rsale515@... at rsale515@... wrote:
foundations". Either the homeschoolers telling us their beliefs interpretted
the phrase as meaning the Founding Fathers wanted a theocracy or didn't make
the distinction clear leading me (and I'm thinking others according to the
discussion) to interpretted it that way.
If anyone's interested, here's they type of thinking that is shared by many
in the Christian homeschooling movement. (As opposed to Christians who
homeschool.)
http://www.constitutionparty.com/constitutional_and_biblical_principles.htm
CONSTITUTIONAL & BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS
By Albion Knight Jr.
US Taxpayers (Constitution) Party's 1992 Vice Presidential Nominee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objective of the U.S. Taxpayers Party is to restore our nation to its
Constitutional and Biblical foundations. The public generally understands
what is meant by "constitutional" foundations, They understand less what we
mean by a return to "Biblical" foundations. Some accuse us of wanting to
impose a "theocracy" upon as our government. Others accused us of wanting to
"impose our morality" upon American's private lives. Neither accusation is
true. A "theocracy" is not our goal. Our goal is to return to the political
government defined in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. We do not
seek to legislate God's Law into our governmental processes. We do seek to
have God-fearing men and women serving at all levels of our government.
Their influence for promoting the general welfare cannot help but to give
strength and encouragement to all American people. What are the Biblical
foundations upon which America was based? Although there are many, some
important ones are:
First, God is sovereign over the nation not man. This means that there is a
Law higher than the Law of the State. Thus, the State is not and cannot be
the last appeal of our aggrieved citizens.
Second, we Americans are individuals created equal by God, as noted in the
Declaration of Independence. Thus, the individual is more important in God's
eyes than the State. In tyrannical societies, there is no power higher than
the State.
Third, we recognize the truth of the Biblical assertion of the innate
sinfulness of man. This means that all persons have within themselves the
tendency to think of their own well-being before that of others. Thus, no
one person can be completely trusted with power. Therefore, we need the
checks and balances defined in our Constitution.
Fourth, God is the God of History. He forms nations. He judges nations. We
know from our history, and as stated by our Founding Fathers, that the
United States could not have been formed without the providence of God. We
cannot continue as a free, independent sovereign nation without the
providence of God.
Fifth, God gave mankind a Law which is unchangeable absolute truth.
Relativism being taught in our public schools depends only upon man's
decisions, not God's.
Finally, God is the present and ultimate judge over the deeds of nations. No
nation can hide from or avoid this judgment of God. This means that there is
a price to be paid for every action of injustice, immorality, dishonesty,
and corruption taken by leaders, governments, societies and individuals.
Upon these foundations, America will stand. If they are destroyed, so will
our nation.
(Signed)
Albion W. Knight Jr
> In my readings of Recon and HSLDA material, I don't doubt that the intentionThe phrase I'm seeing is wanting the US to "return to it's Biblical
> to create a theocracy may be their motivation, but I don't think I have ever
> read anything by them wherein they admitted to believing the Founders
> intended a theocracy.
foundations". Either the homeschoolers telling us their beliefs interpretted
the phrase as meaning the Founding Fathers wanted a theocracy or didn't make
the distinction clear leading me (and I'm thinking others according to the
discussion) to interpretted it that way.
If anyone's interested, here's they type of thinking that is shared by many
in the Christian homeschooling movement. (As opposed to Christians who
homeschool.)
http://www.constitutionparty.com/constitutional_and_biblical_principles.htm
CONSTITUTIONAL & BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS
By Albion Knight Jr.
US Taxpayers (Constitution) Party's 1992 Vice Presidential Nominee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objective of the U.S. Taxpayers Party is to restore our nation to its
Constitutional and Biblical foundations. The public generally understands
what is meant by "constitutional" foundations, They understand less what we
mean by a return to "Biblical" foundations. Some accuse us of wanting to
impose a "theocracy" upon as our government. Others accused us of wanting to
"impose our morality" upon American's private lives. Neither accusation is
true. A "theocracy" is not our goal. Our goal is to return to the political
government defined in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. We do not
seek to legislate God's Law into our governmental processes. We do seek to
have God-fearing men and women serving at all levels of our government.
Their influence for promoting the general welfare cannot help but to give
strength and encouragement to all American people. What are the Biblical
foundations upon which America was based? Although there are many, some
important ones are:
First, God is sovereign over the nation not man. This means that there is a
Law higher than the Law of the State. Thus, the State is not and cannot be
the last appeal of our aggrieved citizens.
Second, we Americans are individuals created equal by God, as noted in the
Declaration of Independence. Thus, the individual is more important in God's
eyes than the State. In tyrannical societies, there is no power higher than
the State.
Third, we recognize the truth of the Biblical assertion of the innate
sinfulness of man. This means that all persons have within themselves the
tendency to think of their own well-being before that of others. Thus, no
one person can be completely trusted with power. Therefore, we need the
checks and balances defined in our Constitution.
Fourth, God is the God of History. He forms nations. He judges nations. We
know from our history, and as stated by our Founding Fathers, that the
United States could not have been formed without the providence of God. We
cannot continue as a free, independent sovereign nation without the
providence of God.
Fifth, God gave mankind a Law which is unchangeable absolute truth.
Relativism being taught in our public schools depends only upon man's
decisions, not God's.
Finally, God is the present and ultimate judge over the deeds of nations. No
nation can hide from or avoid this judgment of God. This means that there is
a price to be paid for every action of injustice, immorality, dishonesty,
and corruption taken by leaders, governments, societies and individuals.
Upon these foundations, America will stand. If they are destroyed, so will
our nation.
(Signed)
Albion W. Knight Jr
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/17/2002 3:37:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fetteroll@... writes:
Yes, I see that everywhere. What I have also seen, is the suggestion that the
Founders didn't go far enough. That is, they didn't establish a Biblical
Commonwealth, but should have.
I'm sorry to say, but this view of politics and Christianity flies in the
face of all Reformation thinking -- Luther and Calvin -- and even Augustinian
thinking, the roots of which HSLDA and others claim to be their own.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fetteroll@... writes:
> The phrase I'm seeing is wanting the US to "return to it's BiblicalJoyce,
> foundations".
Yes, I see that everywhere. What I have also seen, is the suggestion that the
Founders didn't go far enough. That is, they didn't establish a Biblical
Commonwealth, but should have.
I'm sorry to say, but this view of politics and Christianity flies in the
face of all Reformation thinking -- Luther and Calvin -- and even Augustinian
thinking, the roots of which HSLDA and others claim to be their own.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]