The definition of Theocracy...

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[1] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.

The Constitution party platform that is supported by Chuck Baldwin and Darell Castle asks for this very form of government.

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:

* "This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
* The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”

These statements imply that our founding fathers founded this country to be a Christian theocracy. And that the laws in the bible are the roots of the Constitution.

“All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. [...] We would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”

“The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. [...]. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions”

"We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy. [...] Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards."

* Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
* With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

This is not a Constitutional form of government. This is a form of government that is directed by one's religion's perceptions about how people should live their lives. People should be allowed to live their lives according to their own religious beliefs.

I despise Theocracy. Whether it's women being forced to wear veils in a desert country because they don't want to be stoned by Muslim extremists, or living in the United States the way that it was before the 1st Amendment with the various sects of Christianity sometimes committing acts of violence or murder upon one another. Or Mormon extremists forcing young girls into marriages with the elders of their sects. We must recognize that the founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment so that these things would not take place in our own country.

I despise religious persecution such as when the Romans were feeding Christians to lions. Or when the Christians were burning people at the stake for having knowledge of herbs or how to swim.

The only way we can have a truly free society is if LOGIC dictates our laws. Everyone should be allowed to pursue their lives in a way that does not harm others. But we as a people need to recognize that none of our religions has a monopoly on right and wrong, and that a new form of tyranny that our founding fathers fought to avoid would take hold if we supported any religion over another. The majority of the people who came to this great nation did so to escape religious tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson:
"The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

James Madison:
Madison used this outline to guide him in delivering his speech introducing the Bill of Rights into the First Congress on June 8, 1789. Madison proposed an amendment to assuage the anxieties of those who feared that religious freedom would be endangered by the unamended Constitution. According to The Congressional Register, Madison, on June 8, moved that

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."

George Washington:
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country"

I urge the Constitution Party to re-think it's positions, and to heavily consider changing their platform.

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy)

[FrankRep]

As long as they stay within the lines of the Constitution....

[Truth Warrior]

As long as they stay within the lines of the Constitution.... What lines? The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)

[FrankRep]

What lines? The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)

The lines defined within the Constitution. I see no indication that Chuck Baldwin will violate the Constitution.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Sounds good to me. tones

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

There are many passages in the CP platform that Chuck Baldwin and his VP support (in fact his VP was on the commitee that wrote it) that violate the 1st Amendment.

[Truth Warrior]

The lines defined within the Constitution. I see no indication that Chuck Baldwin will violate the Constitution. Death becomes a moot point very quickly. ;)

[FrankRep]

Death becomes a moot point very quickly. ;)
The Constitution is alive because of the people. If the people supported it, it would be strong.

[gls]

The definition of Obsession: Neil Kiernan Stephenson's unhealthy fixation with Chuck Baldwin.

[nobody's_hero]

Definition of a "dead horse" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dead+horse)

Also "Beating a dead horse" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beating+a+dead+horse)

[Truth Warrior]

The Constitution is alive because of the people. If the people supported it, it would be strong. But it's not, and they don't, so it's DEAD!

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I would say the unhealthy obsession is in the form of people claiming to be for freedom and going along with this stuff all because Ron Paul "said so".

[Truth Warrior]

I would say the unhealthy obsession is in the form of people claiming to be for freedom and going along with this stuff all because Ron Paul "said so".

Thus is the nature of politics,:( :p :rolleyes: and it IS the Ron Paul Forum, after all.<IMHO>

[gls]

I would say the unhealthy obsession is in the form of people claiming to be for freedom and going along with this stuff all because Ron Paul "said so".

Aren't you a member of the Libertarian Party? As far as I can tell, your presidential nominee has never backed down from his position that Wiccans in the military should be persecuted for their religious beliefs. Of course to you it doesn't matter that he is unrepentant for his history of religious intolerance -- after all, he's got an "L" next to his name.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Aren't you a member of the Libertarian Party? As far as I can tell, your presidential nominee has never backed down from his position that Wiccans in the military should be persecuted for their religious beliefs. Of course to you it doesn't matter that he is unrepentant for his history of religious intolerance -- after all, he's got an "L" next to his name.

I seem to recall stating that I was a Libertarian delegate, that I never cast a single vote for Bob Barr, and that judging by his record in Congress it looks to me like he was part of the CP when he was in Congress.

In short, you are gravely mistaken. I dislike Barr for basically the same reasons I dislike Baldwin.

Neither are freedom candidates.

[Truth Warrior]

Moot point, Barr is your chosen Party spokesman. That's just HOW it works. :p :rolleyes:

[gls]

I seem to recall stating that I was a Libertarian delegate, that I never cast a single vote for Bob Barr, and that judging by his record in Congress it looks to me like he was part of the CP when he was in Congress.

In short, you are gravely mistaken. I dislike Barr for basically the same reasons I dislike Baldwin.

Neither are freedom candidates.

OK. I'm looking forward to your half dozen threads on how Barr is a theocrat. After all, fair is fair. Oh wait, that would interfere with your anti-CP shilling for the "Liberatarian" (Republican-lite) Party. Maybe you should get over your jealousy that Paul decided to endorse someone from a party that actually has principles.

[LibertyEagle]

Moot point, Barr is your chosen Party spokesman. That's just HOW it works. :p :rolleyes:

Yeah everyone, it's much better to "submit" like TW has chosen to do. :D

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Main Entry: submit
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: comply, endure
Synonyms: abide, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, agree, appease, bend, be submissive, bow, buckle, capitulate, cave, cede, concede, defer, eat crow*, fold, give away, give ground, give in, give way, go with the flow, grin and bear it, humor, indulge, knuckle, knuckle under*, kowtow*, lay down arms, obey, put up with, quit, relent, relinquish, resign oneself, say uncle, stoop, succumb, surrender, throw in the towel, toe the line*, tolerate, truckle, withstand, yield
Antonyms: disobey, fight, resist
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/submit&

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah everyone, it's much better to "submit" like TW has chosen to do. :D

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Main Entry: submit
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: comply, endure
Synonyms: abide, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, agree, appease, bend, be submissive, bow, buckle, capitulate, cave, cede, concede, defer, eat crow*, fold, give away, give ground, give in, give way, go with the flow, grin and bear it, humor, indulge, knuckle, knuckle under*, kowtow*, lay down arms, obey, put up with, quit, relent, relinquish, resign oneself, say uncle, stoop, succumb, surrender, throw in the towel, toe the line*, tolerate, truckle, withstand, yield
Antonyms: disobey, fight, resist
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/submit&

( Pssst. The secret OCD word for the day is "submit". Shhhhh! don't tell any one. )

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[LibertyEagle]

( Pssst. The secret OCD word for the day is "submit". Shhhhh! don't tell any one )

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz!

Nah, it's.....

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Main Entry: submit
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: comply, endure
Synonyms: abide, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, agree, appease, bend, be submissive, bow, buckle, capitulate, cave, cede, concede, defer, eat crow*, fold, give away, give ground, give in, give way, go with the flow, grin and bear it, humor, indulge, knuckle, knuckle under*, kowtow*, lay down arms, obey, put up with, quit, relent, relinquish, resign oneself, say uncle, stoop, succumb, surrender, throw in the towel, toe the line*, tolerate, truckle, withstand, yield
Antonyms: disobey, fight, resist
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/submit&

:D

[tonesforjonesbones]

Why do I get the feeling the Ron Paul movement has gone kaput? tones

[LibertyEagle]

Why do I get the feeling the Ron Paul movement has gone kaput? tones

Don't make the assumption that the active part of the Ron Paul movement is on this board. :)

[tonesforjonesbones]

Where is it? i get nothing from my c4l group these days either. I tried to rally a meeting..nothin. tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

What is everyone waiting for? the election to be over? maybe that's it. tones

[LibertyEagle]

Where is it? i get nothing from my c4l group these days either. I tried to rally a meeting..nothin. tones

Most of the real activists are busy in local and state politics. They don't spend that much time on the web, anywhere.

[Truth Warrior]

Nah, it's.....

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Main Entry: submit
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: comply, endure
Synonyms: abide, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, agree, appease, bend, be submissive, bow, buckle, capitulate, cave, cede, concede, defer, eat crow*, fold, give away, give ground, give in, give way, go with the flow, grin and bear it, humor, indulge, knuckle, knuckle under*, kowtow*, lay down arms, obey, put up with, quit, relent, relinquish, resign oneself, say uncle, stoop, succumb, surrender, throw in the towel, toe the line*, tolerate, truckle, withstand, yield
Antonyms: disobey, fight, resist
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/submit&

:D Yep, those danged voting machine handles, and Diebold screens can just put up one helluva fight, or so at least I've been told. :D

"Help us, help us", says the statist.

"SCREW YOU!", says the libertarian ........................... voluntarily. :D

[LibertyEagle]

"SCREW YOU!", says the libertarian ........................... voluntarily. :D

Nah, most libertarians believe in taking action to overturn the corrupt, unconstitutional system. You, on the other hand, have chosen to voluntarily "submit". :D

[Truth Warrior]

Nah, most libertarians believe in taking action to overturn the corrupt, unconstitutional system. You, on the other hand, have chosen to voluntarily "submit". :D Havin' some troubles with YOUR voter created and sustained Frankincense monster, eh? :D

[LibertyEagle]

Havin' some troubles with YOUR voter created and sustained Frankincense monster, eh? :D

Here's the problem, TW. You refuse to get involved to remedy the problems, instead attempting to get others to sit on their asses as you have apparently chosen to do; you profess that it is not YOUR government, but yet you willingly "submit" to their dictates. :rolleyes:

Hypocrisy anyone? ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Here's the problem, TW. You refuse to get involved to remedy the problems, instead attempting to get others to sit on their asses as you have apparently chosen to do; you profess that it is not YOUR government, but yet you willingly "submit" to their dictates. :rolleyes:

Hypocrisy anyone? ;) Here's the problem, you're dealing with this year, I'm thinking next generation. It's a matter of scale.

Hey, they have more and bigger guns than I do. I don't see your body littering the street, in martyrdom protest. :p

BTW, is Obama a Muslim? Just checking. :D

[LibertyEagle]

Here's the problem, you're dealing with this year, I'm thinking next generation. It's a matter of scale.
How does sitting on your ass trying to convince others to do the same, do anything to help the next generation?


Hey, they have more and bigger guns than I do. I don't see your body littering the street, in martyrdom protest. :p
:rolleyes:

I'd rather be part of taking over the Republican party, from the ground floor on up, and pushing out the big government pukes that we allowed to get in control.


BTW, is Obama a Muslim? Just checking. :D
That's more your kind of issue, TW. I'm not the least interested in Obama.

[Truth Warrior]

How does sitting on your ass trying to convince others to do the same, do anything to help the next generation?
:rolleyes:

You have no idea what else I do, you only know what I post. ;) And no, I won't even attempt to justify me or my actions to you. Why the hell, should I? I neither control nor care about what you CHOOSE to think. That's a fool's game.

I'd rather be part of taking over the Republican party, from the ground floor on up, and pushing out the big government pukes that we allowed to get in control.

When they hand you your ass, that'll be me over there in the corner laughing. Ya just really gotta love those naive, wide-eyed optimists. :rolleyes:

That's more your kind of issue, TW. I'm not the least interested in Obama.

One down, one to go, and you're there. ;) I'm not the least bit interested in McCain TOO.
Thinking just a bit too "collectivisticly" there, aren't you? :D

[Theocrat]

Neil, I'm curious about one thing. Have you contacted the national headquarters of the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/contact_info.php) and inquired them on their party's platform? I think that would help clear up some of your disagreements with their positions on the issues. Once you have done that, could you please start another thread with the Constitution Party's response to your complaints? After all, you're calling them to rethink their positions and change their platform.

So why are you posting your grievances here at Ron Paul Forums? Is your intention to stir up further division and debate amongst the Ron Paul supporters? Do you really think your outcries against theocracy will abate any efforts of theocrats, such as myself, who are only the more motivated and prepared to advance theocratic beliefs and policies into American culture, even when secularists like you whine and moan against them? I don't think so.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

OK. I'm looking forward to your half dozen threads on how Barr is a theocrat. After all, fair is fair. Oh wait, that would interfere with your anti-CP shilling for the "Liberatarian" (Republican-lite) Party. Maybe you should get over your jealousy that Paul decided to endorse someone from a party that actually has principles.

If you look at my report, I make it clear from the start that I do not think people should vote for Barr either.

Your attacking me and calling me a shill does not make me wrong.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil, I'm curious about one thing. Have you contacted the national headquarters of the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/contact_info.php) and inquired them on their party's platform? I think that would help clear up some of your disagreements with their positions on the issues. Once you have done that, could you please start another thread with the Constitution Party's response to your complaints? After all, you're calling them to rethink their positions and change their platform.

So why are you posting your grievances here at Ron Paul Forums? Is your intention to stir up further division and debate amongst the Ron Paul supporters? Do you really think your outcries against theocracy will abate any efforts of theocrats, such as myself, who are only the more motivated and prepared to advance theocratic beliefs and policies into American culture, even when secularists like you whine and moan against them? I don't think so.


Actually Theocrat, your rants just make my argument all the stronger with the people who are actually paying attention to what is going on. You have helped my cause of exposing theocracy for what it is. There was debate on whether or not it was a theocratic element in the first place before people like you started showing up to defend your position.

[Theocrat]

Actually Theocrat, your rants just make my argument all the stronger with the people who are actually paying attention to what is going on. You have helped my cause of exposing theocracy for what it is. There was debate on whether or not it was a theocratic element in the first place before people like you started showing up to defend your position.

You're the one who starting ranting and raving on these forums about Christian beliefs in politics and government, even when I've given you irrefutable evidence and documents to vindicate my case that America was founded on the principles of the Christian religion.

It is you, Neil, that has been exposed for the anti-Christian, secular humanist dogma that you continue to spew on these forums (tonesforjonesbones can testify to that). Not only have you made yourself look like an intolerant, belligerant, zealous fundamentalist for humanism, but you've actually caused many Christian Ron Paul supporters to distance themselves from these forums.

Neil, you have not given one iota of evidence for any of your claims that America was founded as a secular nation. The only persons you continue to quote are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but you know what? They aren't the only two authorities on the religious heritage of American government, and to be honest with you, I have many quotes from these two Founders which would make them sound like a bunch of Bible-thumping evangelicals by today's society.

No, I'm convinced that your sole reason for being on these forums is just to bitch and complain about your disdain with Christian beliefs in government, despite the evidence I've provided you with. Everyone on these forums sees that, and just checking your post history vindicates your zeal to promote your own secularist agenda about the nature of law, government, and politics, without God. As I've said before, you are not religiously neutral. You are just as zealous about your anti-Christian beliefs having a hold on government as I am about my Christian beliefs in government. The only difference is that I have historical precedent on my side, and you, ignorance.

[dr. hfn]

Chuck obeys the Constitution!

[Truth Warrior]

Chuck obeys the Constitution! REAL politicians don't. ;)

[tonesforjonesbones]

This is not the last we'll see of Chuck Baldwin either...I feel sure he will run for representative when it comes up...to assist Ron Paul in Washington..at least i pray he does. tones

[LibertyEagle]

When they hand you your ass, that'll be me over there in the corner laughing. Ya just really gotta love those naive, wide-eyed optimists.
Beats the hell out of quitters who try to convince others to become quitters too, so they can feel better about the choices they made in their lives. ;)


One down, one to go, and you're there. I'm not the least bit interested in McCain TOO.

Nor did I say I was. Read much? :p


Thinking just a bit too "collectivisticly" there, aren't you?

You know, for one so fond of quoting the dictionary as you are, you'd think that you would've looked up this word before you tried to use it. No such word, slick. ;)

[youngbuck]

This thread if wack because of the OP. I realized this yesterday, how much of a lop this dude is.

Delete my post.:eek:

[youngbuck]

You know, for one so fond of quoting the dictionary as you are, you'd think that you would've looked up this word before you tried to use it. No such word, slick. ;)

That made perfect sense to me, and I think it was ironic or even to the extent of being satirical. Wait, did I misspell a word?

Just relax... friendly contention.

:cool::eek::rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Beats the hell out of quitters who try to convince others to become quitters too, so they can feel better about the choices they made in their lives. ;)

If at first you don't succeed, it's often smart and wise to just give up and walk away, there's really no constructive purpose in merely continuing to make a damned fool of yourself. :rolleyes:

Nor did I say I was. Read much? :p

Nor did I say you were. COMPREHEND much? :p

You know, for one so fond of quoting the dictionary as you are, you'd think that you would've looked up this word before you tried to use it. No such word, slick. ;)

DUH!! That's WHY it's in double quotes. It STILL conveys the thought effectively.<IMHO> And ( of course ) the question is STILL unanswered.
( NO surprise there, AT ALL. :( It's sadly just S.O.P. for LE. :p :rolleyes: )

"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." -- H.L. Mencken

:D

[angelatc]

Good lord.

Why did you start yet another thread? You have nothing new to add. You're just a broken record, going on and on.

[LibertyEagle]

If at first you don't succeed, it's often smart and wise to just give up and walk away, there's really no constructive use in continuing making a damned fool of yourself.


Great motto there, TW. I'm sure it has taken you far in life. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Great motto there, TW. I'm sure it has taken you far in life. :rolleyes: ( Another favorite bogus TACTIC of LE. Contextomy. :p:rolleyes: )

Not really a motto. Just sort of a guideline, painfully acquired over time. And yes it has, as a matter of fact. :)

When you find yourself stuck in the bottom of a deep hole, first principle, stop digging it deeper. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

( Another favorite bogus TACTIC of LE. Contextomy. :p:rolleyes: )

It would be helpful if you would learn how to use the quote facility, TW, rather than inserting your comments within someone else's quote. ;) Wasn't it you the other day who was chiding someone about not knowing how to use quote. Oh yes, I believe you called it Ron Paul Posting 101. :D

Or was this another one of those things that you decided to quit on when you couldn't figure it out on the first try. :p


Originally Posted by Truth Warrior
If at first you don't succeed, it's often smart and wise to just give up and walk away, there's really no constructive use in continuing making a damned fool of yourself.

[Truth Warrior]

It would be helpful if you would learn how to use the quote facility, TW, rather than inserting your comments within someone else's quote. ;)

Quote button used, as usual. :rolleyes:

This tactic of mine allows me to easily address each point of a post, one by one. I understand THAT is an alien concept for you.

It's matter of CHOICE, not ignorance.

Wasn't it you the other day who was chiding someone about not knowing how to use quote. Oh yes, I believe you called it Ron Paul Posting 101. :D

Yes it was. And like Matt, you don't seem to EVER "get it", either. :(

Or was this another one of those things that you decided to quit on when you couldn't figure it out on the first try. :p

Obviously not. I find it to be too valuable a tool to give up.


And the question STILL remains unanswered ..................... of course. :(

[LibertyEagle]

And the question STILL remains unanswered ..................... of course. :(

You didn't ask a question. All you did was link to another article...................... of course. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

You didn't ask a question. All you did was link to another article...................... of course. :rolleyes: ( Another favorite TACTIC of LE, duck, dodge, deceive, divert and distract. :p ) Hey, you're on a roll. :D It's not a link it's merely underlined. ;)

But you didn't know that because you'd already decided to just ignore answering it and to just ridicule it instead. :p


Thinking just a bit too "collectivisticly" there, aren't you? :D
And the question STILL remains unanswered.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

This thread if wack because of the OP. I realized this yesterday, how much of a lop this dude is.

Delete my post.:eek:


And how did you come to that conclusion? I must be crazy because I oppose Chuck Baldwin?

Your Ad Hominem just proves I am winning.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

You're the one who starting ranting and raving on these forums about Christian beliefs in politics and government, even when I've given you irrefutable evidence and documents to vindicate my case that America was founded on the principles of the Christian religion.

It is you, Neil, that has been exposed for the anti-Christian, secular humanist dogma that you continue to spew on these forums (tonesforjonesbones can testify to that). Not only have you made yourself look like an intolerant, belligerant, zealous fundamentalist for humanism, but you've actually caused many Christian Ron Paul supporters to distance themselves from these forums.

Neil, you have not given one iota of evidence for any of your claims that America was founded as a secular nation. The only persons you continue to quote are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but you know what? They aren't the only two authorities on the religious heritage of American government, and to be honest with you, I have many quotes from these two Founders which would make them sound like a bunch of Bible-thumping evangelicals by today's society.

No, I'm convinced that your sole reason for being on these forums is just to bitch and complain about your disdain with Christian beliefs in government, despite the evidence I've provided you with. Everyone on these forums sees that, and just checking your post history vindicates your zeal to promote your own secularist agenda about the nature of law, government, and politics, without God. As I've said before, you are not religiously neutral. You are just as zealous about your anti-Christian beliefs having a hold on government as I am about my Christian beliefs in government. The only difference is that I have historical precedent on my side, and you, ignorance.

Uh Theocrat, I hate to tell you this man but other then the other theocrats here, most people think your full of shit.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Chuck obeys the Constitution!

But what does he think that means?

If it is the same as his party, then he is not a freedom candidate.

[LibertyEagle]

Quote button used, as usual.

This tactic of mine allows me to easily address each point of a post, one by one. I understand THAT is an alien concept for you.

If you want someone to quote what you said, TW, you need to learn how to use the quote button in your responses. The way you are currently responding by inserting your responses WITHIN someone else's quote, does not allow for your responses to be quoted without the respondee doing cut-and-pastes.

[Truth Warrior]

If you want someone to quote what you said, TW, you need to learn how to use the quote button in your responses. The way you are currently responding by inserting your responses WITHIN someone else's quote, does not allow for your responses to be quoted without the respondee doing cut-and-pastes. :eek: They ( YOU ) do anyway. It's called contextomy.

[LibertyEagle]

:rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

:rolleyes: :eek: :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

As long as they stay within the lines of the Constitution....

To understand the lines of the Constitution, which is the people's formal marriage decree to a new government, one needs to juxtapose it to the lines of the Declaration of Independence, which is the people's formal divorce decree from the former tyranny.
Yet, in terms of short-termed power, most lawyers will claim the Declaration of Independence has no legal precedence.
And, yet, the argument by our Founding Fathers regarding long-termed power is that a self-evident truth is the greatest power in that it will always supercede tradition.

[RonPaulMania]

To even think that the CP is theocracy is laughable. The only group which is a true theocracy is the Catholic Church, as they teach, believe, and live through a living Church through the vicar of Christ (the pope). Outside of the Catholic Church no group specifically is a theocracy as the word was intended. (Edit: obviously Jews do as well)

As the word grew and religion changed most Middle Eastern countries could be labeled as theocracies as they identified all law to Islamic law.

The CP believes in democracy (not Christian concept), free speech (not a Christian concept), and many other things not seen in a true Church-State relationship. Also, the division of Church and State was meant as an identification of the State with a particular Church, not the abdication of religion from the state. None of the founders believed that.

For a good reference, read my signature.

[Conservative Christian]

"I’m not talking about a theocracy. Recognition of the doctrine of the existence of the Creator God and His role in the bequeathing of inalienable rights to the people has no inherent connection to the notion of theocracy as some charge. Freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the avoidance of a congressionally declared State Religion of America are all a part of the package of what I believe, and what the American Constitution teaches, foundationally. The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false—a complete canard."

Michael Peroutka
2004 Constitution Party Presidential Candidate

http://www.daveblackonline.com/nader_and_peroutka1.htm

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

To even think that the CP is theocracy is laughable. The only group which is a true theocracy is the Catholic Church, as they teach, believe, and live through a living Church through the vicar of Christ (the pope). Outside of the Catholic Church no group specifically is a theocracy as the word was intended. (Edit: obviously Jews do as well)

As the word grew and religion changed most Middle Eastern countries could be labeled as theocracies as they identified all law to Islamic law.

The CP believes in democracy (not Christian concept), free speech (not a Christian concept), and many other things not seen in a true Church-State relationship. Also, the division of Church and State was meant as an identification of the State with a particular Church, not the abdication of religion from the state. None of the founders believed that.

For a good reference, read my signature.

Having read the CP platform and the definition of Theocracy, to say it is not Theocracy is laughable. Oh, and by the way, the CP only believes in freedom of speech if people are saying things that their religion does not find profane.

Here is a good quote:

"I like the old idea that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone." Ron Paul. From "Freedom to Fascism".

There are propositions for government in the CP platform that violate this concept completely.

[Truth Warrior]

Having read the LP platform and the definition of libertarian, to say it is libertarian is laughable.<IMHO> :D

[Nirvikalpa]

Uh Theocrat, I hate to tell you this man but other then the other theocrats here, most people think your full of shit.

What a brilliant and rather thought-out response.

Did you even read Conservative Christian's post, or are you just going to continue to ignore the posts that completely prove you wrong, and continue to embarrass yourself?

:rolleyes:

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

What a brilliant and rather thought-out response.

Did you even read Conservative Christian's post, or are you just going to continue to ignore the posts that completely prove you wrong, and continue to embarrass yourself?

:rolleyes:

I honestly don't think I have suffered any embarassment from any of this. Theocrats feel the way they do. Thankfully they are a tiny minority. Freedom minded Libertarians and an awful lot of Ron Paul supporters do not agree with Theocracy. I have not been proven wrong about any of it either. I have refuted every claim and provided alternative quotes for every quote of the founding fathers.

It really amounts to what brand of freedom you want. REAL freedom? Or freedom to live your life and FORCE OTHER PEOPLE to live their lives according to Christian principles.

[Truth Warrior]

The STATIST LP ( GOP-lite ) is merely an oxymoron, and just another frickin' political "totally insignificant and irrelevant" 3rd party.<IMHO> :p

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

The STATIST LP ( GOP-lite ) is merely an oxymoron, and just another frickin' political "totally insignificant and irrelevant" 3rd party.<IMHO> :p

I am not trying to defend the LP. I am discussing the concept of what Theocracy is. Some people ignorant enough not to understand that Theocracy is not the same thing as a Constitutional Republic continue to try and trick real Libertarians into supporting Baldwin. Thankfully that is not an issue any longer. Baldwin's showing was horrible, and I am sure that probably has a lot to do with his stances.

In any case, theocracy is not freedom. And for those who want to say that it is "laughable" that the CP is theocracy should go back and read the first post and explain their position because unless they are blind or their reading comprehension is totally lacking I would like to know how they came to that conclusion.

[Theocrat]

What a brilliant and rather thought-out response.

Did you even read Conservative Christian's post, or are you just going to continue to ignore the posts that completely prove you wrong, and continue to embarrass yourself?

:rolleyes:

Neil is having a blizzard, so it's best we leave him alone. He's a shining example of how facts do not change people's opinions, as many are led to believe. You can show a person fact after fact, evidence after evidence, and it just won't faze him. He will ignore the evidence, and go on ranting and raving about his own subjective point of view. Neil is such a person. He is lousy at his research, he does not deal with the evidence that's presented to him, and he's annoying in how he approaches any discussion.

The real problem with this thread is that Neil doesn't truly understand what "theocracy" means. Like so many other terms in our society (such as "liberal," "religion," and "faith"), he has the wrong interpretation of what the term "theocracy" means, due to society's poor use and definition of the term. Usually when people think of a theocracy, they immediately conjure up images of a church-run state. That is not a theocracy; it is an "ecclesiocracy" or rule by the Church. That is not an acceptable system of governance, and no theocrat acknowledges the legitimacy of such a government. Theocracy and ecclesiocracy are two separate ideas altogether.

A theocracy is simply the rule of God, and implicit in that is the notion that God rules by His law or word. Since God is the sole and sovereign Creator of all things in heaven and on earth, and since He is the Giver and Sustainer of our rights, then we His creatures are to be governed first and foremost by Him. The State nor the Church have any authority over an individual except that which God grants by His own revelation. The rule of law is what governs any institution, whether it's the State, the Church, or the family, and the rule of law necessitates a Divine Law-Giver (for true law is by nature spiritual and eternal, as God is). Thus, a theocracy is government acknowledging the total existence, power, and authority of God our Creator and His control of all things in the universe. Our Founders understood this as the precondition to any civil society, and the created a constitutional republic with that foundation in mind.

So, people like Neil need to understand that first before they enter or begin any discussion on what a theocracy is. Otherwise, their ignorance on the subject will be as hazy as a blizzard coming off an avalanche of misguided information.

[Nirvikalpa]

I honestly don't think I have suffered any embarassment from any of this. Theocrats feel the way they do. Thankfully they are a tiny minority. Freedom minded Libertarians and an awful lot of Ron Paul supporters do not agree with Theocracy. I have not been proven wrong about any of it either. I have refuted every claim and provided alternative quotes for every quote of the founding fathers.

It really amounts to what brand of freedom you want. REAL freedom? Or freedom to live your life and FORCE OTHER PEOPLE to live their lives according to Christian principles.

What another brilliant and rather thought-out response.

Did you even read Conservative Christian's post, or are you just going to continue to ignore the posts that completely prove you wrong, and continue to embarrass yourself?

:rolleyes:

(hey, if you can be a broken record, so can I).

[Truth Warrior]

I am not trying to defend the LP. I am discussing the concept of what Theocracy is. Some people ignorant enough not to understand that Theocracy is not the same thing as a Constitutional Republic continue to try and trick real Libertarians into supporting Baldwin. Thankfully that is not an issue any longer. Baldwin's showing was horrible, and I am sure that probably has a lot to do with his stances.

In any case, theocracy is not freedom. And for those who want to say that it is "laughable" that the CP is theocracy should go back and read the first post and explain their position because unless they are blind or their reading comprehension is totally lacking I would like to know how they came to that conclusion. I understand your perspective and merely extend it to include the LP also. ;) :) Hypocrisy, in politics at least, seems to know no deception bounds nor limits.<IMHO> :rolleyes: :(

[Truth Warrior]

Neil is having a blizzard, so it's best we leave him alone. He's a shining example of how facts do not change people's opinions, as many are led to believe. You can show a person fact after fact, evidence after evidence, and it just won't faze him. He will ignore the evidence, and go on ranting and raving about his own subjective point of view. Neil is such a person. He is lousy at his research, he does not deal with the evidence that's presented to him, and he's annoying in how he approaches any discussion.

The real problem with this thread is that Neil doesn't truly understand what "theocracy" means. Like so many other terms in our society (such as "liberal," "religion," and "faith"), he has the wrong interpretation of what the term "theocracy" means, due to society's poor use and definition of the term. Usually when people think of a theocracy, they immediately conjure up images of a church-run state. That is not a theocracy; it is an "ecclesiocracy" or rule by the Church. That is not an acceptable system of governance, and no theocrat acknowledges the legitimacy of such a government. Theocracy and ecclesiocracy are two separate ideas altogether.

A theocracy is simply the rule of God, and implicit in that is the notion that God rules by His law or word. Since God is the sole and sovereign Creator of all things in heaven and on earth, and since He is the Giver and Sustainer of our rights, then we His creatures are to be governed first and foremost by Him. The State nor the Church have any authority over an individual except that which God grants by His own revelation. The rule of law is what governs any institution, whether it's the State, the Church, or the family, and the rule of law necessitates a Divine Law-Giver (for true law is by nature spiritual and eternal, as God is). Thus, a theocracy is government acknowledging the total existence, power, and authority of God our Creator and His control of all things in the universe. Our Founders understood this as the precondition to any civil society, and the created a constitutional republic with that foundation in mind.

So, people like Neil need to understand that first before they enter or begin any discussion on what a theocracy is. Otherwise, their ignorance on the subject will be as hazy as a blizzard coming off an avalanche of misguided information. God ain't the problem. His self appointed, presumptuous and arrogant human "spokespersons" very often are.<IMHO> ;)



"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil is having a blizzard, so it's best we leave him alone. He's a shining example of how facts do not change people's opinions, as many are led to believe. You can show a person fact after fact, evidence after evidence, and it just won't faze him. He will ignore the evidence, and go on ranting and raving about his own subjective point of view. Neil is such a person. He is lousy at his research, he does not deal with the evidence that's presented to him, and he's annoying in how he approaches any discussion.

The real problem with this thread is that Neil doesn't truly understand what "theocracy" means. Like so many other terms in our society (such as "liberal," "religion," and "faith"), he has the wrong interpretation of what the term "theocracy" means, due to society's poor use and definition of the term. Usually when people think of a theocracy, they immediately conjure up images of a church-run state. That is not a theocracy; it is an "ecclesiocracy" or rule by the Church. That is not an acceptable system of governance, and no theocrat acknowledges the legitimacy of such a government. Theocracy and ecclesiocracy are two separate ideas altogether.

A theocracy is simply the rule of God, and implicit in that is the notion that God rules by His law or word. Since God is the sole and sovereign Creator of all things in heaven and on earth, and since He is the Giver and Sustainer of our rights, then we His creatures are to be governed first and foremost by Him. The State nor the Church have any authority over an individual except that which God grants by His own revelation. The rule of law is what governs any institution, whether it's the State, the Church, or the family, and the rule of law necessitates a Divine Law-Giver (for true law is by nature spiritual and eternal, as God is). Thus, a theocracy is government acknowledging the total existence, power, and authority of God our Creator and His control of all things in the universe. Our Founders understood this as the precondition to any civil society, and the created a constitutional republic with that foundation in mind.

So, people like Neil need to understand that first before they enter or begin any discussion on what a theocracy is. Otherwise, their ignorance on the subject will be as hazy as a blizzard coming off an avalanche of misguided information.

Actually I think your positions are entirely misguided. You just proved my point and don't even realize it. It's fun to watch but altogether embarassing for you.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

What another brilliant and rather thought-out response.

Did you even read Conservative Christian's post, or are you just going to continue to ignore the posts that completely prove you wrong, and continue to embarrass yourself?

:rolleyes:

(hey, if you can be a broken record, so can I).

I just answered you. Feel free to repeat yourself into stupidity if you want.