Jay Sekulow Says His Job To Get Bush Nominees Confirmed; But Is It? What Does God Require Of A Christian Involved In "Politics?"

[TheGeneral]

So, what, exactly, are Mr. Sekulow and his crew fighting for? Do they, as Christians, have a Christian litmus test for Supreme Court nominees? Are they demanding that Mr. Bush name to the high court only individuals who will, first, honor and obey God and His Law? Are they doing what they should be doing, demanding that Mr. Bush put forth judicial nominees like former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, a man who understands that the most important qualification to be a judge must be that this person acknowledge and obey the God of the Bible and His Law?

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=320

[Thomas Ellington]

So, what, exactly, are Mr. Sekulow and his crew fighting for? Do they, as Christians, have a Christian litmus test for Supreme Court nominees? Are they demanding that Mr. Bush name to the high court only individuals who will, first, honor and obey God and His Law? Are they doing what they should be doing, demanding that Mr. Bush put forth judicial nominees like former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, a man who understands that the most important qualification to be a judge must be that this person acknowledge and obey the God of the Bible and His Law?<<

The Christian form of government, monarchy, is illegal in America. Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution.

[Flick]

Unless I'm misreading the scriptures, the only monarchy condoned by God is the one in which God is the monarch, which doesn't take shape until the second coming of Christ. In the mean time, however, the Bible does offer guidance on good governance, and He showed us pretty early on that He doesn't favor a mortal as monarch.

Sadly, Sekulow has gone the way of the neocons. It just wasn't apparent until we lost our common liberal enemy #1, Slick Willy.

What's ironic is that pro-lifers are lambasted for having a litmus test every time we want to know where a nominee stands on infanticide issues, yet what is the first thing the pro-baby-murder camp wants to know about every nominee? They want to know the nominees' positions on abortion. How is it that the term "litmus test" only applies to the pro-life camp?

[exmarine]

So, what, exactly, are Mr. Sekulow and his crew fighting for? Do they, as Christians, have a Christian litmus test for Supreme Court nominees? Are they demanding that Mr. Bush name to the high court only individuals who will, first, honor and obey God and His Law? Are they doing what they should be doing, demanding that Mr. Bush put forth judicial nominees like former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, a man who understands that the most important qualification to be a judge must be that this person acknowledge and obey the God of the Bible and His Law?

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=320

Sekulow's group (ACLJ) called me a few months ago and asked for my support for the nomination of William Pryor. I informed his representative that William Pryor was a turncoat and a yes-man who ILLEGALLY prosecuted Roy Moore for the specific lawful act of acknowledging God. I would not support William Pryor for dogcatcher let alone federal justice! Interestingly, the ACLJ caller was not aware of this chapter of Pryor's history and was surprised to hear about it.

Since that time, I have not received any mail or calls from the ACLJ, and I wouldn't give that organization one red cent. Fine with me. I won't fund their un-American activities. I'm sick and tired of phoney conservatives who pretend that they stand for truth, when in fact, they do not. Sekulow cares more about supporting Bush's nominations (blindly!) than he does about the true character and philosophy of the nominee. He's the epitomy of the typical Republican acolyte that I have come to know and oppose.
Blessings,
exmarine

[SWhiteman]

The Christian form of government, monarchy, is illegal in America. Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution.

First, define "monarchy," then prove to me that the definition you give is the Christian form of government. We have one Absolute Monarch, Christ, true. He is the only one with an uncontestable Crown Right. All human governments are obligated to Him, but are not required to be Monarchy themselves. Any form of government is equally obligated to serve the King of kings.

The Bible calls for "elder rule," in both Church and State. A King is not prohibited, but if the elders constitute one, he is not the supreme king, absolute monarch, unaccountable to God and man. See Deut 17:8-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2017:8-22;&version=9;) and I Sam 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Sam%208;&version=9;) Godly kings are not absolute monarchs, and obviously since when Deut. was written, the Israelites had no king, and there was no king until the elders demanded it of Samuel, the only form of Biblical government is not monarchy. When God set up his first civil officer, it was not a king, but an elder-judge.

The old maxims A King for the People, not A People for a King is true. It is easier to consider a people without a king than a king without a people.

A King, and any civil magistrate, makes a covenant with men to rule under God, the people covenant with the king (or civil magistrate) to follow him so long as he does. The King (or civil magistrate) makes a covenat with God to rule under His authority and rule according to His Law. The people covenant with God to follow the King (or civil magistrate) only so far as he does not lead them into disobedience to God.

If you are a Christian, you need a real lesson what Christians have done for popular and godly government since the Reformation. Please read Lex, Rex by Samuel Rutherford.

If you are not a Christian, why are you here? To be a thorn in our side? If you are hear to learn, you are of course invited to participate in conversations, but don't feel slighted if the Christians in this forum ignore your silly and confrontational questions.


---------
I intend to refrain from reviewing and comment in the Forum on the Lord's day, but this thread popped up and it was clearly a conversation about Christian issues that I thought it was a reasonable and proper use of the time owed to God.
---------