CP Stance on Seperation of Church and State [Archive]

View Full Version : CP Stance on Seperation of Church and State

BladeOfAnduril

7th August 2005, 05:15

I have some things to ask that I've been pondering for a while now. What exactly is the CP stance on "seperation of church and state"? If the CP recieved the support that it needs and was able to win a presidental election how would it impact the citizens that are not Christian? Since the CP is very Christ focused, a CP victory would not go over well with atheists and other non-believers. Would they be 'forced' (for lack of a better word) to live beliefs that they don't hold as their own? Would Christianity become the religion of the state? I'm rather confused about this. Would you all please set me straight?

Note: Personal opinions are welcome, but please label them as such so I don't end up more confused than I already am. ;)

Thanks,
Matthew H.

Triton

7th August 2005, 06:06

BladeOfAnduril

7th August 2005, 06:40

Triton

7th August 2005, 06:47

BrandonH

8th August 2005, 12:47

The Ten Commandments do not state, "Thall shalt not <insert sin> except when it comes to unbelievers." For the govt to establish a state religion, it would have to tell us how and what to worship. It has never done either - and didn't back when we were a real Republic.

I had a liberal atheist whom I worked with (when referring to Roy Moore) make a point that "Thou Shall not have any other God but me" would violate the rights of Non-Jew or Christians. Just thought I would mention some of the arugments they would bring up. Strangely enough, I doubt I would be as interested in politics as I am now if not for him.

Mr. Peroutka mentioned Sen. Lieberman on Meet the Press on Easter and said that other than Isreal, no country has given Jews as much freedom as the United States and because of our Christian Values, non-Christians have their right to worship as such.

Here is the link:
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=693

People just need to remember that we have Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion.

tz1

8th August 2005, 11:38

As Paul noted in Romans, Jews are convicted by the law, but Gentiles and Pagans have the law written on their heart.

This is usually called "Natural Law" - the law perceivable by anyone with reason (and who does not will unreason).

C.S. Lewis notes that almost every culture agrees on certain principles, which he calls the Tao: (You can read the entire treatise, "The Abolition of Man" which diagnoses the problem of relativism in the culture - written before I was born).

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm

The 10 Commandments are another example of "The Natural Law". We don't debate 2+2=4, though some might try - we would consider them retarded or insane. Yet Confuscius and Aquinas would note "Stealing and Murder are wrong" should be just as obvious to a reasonable mind to 2+2=4.

Aquinas on law noted not every vice ought to be criminalized (suppressed with the violence by the state). Some breach the peace, but those that don't simply create more problems if you try to detect and enforce them.

Currently we have not separated church and state as much as we have separated reason (and objective truth which is its object) and state.

Some end up rejecting Truth just because Jesus claimed to be the truth.

SWhiteman

8th August 2005, 02:05

At The American View (again, since we are not the CP, we do not speak in their behalf), it is our belief that the entire 10 Commandments are not debatable (not just the "natural law" of the last 6). Calvin noted in his Commentaries on the Penateuch, "nothing is less consistent than to punish heavily the crimes whereby mortals are injured, whilst we connive at the impious errors or sacrilegious modes of worship whereby the majesty of God is violated."

The Westminster Standards declare that it is the proper role of civil governments to punish blasphemy as well as to encourage the Christian religion while not preferring one denomination of Christians over another (WCF c. 23, III)
http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html#chap23

The Separation of the two jurisdictions of government is Biblical and appropriate in that the State cannot administer the sacraments nor lord over the Church, just as the Church cannot administer the sword nor lord over the State. Church and State are two separate jurisdictions of government ordained of God.

That was the view of the Founders in America previous to, and including, 1787. It is the American View of Law and Government today.

What we have today is the Erastian view of church and state, and that is that the State is Lord, and the Church serves a secular purpose. It is unbiblical and each submitting jurisdiction is being judged for it.

tz1

8th August 2005, 05:56

Then why did the founders say there shall be no religious test for public office? (Article 6 I believe, OTOH, maybe this place doesn't respect the Constitution).

Also, how do we define when the Sabbath begins and ends? Midnight to Midnight? Sundown to Sundown? Saturday or sunday? Is infant baptism blasphemous? The Episcopalians would say they were just another denomination. Are tithes voluntary? I think such things are not proper material for enforcement at swordpoint.

I also posted (as a comment to show 8) a historical 180 degree shift in moral doctrine and asked an obvious question - a law was passed that was then considered something to prevent abomination, but today isn't even considered selfish, much less a grave sin. Ought that law be reinstated (in the original form, binding on today's churches) or not? I think Calvin commented on it in the same reference you cite and would approve of the 1873 version of the law as written.

I normally would avoid quoting earlier scholars unless I wanted to keep the bathwater with the baby. I don't think the rule under Calvin and Calvinism to be an example of freedom and what we would want for the USA. And wars over which flavor of Christianity were fought with a lot of blood spilled and treasure spent for 100 years.

I don't consider the 10 commandments debatable either. However the sword wielded by the state is for a narrower purpose. You can always leave the church if you disagree on doctrine. You cannot normally leave the state.

What do you do with those who refuse to convert? Love and repentance are acts of the will which cannot be forced. You can use the sword to force compliance, but the sword is used today to force compliance with all kinds of evil things.

You can't force belief in God, either in whole or in detail, but you can enforce law based on reason alone.

The churches can enforce whatever they think pleases God. The state needs to be more circumspect.

SWhiteman

9th August 2005, 02:50

tz1

9th August 2005, 06:58

I would be careful about blasphemy tough would note that courts regularly find loud-mouths in contempt who utter far less offensive things - but that might be an abuse. In another thread I noted incitement (fire in theaters for fear, or to engender murderous hate or lust) is not free speech so you might get a ban in under that. But a lot of even christians who drive nails in and miss might end up in jail.

Triton

11th August 2005, 07:25

Your concerns, I don't believe, are relevant. The State ought not enforce worship, but they can enforce the laws against blasphemy. A Christian judge can determine when the name or attributes of God are invoked profanely.

Biblical Law does not permit the prosecution of heathens for Sabbath violation, but it does permit it for covenant members. Being a member of the covenant carries with it great and grave responsibilities. It also carries with it wonderful blessings and freedom.

Perhaps I have been wandering in the wilderness too long. I never claimed to be a Constitutional scholar, so I guess I can plead ignorance. How is secular government responsible to enforce laws against blasphemy? Furthermore, wouldn't blasphemy be protected speech?

I don't get it!

Brian Drake

11th August 2005, 08:29

I too am a bit concerned about this issue. As the founders did, I believe rights are from God, our Creator, and the role of civil government is to protect those rights. I don't see a necessary connection between this view and government enforced morality. As much as John Calvin is admired on this board (or so I've perceived), I for one would not want to live in Geneva under his tyrannical rule, nor would I want America to follow that course.

SWhiteman

12th August 2005, 09:31

With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about with Calvin and Geneva. Do you really believe the official story on that one? He is almost as hated as Christ Himself, but without the "obligation" to couch any criticism in niceness. Do not believe the official story about Geneva, rather read Theodore Beza's "Life of John Calvin" and/or D'Aubigne's "History of the Reformation: Time of Calvin."

Now, "secular" does not mean "having nothing to do with God." "Secular" and "Sacred" are not opposing terms, rather the latter has to do with our personal and corporate responsiblity to God in our religious life, and the former has to do with our personal and corporate responsiblity to God in our public, secular, life. While there are times that sin is not a Biblically proscribed crime (transvestitism, for example, Dt. 22:5), there are times that a crime is an offense soley against God, His Name and his covenant children -- blasphemy for example. The reason it is so unfathomable is because we live in abject disobedience to God and have for so long.

The First Amendment is irrelevant in the conversation. It only prohibits Congress from making certain laws, and has nothing to do with the states. Now, many states have "free speech" clauses in their Constitutions that were written contemporaneously with their anti-blasphemy statutes.

Brian Drake

12th August 2005, 04:41

With the same respect Mr. Whiteman, you don't know what I know on the subject.

Then again, maybe I don't either. On any topic, one can find written material from seemingly credible sources presenting "solid evidence" supporting the author's viewpoint. As a discerning seeker of truth, I suppose "you can't believe everything you read" is a bit of a simplification, but generally a solid guideline.

I wasn't aware of an "official story" and if there is one, I would have heard the pro-Calvin version more often. I've read conflicting views of Mr. Calvin's life and teachings, and both camps present "legitimate proof". I weighed all of the arguments offered me, threw out bath water (while snagging any babies floating by), and drew personal conclusions. Not conclusions set in stone. I personally desire truth, not dogmatic ideology, so I could be wrong and I'm always willing to learn why.

While you may disagree with my conclusions, I assure you they weren't reached in the state of ignorance you attribute to me.

As I noted, I've perceived a strong contingent of support for Calvin on this board. Prejudice based on personal experience is not logically defensible so I will try to keep from forming expectation. And I certainly do not want to start a doctrine flame war. If it appears I have launched the first offensive in such a conflict, I apologize and will try to restrain further comments to that effect.

Even if my perception of Calvin's governance is incorrect, this issue is still is a concern of mine because I personally wouldn't want to live in a country run by any of the numerous Calvinists I've come across. It would be a significant disappointment to find out that the political movement I'm excited about (the CP) is lead or influenced by the same ideas and attitudes.

I realize this board is NOT the CP or Peroutka campaign and discussions on it are NOT official policy statements. But it does host a number of people who are either part of, or supporters of, the CP so expressing these types of concerns seems legitimate discourse.

Brian Drake

12th August 2005, 05:11

I'm separating this comment intentionally so as not to get it confused with my previous post.

The First Amendment is irrelevant in the conversation. It only prohibits Congress from making certain laws, and has nothing to do with the states

This question is coming from admitted ignorance. Why doesn't the Constitutional enumeration of rights apply to the States? Could Virginia establish and enforce an exclusive State religion/denomination? Could New Jersey deprive a person of life, liberty, and property without due process of the law? Could California censor free speech or limit the press? Not those states specifically, but any state?

If the Constitution isn't binding on the states in concerns to rights, what authority would the president have in ending abortion as Mr. Peroutka claimed he would do if elected?

I aced my civics class back in high school and have remained politically aware, never ceasing to investigate further. But I'm still woefully uneducated in terms of true Constitutional government. A situation I'm slowly and surely changing. My current self education includes the Institute on the Constitution host kit I have begun watching and the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers I recently picked up.

Triton

12th August 2005, 07:51

The First Amendment is irrelevant in the conversation. It only prohibits Congress from making certain laws, and has nothing to do with the states. Now, many states have "free speech" clauses in their Constitutions that were written contemporaneously with their anti-blasphemy statutes.

Scott - I am not an attorney - I am but a lowly mortgage banker. I came to the CP because I like the ideals they represent, but I do not understand statements like the one above.

I have three questions - 1. - how can a state enforce laws against blasphemy.
2. How can one be accused of blasphemy when we have the 1st Amendment
AND 3. If, as you have indicated above, the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress, then how did we get into the current mess we are in where Congress says "jump" and we ask "how high?"??

SWhiteman

13th August 2005, 12:30

AND 3. If, as you have indicated above, the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress, then how did we get into the current mess we are in where Congress says "jump" and we ask "how high?"??

Very briefly, Abraham Linclon. He changed the understanding of the relationship between the states and the Fed, and the branches within the Fed. Then comes the 14th Amendment which allegedly incorporated the 10 Amendments to the States.

I'll post more on it later in an article entitled "America According to Lincoln."

NealStanley

13th August 2005, 12:47

This thread is walking a very fine line for many people. I would point out that when his discples wanted to call down fire from heaven on the Samaratan village for not recieving Christ. Jesus did not allow them to do so. Insert this into this conversation in any way you can see fit. My application is this Jesus does not want us to force religious conformity on anyone. He wants us to be example of Him and as a result set a higher and better standard for others to follow. If government tries to "convert by force" non believers, it only becomes an enforcer of hypocrisy. The state might, with many, be able to force outward compliance to a law. The outward compliance is worthless unless it is followed by a change of heart and obedience from the heart.

Colleen Smith

17th August 2005, 06:10

Hello. I appreciate your questions as I too would like to know the answers to them. I am a member of the CP and very happy about it having enough faith to know it is right and worthy of support. I read an article some time back about one of your questions. It is something about "three good reasons..." and I am sorry the rest escapes me now. You can find it on the CP National website using those words for your search, I am pretty sure. I do not know exactly what is the seperation of church and state by definition, and that is perhaps a good place to start (for me)! Getting involved in the CP is likely the best thing I've done in a very long time.

Areopagus

17th August 2005, 06:55

Why doesn't the Constitutional enumeration of rights apply to the States? Could Virginia establish and enforce an exclusive State religion/denomination? Could New Jersey deprive a person of life, liberty, and property without due process of the law? Could California censor free speech or limit the press? Not those states specifically, but any state?

If the Constitution isn't binding on the states in concerns to rights, what authority would the president have in ending abortion as Mr. Peroutka claimed he would do if elected?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella11.html
The U.S. federal Constitution was designed to provide various structural limitations on federal power. These limits include horizontal separation of powers and checks and balances (dividing federal power between co-equal legislative, executive, and judicial branches), as well as explicit limits on federal power listed in the Bill of Rights. More importantly, the Constitution established a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, and thus sets up vertical separation of powers between the states and the federal government.

The limited powers scheme of the Constitution protects individual rights because the federales are simply not empowered to violate individual rights. Thus, argued the Federalists, it is not necessary to list the rights that the federal government may not invade; it is better to simply rely on the fact that the federal government has only certain limited things it can do. In fact, when ratified in 1789, the Constitution did not contain the Bill of Rights – it was added in 1791. But the Antifederalists demanded a bill of rights, anyway, just to be sure. In any event, by withholding the "plenary" type of "police power" that normal sovereign states are said to have (the power to legislate in general, for the general protection and benefit of the populace), the Constitution in effect protected an open-ended set of individual rights.

But not only was the federal government not authorized to invade individual rights; it was also not empowered to do many things that state governments may do, such as outlaw murder. The central government’s inability to outlaw murder does not mean there is a right to commit murder, of course. The Constitution leaves to the states the role of protecting them from such private crimes.

More importantly for our purposes, the feds were also not granted the power to protect individuals from unwise or unjust state laws. For example, the Congress was not granted the power to prevent the sovereign states from setting up a state religion or censoring certain speech. This does not mean that states have a "right" to censor speech, but it does mean that the federal government is powerless to interfere with state laws just because they are unjust. The Constitution was designed primarily to establish, and strictly limit the power of, a central government. The states already existed and had their own state constitutions, which, along with the political process within the states, are the primary means of placing limits on state government power.

The federal government, as a government of strictly enumerated and limited powers, is thus different from the states which, from the perspective of the federal Constitution, are sovereign states with plenary power. This means that except where the Constitution explicitly limits state power, the states are free, within the bounds of their own state constitutions, to legislate what they wish.

Obviously, if the limits set forth in the Constitution were recognized by federal officials (though this is of course unlikely), the federal government’s ability to trample our rights would likewise be limited. Libertarians, therefore, ought to be in favor of members of the state having to follow the very rules they claim need to be followed to give the state legitimacy. (N.b.: Joe Sobran has written many great essays on federalism and the constitutional scheme.)

Judicial Review of Federal Action

In the original federal scheme, the Supreme Court is free to overturn unconstitutional federal laws. Here, I agree with Jefferson’s theory of "concurrent review," whereby each branch (executive, legislative, judicial) has an equal right to determine the constitutionality of (federal) government action. Meaning the Supreme Court and the President can (and should) refuse to endorse or enforce a law it believes to be unconstitutional; Congressmen should refuse to vote for laws they believe to be unconstitutional, and so on. This is in contrast with the now-dominant doctrine of judicial supremacy, the idea that the Supreme Court is the sole and final arbiter of the Constitution and constitutionality. (On concurrent review, see David N. Mayer, The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson 131, 259, 263, 269-72 (University Press of Virginia, 1995); William J. Quirk & R. Randall Bridwell, Judicial Dictatorship xiv, 10-11, 13 (Transaction Pub., 1995).)

Thus, for example, if Congress had enacted a law censoring certain speech or publications, the Supreme Court would have been justified in overturning it simply on the ground of ultra vires – that it is an act beyond Congress’ power. Note that the First Amendment, which was not added until 1791, is irrelevant to this analysis. With or without the First Amendment, Congress is not authorized to limit speech or the press. Of course, after the First Amendment was added in 1791, the Court could have overturned a federal censorship law as violating this amendment as well. But this argument would have been redundant and superfluous, since Congress is nowhere granted the power to censor speech.

Likewise, a federal statute limiting gun rights would be unconstitutional since Congress is nowhere empowered to do this. Proponents of gun rights for this reason should not rely so much on the poorly worded and much-debated Second Amendment; even if, as gun opponents charge, the Second Amendment does not provide an "individual" right to bear arms, still, Congress is nowhere empowered to regulate or ban the ownership of weapons. Even if there were no Second Amendment – as there was not from 1789 to 1791 – federal laws regulating gun ownership are simply unconstitutional. (Further: even if the Second Amendment does not protect a right to bear arms, this fact cannot be argued to show that there is not such a right, since the Ninth Amendment prohibits such an inference.)

Federal Judicial Review of State Laws

As is clear from the preceding discussion, the Constitutional scheme was not designed to empower the federal government, through its courts, to strike down repugnant state laws. In fact, this would require specifically enumerating a power to strike down state laws, which power is nowhere to be found in the original Constitution. Nonetheless, modern Constitutional jurisprudence holds that the federal Supreme Court can strike down state laws that violate most of the "important" rights specified in the Bill of Rights, even though the Bill of Rights is really just a listing of limits on federal powers, which was meant only as an exclamation point to emphasize that the federal government is one of strictly limited and enumerated powers. In other words, a constitutional structure meant to limit federal power and its ability to interfere with the people and the states, has been used by the federal government as a warrant to expand its power over the states.

How did this happen? It is another legacy of Abraham Lincoln and his illegal War on the South – in particular, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the "Incorporation Doctrine," which holds that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause "incorporates" the "fundamental" rights in the Bill of Rights and "applies" them to the states. This means that Congress and the federal Courts are empowered by the Constitution to nullify state laws that violate these fundamental rights.

Libertarians should oppose this view for several reasons. First, the Fourteenth Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified. Second, the Due Process clause was never intended to "incorporate" the rights in the Bill of Rights. It simply makes no sense that it would have: the Bill of Rights, as noted above, was simply a safety measure to ensure that the federal government would not exceed its limited powers. The First Amendment itself says "Congress shall make no law…". How could a limitation on Congress’s power be applied to the states? Moreover, the Courts have had to resort to the ridiculous doctrine of "substantive due process," as distinct from "procedural due process." How can due process not be merely procedural? (Cato Institute legal scholar Roger Pilon agrees that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were not intended to provide federal protection for citizens’ fundamental rights; but wrongly, in my view, argues that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should be used for this purpose instead.)

Third, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine that it spawned have eroded the vertical balance of powers between the states and the central government that was put originally in place so that the states would serve as checks on central tyranny. With Lincoln’s War Between the States and the Fourteenth Amendment as construed by federal judges, that check has been greatly weakened.

In order for the Court to overturn noxious state laws, it must seize powers it was not granted. If the federal government is free to ignore the limiting language of the Constitution and assume powers not granted to it, our rights are clearly less secure.

ARTICLE CONTINUED @ SOURCE URL DUE TO FORUM LIMIT OF 10K CHARACTERS PER POST

Areopagus

17th August 2005, 07:07

AND 3. If, as you have indicated above, the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress, then how did we get into the current mess we are in where Congress says "jump" and we ask "how high?"??

No Liberty for License: The Forgotten Logic of the First Amendment
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0965320847/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/002-3069269-8567232?v=glance

Present Dangers: Rediscovering the First Amendment
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1890626473/qid=1106865364/sr=1-19/ref=sr_1_19/103-6090871-9107838?v=glance&s=books

Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089107418X/ref=cm_aya_asin.title/103-6090871-9107838?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State
http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?btob=Y&BT=Y&pdf=y&isbn=081471935X

Separation of Church and State
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HAMSEP.html

Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion
http://www.wallbuilders.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=W&Product_Code=B24&Category_Code=B

rimchamp77

17th August 2005, 07:24

Obviously Congress has done MANY unconstitutional things. They wrote the Alien and Sedition Act to squelch expressions of dissent "that might lead to violence against others". They passed the Patriot Act that gives the government broad powers to snoop on "suspected terrorists". They passed the Controlled Substances Act that allows a bureaucrat called the Drug Czar to ban some - but not all - drugs based not on "potential for abuse" without even knowing what ingredients are in the drug. We have had numerous illegal military ventures in places like Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places - without a formal declaration of war by Congress. We constantly use taxpayer monies to fund political parties elsewhere that are shills for corporate interests.
As to the establishment of religion by the states: that is specifically forbidden by Article one. Using taxpayer money for a Senate chaplain is clearly unconstitutional but has been accepted for over two centuries. There is a word for politicians who invoke the name of God when they are rallying support for military action that is intended to inflict ungodly harm upon adversaries: blasphemers! At least that's the word that pops into my head whenever a president openly prays to God and then follows with a lie, deception or call to violence. There is a reason that all cultures and all religions - whether pantheistic or monotheistic - designate an archdiety who is the epitome of liars. Even the communistic religion denounces falsehood - when others engage in this activity. It is the passive acceptance of pathological liars in the leadership of this country that is an embarrassment for all faithful followers of Jesus. The same can be said for Islam.

Flick

18th August 2005, 05:00

Here's a link to the Free Church Ministry (http://www.freechurchministry.org/) if anyone is interested. It explains ways in which the church has submitted to government and how to reverse that process, among other things. I post this just as FYI.

SWhiteman

20th August 2005, 10:17

There is a word for politicians who invoke the name of God when they are rallying support for military action that is intended to inflict ungodly harm upon adversaries: blasphemers! At least that's the word that pops into my head whenever a president openly prays to God and then follows with a lie, deception or call to violence.

Agreed. Nothing by the managers of The American View should lead anyone into believing that we support this War of Terror in Iraq.

However, there is a name for civil magistrates who refuse to recognise that they are under the Law of God: profaners, perjurers and blasphemers -- and Tyrants.

The acknowledgment of God and dependance on His will, and the enforcement of His civil statutes by the civil magistrate is not a violation of the "separation of Church and State." IT IS THE BIBLICAL FULFILLMENT OF IT.

Biblically, the Church has one jurisdiction and the State another. They are to be separated. The Church has the "ministry of the word," and the State has the "administration of the sword." When an offense if caused, it may be a violation in one or both jurisdictions, but each jurisdiction may only properly enforce the penalties God gave to each, i.e. discipline or excommunication in the Church, or force monetary recompense, corporal or capital punishment in the State.

Take "Thou shalt not kill." It is an offense against God first, and the two governments He has instituted are to deal with it in their own way. The State MUST prosecute a murderer. Numbers 35:30ff (http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2035:30-33;&version=9;) The Church must also excommunicate the murderer. Exodus 21:14 (http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:14;&version=9;)

Obviously, the State may not fulfill its duty -- and the land will be defiled. Or the Church may refuse to obey God and his Church will be defiled. But it would be proper for the murdered to be excommunicated, and if only the Church knew of the murder, turned over to the State by the Church for execution.

Consider how the Church and State should act regarding the murder of unborn babies. The State should prosecute the mother, the doctor and all other co-conspirators. The Church should excommunicate. The State does not punish, but ought not the Church still punish? The Early Church denied communion to women and doctors for life to show that their penalty ought to be the loss of their life. I think repentance should restore such a person, but I am willing to entertain a conversation on the life-punishment for those who particiate in killing babies.

Blasphemy is an offense not against the Church, nor the State, but against God and He has proscribed the penalty of death, as well as excommunication, for it.

Eating shrimp, or wearing linen and wool, &c. were never put under the jurisdiction of State enforceability. Thus, even if such were a violation of the Law of God today (I believe they have been fulfilled), it would remain wholly a Separate Church matter, and not a State matter. The man would be disciplined or excommunicated, but permitted to remain in the society.

Now, by having the State recognise its jurisdiction, and its King as Jesus, is not a violation of the Separation of Church and State, and certainly not a violation of the First Amendment. (BTW, the 14th Amendment allegedly placed upon the States the same limitations put on the Federal government in some of the bill of rights, but I refute that argument, possibly in written form later.) The First Amendment binds Congress and nothing else. Thus, the States could, and did, have State Churches. For the record, I am opposed to that. I do not believe the Churches should be funded by the State, lest they misplace their loyalty to it above God. But that is a fact of American history and acknowledging it is not an endorsement of it.

Also, State funded religion is compulsion of religion in my book. You compel a man to pay for a Church in which he does not believe. Compulsion is not the Reformed way. Proper Calvinists will recognise that since salvation is dependant upon God, we can't force a man to believe anyway. Also, since God has denied us as men, or the State, the power of the sword to enforce religious attendance, coercion is out of line -- we work by conversion by the Holy Ghost.

However, and this is the final, and most important point, the CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE GOD. You don't want a human-absolutist state. France was one; America is now one; many of the worlds nations are. In America they do, by Oath. We are, though, a perjured nation.

SWhiteman

20th August 2005, 12:23

With the same respect Mr. Whiteman, you don't know what I know on the subject.

My apologies to Brian. I appeared rash when I stated "you don't know what you are talking about" and he was correct to address me in a public way with the refutation above.

Brian, please forgive me.

Now onto other things, and I mean this sincerely in response to the following:
Even if my perception of Calvin's governance is incorrect, this issue is still is a concern of mine because I personally wouldn't want to live in a country run by any of the numerous Calvinists I've come across.

We should never use our personal experiences to determine the truth of a matter. People we meet are fallen and we perceive them with fallen eyes. So I will not address a government by Reformed people from the perspective on how fallen men have administered it, or how fallen men act when they are not under it, rather from the perspective of whether a Calvinist government would be righteous.

First, I would not, in my fallen humanity, want to live in a Government of Calvinists either. Calvinism (and by that, I am not married to the term -- I believe all Calvinists are merely believers in what the Bible says, and by implication, so that I'm not ferreted out later, I believe that all non-Calvinists are grossly in error on Biblical teachings and the nature of Christ and salvation) is the notion that men are wholly responsible before God for their moral failings and criminality, but must attribute any act of goodness or righteousness to the Grace of Christ. We are responsible for our bad, and irresponsible for the good. Who would want to live like that? It is an eternal exercise is sado-masochism -- unless it is a fact that must be recognised as true.

If nothing good comes from man but from God, then we must, to avoid the sado-masochism, flee to Christ for forgiveness of our sins and pray to Him to make our acts more righteous, and to pray to the Father they He would not look at our acts (even the good ones), but what Christ has done. Christ's death made it possible for the Father to forgive me, but without some imputation of righteousness, I'm left with nothing to offer God -- just a sinless life, which is not enough to be crowned a Prince or adopted son. A man determined by a human court to be "not guilty" does not automatically become governor. Similarly, a man deemed "not guilty" by God's court does not automatically receive sonship. Christ's resurrection made it possible for me to become a son.

So, as a man, I wouldn't want to live under Calvinism either, taking responsiblity for my bad actions while giving credit to Christ for my good actions -- but being made a Son of God, I would desire to do no other.

Now, to your final remark:
It would be a significant disappointment to find out that the political movement I'm excited about (the CP) is lead or influenced by the same ideas and attitudes.

I am in the Party. I am on the Executive Committee and National Committee. I served under Howard Phillips directly in 1996-97 and served as Michael Peroutka's campaign manager in 2004. I have been a State Party chairman, and presently serve as the Maryland Party Treasurer/Secretary. I do have a grasp on the movers and shakers in the Party and offer the following remarks with particular knowledge, though not exhaustive.

If I may for simplicity, I will divide all people who claim to be Christians into four groups: 1.) Reformed; 2.) "of the Baptist persuasion"; 3.) Catholic and 4.) Mormon. By "of the Baptist persuasion," I mean American Evangelical, non-Reformed/non-Catholic, non-denominational, Arminian, fundamentalist, or whatever monicker is proper. In here I include all those who reject TULIP and the Synod of Dort and the charasmatic.

The reason I steer away from denominational distinctions is that not all Reformed are Presbyterian, and not all Presbyterians are Reformed, though it would be proper if it were so in each instance -- my Reformed non-Presbyterian friends, you are half right. :D

Some (I can think of three, though only I am both Reformed and worship in a Reformed church) members of the executive committee are Reformed. Some are Catholic, most are of a Baptist persuasion and one is Mormon.

Some, by no means most, but proportionally more than at the exec. comm., members of the National Committee are Reformed. Others are Catholic, most are of a Baptist persuasion, or Mormon. I can think of one Jewish man but I am uncertain whether he is on the National Committee.

It is my read that most of the National Committee are "of the Baptist persuasion" or non-Reformed and non-Catholic Christians, though at present, there is a heavy Mormon influence in the West.

Official Party policy is that religious distinctions and conversations of this sort are not proper for a "political" party. That is part of the reason I have tried to discourage conversations like this about both religion and the Party. However, TAV and I believe it is wholly proper to have the conversation about religion and politics.

Further, a conversation is quite proper on whether, to what degree or even if it is possible for "unequally yolked" men to walk together in try to establish a political entity. Is it wise for a Calvinist to work with an Arminian to establish a political institution or civil society when it is foreknown that the differing theological beliefs will by necessity change the desired outcomes of the movement? The proper Calvinist will deny incarceration and move right to punishment for crimes, whereas the historical precident of the non-Reformed Protestant has been to incarcerate and try to convert the man. Do you see the problem?

Lastly, with all sincerity, I apoligise for the tone in the post "you don't know what you are talking about." I hate forums because you can't look at my eyes and know that was not written in venom or malice.

exmarine

20th August 2005, 12:50

Okay, to take it a step further, how is it possible to have a government that runs on Biblical principle and not be astablishing a state sanctioned religion?

By the way, I have no problem at all with a Biblically guided government, I'm merely playing devil's advocate in an attempt to learn more on this matter.

Matthew H.

It's simple. We managed it from 1776 until now, and make no mistake: The United States Constitution and the Republic were established on biblical principles. It's an historical fact. By its very nature and definition, Christianity tolerates irreligionists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc. What cannot be tolerated is the intolerance of the irreligionists (ACLU, Americans United) -- rather than Christians, it is atheists, secular humanists and anti-Christian bigots who seek to extirpate Christianity from the public square as I write this. It has been going on for 50 years. They have twisted and redefined the 1st Amendment to the point that it no longer remotely resembles what the founding fathers intended it to mean.

It's highly ironic. Christian moral principles upon which this country was establoished have allowed atheists and other irreligionists to flourish and live free, and now these people are using that freedom to destroy the basis that gives them their freedom.

SWhiteman

20th August 2005, 05:06

It's highly ironic. Christian moral principles upon which this country was establoished have allowed atheists and other irreligionists to flourish and live free, and now these people are using that freedom to destroy the basis that gives them their freedom.

On that thought, it was highly irresponsible to dilute the power of the Christian property owners vote and turn it over to the illiterate, ward-of-the-state, atheist and imbecile. I never blame the atheist for making things worse -- that's what they do. We should, however, blame the "Christians" who weakened the claim of Christ and provided those who hate Him to have a say in government.

Atheists, imbeciles, &c. can live well in a Christian society and still not be provided the right to vote. Give them the right to vote, and we Christians will live poorly in a Godless society before long.