"Government Cannot Do Church's Job" by Dr. Chuck Baldwin

[Theocrat]

It's always refreshing to see that there's a Christian out there who rightly understands this issue. Once again, Pastor Baldwin speaks truth (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071211.html) about the role of government and the role of the Church in our Constitutional Republic. I only wish more Christians (and non-Christians, for that matter) understood how our system of government is supposed to work. It seems ignorance breeds its offspring, both inside and outside of the Church...

[literatim]

Link?

[GunnyFreedom]

click on the words, "speaks truth"

[Kingfisher]

Bump

[MooCowzRock]

There are a couple points I disgreed with, such as a state's right to ban "adult" store or prostitution, because I think that is a limitation on people's right to form any consenting contract or view any material under the first amendment, which the states or local governments have no right to take away......but otherwise, he made a very strong a great point that too many Christian conservatives have forgotten today. The church, and the individual, and the parents have to be responsible for their children's, they people's, and for their own morality. It is inherently wrong to force these moralities onto others with the use of a sovereign government under the social contract and Constitution. Every church, every religious individual, every parent should be completely encouraged to speak their mind and try to preach their morality and their belief in its superiority for the good of society, because morality is gained and understood, never forced. Although I am an Atheist, I am inclined to ask those who believe otherwise a question that Huckabee so unhonorably dodged at a recent debate, "What would Jesus do? Would he force his morality onto non-believers through legislation, or would he honorably convert through example, through preaching, through respect?"

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, I am deeply hardcore libertarian, but I tend to disagree, MooCowzRock. The ideal *I* have regarding freedom in the United States says, if Ohio wants to be fascist, Illinois wants to be communist, and Idaho wants to be libertarian, the I say 'good on em!'

That way people who want to live in communism cam move to Illinois, people who want to live in fascism can move to Ohio, and people who want to live in freedom can move to Idaho. Bingo, everyones happy!

Ohio gets to get rid of all the communists (cause you know, fascists hate communists) Illinois gets to get rid of all the fascists (cause you know, comunists hate fascists) and Idaho gets to get rid of all the authoritarian nut-bars (cause, as you know, libertarians hate authoritarians).

People just move to the states which match their philosophy. No better way to prove that bad ideas fail and good ideas work, IMHO.

As a hardcore libertarian, I am all in favor of say, my home state of North Carolina deciding to outlaw everything under the sun. I'll just move. *shrug*

I honestly believe that's the strength of the American republic - each state can have whatever sort of gov't they want (within the bounds of those powers not specifically and constitutionally reserved to the people, of course...so communist Illinois would not be allowed to outlaw guns for instance)

You have a valid point regarding the First Amendment in re 'adult' stores; but at the same time I give the states a heckuva lot more leeway because people can just leave.

I fully recognize, of course, that there then becomes a danger of all 50 states becoming authoritarian in and of themselves...but I still think that the STRENGTH of the American republic lies in the fact that you can have a lefty state, a righty state, an authoritarian state, and a libertarian state -- and people can then choose to live in the states which best align with their personal philosophies.

So what I am saying here is not perfectly developed, but really, if the population of Utah really really wants to try and legislate morality, I say fine. I won't be going to Utah. Let all the authoritarian nutters move to Utah. At least they will no longer be in MY neighborhood. ;-)

[MooCowzRock]

Well, I am deeply hardcore libertarian, but I tend to disagree, MooCowzRock. The ideal *I* have regarding freedom in the United States says, if Ohio wants to be fascist, Illinois wants to be communist, and Idaho wants to be libertarian, the I say 'good on em!'

That way people who want to live in communism cam move to Illinois, people who want to live in fascism can move to Ohio, and people who want to live in freedom can move to Idaho. Bingo, everyones happy!

Ohio gets to get rid of all the communists (cause you know, fascists hate communists) Illinois gets to get rid of all the fascists (cause you know, comunists hate fascists) and Idaho gets to get rid of all the authoritarian nut-bars (cause, as you know, libertarians hate authoritarians).

People just move to the states which match their philosophy. No better way to prove that bad ideas fail and good ideas work, IMHO.

As a hardcore libertarian, I am all in favor of say, my home state of North Carolina deciding to outlaw everything under the sun. I'll just move. *shrug*

I honestly believe that's the strength of the American republic - each state can have whatever sort of gov't they want (within the bounds of those powers not specifically and constitutionally reserved to the people, of course...so communist Illinois would not be allowed to outlaw guns for instance)

You have a valid point regarding the First Amendment in re 'adult' stores; but at the same time I give the states a heckuva lot more leeway because people can just leave.

I fully recognize, of course, that there then becomes a danger of all 50 states becoming authoritarian in and of themselves...but I still think that the STRENGTH of the American republic lies in the fact that you can have a lefty state, a righty state, an authoritarian state, and a libertarian state -- and people can then choose to live in the states which best align with their personal philosophies.

So what I am saying here is not perfectly developed, but really, if the population of Utah really really wants to try and legislate morality, I say fine. I won't be going to Utah. Let all the authoritarian nutters move to Utah. At least they will no longer be in MY neighborhood. ;-)

After thinking on it and reading what you're saying, I can see what you mean. If so, though, it shouldnt be entire states but local municipals, and whatever those local areas and states do, they cant enforce through the federal government on other states....so long as thats accepted I agree.

The only thing I think that every state and local area has to respect though, is the first amendment, so no law that limits free speech can be allowed, in the same way there should never be a law limiting habeus corpus, limiting arms, etc. So as long as the Constitution is respected, the States should have their sovereignty...

[Kingfisher]

bump

[Theocrat]

There are a couple points I disgreed with, such as a state's right to ban "adult" store or prostitution, because I think that is a limitation on people's right to form any consenting contract or view any material under the first amendment, which the states or local governments have no right to take away......but otherwise, he made a very strong a great point that too many Christian conservatives have forgotten today. The church, and the individual, and the parents have to be responsible for their children's, they people's, and for their own morality. It is inherently wrong to force these moralities onto others with the use of a sovereign government under the social contract and Constitution. Every church, every religious individual, every parent should be completely encouraged to speak their mind and try to preach their morality and their belief in its superiority for the good of society, because morality is gained and understood, never forced. Although I am an Atheist, I am inclined to ask those who believe otherwise a question that Huckabee so unhonorably dodged at a recent debate, "What would Jesus do? Would he force his morality onto non-believers through legislation, or would he honorably convert through example, through preaching, through respect?"

According to my understanding of the Scriptures, I say that Jesus would do both--preach and legislate morality. Simply put, He would preach because He's the Word of God, and He would legislate morality because He's King of kings and Lord of lords.

By the way, all legislation is based on some standard of morality (establishing what's right and what's wrong). So, if I take your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, MooCowzRock, would I be correct in saying that all governments force morality on their citizens through legislation (or laws)?