Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 31

Thread: Chuck Baldwin Revisits Romans 13

  1. #1

    Chuck Baldwin Revisits Romans 13

    Romans 13 Revisited
    By Chuck Baldwin
    February 27, 2009


    This column is archived at
    http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20090227.html


    It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our
    Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise
    reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans
    Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read
    your Bible, and leave me alone," or words to that effect.

    No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating
    what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the
    other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument
    are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their
    escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the
    way.

    Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously
    misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans
    Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

    "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but
    of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore
    resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist
    shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good
    works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that
    which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the
    minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be
    afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God,
    a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must
    needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this
    cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending
    continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues:
    tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear;
    honour to whom honour."

    Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not
    oppose any political leader really believe that civil magistrates have
    unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt
    that they truly believe that.

    For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal
    custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval
    custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on
    the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren
    sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I
    think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a
    law? I wouldn't.

    So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but
    does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An
    employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
    the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in
    the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how
    to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in
    nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. Lordship
    and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.

    By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but
    his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly
    limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose:
    "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is
    the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a
    revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

    Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no
    power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it
    that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has
    no divine authority or protection.

    Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a
    minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute
    wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath
    upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is
    lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil
    authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

    Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed
    the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate
    God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab
    and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority
    when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's
    principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not
    pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle
    of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the
    state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to
    authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon
    Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to
    authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem?
    Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused
    to obey those authorities that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In
    fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

    Virtually every apostle of Christ (except John, who survived being boiled in
    oil, according to historians) experienced martyrdom from hostile civil
    authorities. In addition, Christians throughout church history were
    imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for
    refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these
    Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?

    So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including
    the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--including
    civil authority--is limited.

    Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be
    predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said,
    "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
    conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than
    just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means
    we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness
    of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a
    result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

    Remember, too, that we are all subject to Natural Law. No human authority
    has the right to demand that men surrender their submission to God's law
    "written in their hearts." When any human authority attempts to do this, it
    becomes tyrannical, because, again, it challenges the Lordship and
    Sovereignty of man's Creator.

    As William Blackstone (as studied and devoted a Christian scholar as there
    ever was) wrote, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and
    dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.
    It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no
    human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are
    valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or
    immediately, from this original." (Source: William Blackstone, "Of The
    Nature of Laws in General")

    Therefore, there are times when civil authority must be resisted. Either
    governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could
    precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist
    civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that
    discussion for another time.

    Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a
    monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this
    country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of
    men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress,
    or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme
    Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises
    to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand
    the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

    This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy
    elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S.
    Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every
    citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution.
    Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Christians in America:

    "Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no
    [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God.
    Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of
    God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the
    Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
    not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt
    have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to
    thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the
    Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the
    minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
    Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
    conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution
    is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render
    therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom
    custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

    Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our
    responsibility to civil authority in these United States, per the teaching
    of Romans Chapter 13.

    Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected
    representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional
    government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any
    governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this
    column, Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's
    founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution,
    and the Bill of Rights.

    (See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20050630.html )

    In addition, if Christians (and others) had been properly obedient to the
    Constitution (and Romans 13), they would also have submitted to the Tenth
    Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes the authority of the
    States in matters not specifically ceded to the federal government. In other
    words, the Constitution intended that the authority of the federal
    government be small and limited, with most authority residing within the
    States and among the people themselves.

    As submission to the Constitution and Natural Law have provided a haven of
    peace and prosperity in these United States, Christians (for the most part)
    have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and
    defy their civil authorities. However, as it is obvious that a majority of
    our government leaders currently have almost no fidelity to their oaths to
    defend the U.S. Constitution, it is becoming more and more likely that
    we--like our forefathers--will need to rediscover Benjamin Franklin's
    declaration that "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (Of course,
    this effort, too, must be accomplished within the scope of law, both divine
    and civil.)

    The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders
    to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the
    "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly
    believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil
    magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

    Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

    P.S. I invite readers to listen to my interview with Dr. Greg Dixon
    regarding Romans Chapter 13 at:
    http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Dixon.html



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Warrior View Post
    Where's Jesus?
    At the right hand of the father in his Kingdom.
    Are you ready for benevolent monarchy?
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    At the right hand of the father in his Kingdom.
    Are you ready for benevolent monarchy?
    In the article.

    NO.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by tonesforjonesbones View Post
    Romans 13 Revisited
    By Chuck Baldwin
    February 27, 2009


    This column is archived at
    http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20090227.html


    It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our
    Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise
    reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans
    Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read
    your Bible, and leave me alone," or words to that effect.

    No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating
    what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the
    other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument
    are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their
    escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the
    way.

    Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously
    misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans
    Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

    "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but
    of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore
    resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist
    shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good
    works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that
    which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the
    minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be
    afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God,
    a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must
    needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this
    cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending
    continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues:
    tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear;
    honour to whom honour."

    Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not
    oppose any political leader really believe that civil magistrates have
    unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt
    that they truly believe that.

    For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal
    custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval
    custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on
    the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren
    sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I
    think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a
    law? I wouldn't.

    So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but
    does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An
    employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
    the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in
    the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how
    to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in
    nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. Lordship
    and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.

    By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but
    his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly
    limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose:
    "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is
    the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a
    revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

    Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no
    power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it
    that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has
    no divine authority or protection.

    Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a
    minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute
    wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath
    upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is
    lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil
    authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

    Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed
    the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate
    God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab
    and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority
    when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's
    principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not
    pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle
    of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the
    state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to
    authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon
    Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to
    authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem?
    Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused
    to obey those authorities that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In
    fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

    Virtually every apostle of Christ (except John, who survived being boiled in
    oil, according to historians) experienced martyrdom from hostile civil
    authorities. In addition, Christians throughout church history were
    imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for
    refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these
    Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?

    So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including
    the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--including
    civil authority--is limited.

    Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be
    predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said,
    "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
    conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than
    just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means
    we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness
    of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a
    result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

    Remember, too, that we are all subject to Natural Law. No human authority
    has the right to demand that men surrender their submission to God's law
    "written in their hearts." When any human authority attempts to do this, it
    becomes tyrannical, because, again, it challenges the Lordship and
    Sovereignty of man's Creator.

    As William Blackstone (as studied and devoted a Christian scholar as there
    ever was) wrote, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and
    dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.
    It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no
    human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are
    valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or
    immediately, from this original." (Source: William Blackstone, "Of The
    Nature of Laws in General")

    Therefore, there are times when civil authority must be resisted. Either
    governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could
    precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist
    civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that
    discussion for another time.

    Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a
    monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this
    country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of
    men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress,
    or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme
    Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises
    to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand
    the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

    This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy
    elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S.
    Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every
    citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution.
    Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Christians in America:

    "Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no
    [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God.
    Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of
    God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the
    Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
    not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt
    have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to
    thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the
    Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the
    minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
    Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
    conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution
    is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render
    therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom
    custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

    Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our
    responsibility to civil authority in these United States, per the teaching
    of Romans Chapter 13.

    Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected
    representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional
    government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any
    governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this
    column, Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's
    founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution,
    and the Bill of Rights.

    (See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20050630.html )

    In addition, if Christians (and others) had been properly obedient to the
    Constitution (and Romans 13), they would also have submitted to the Tenth
    Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes the authority of the
    States in matters not specifically ceded to the federal government. In other
    words, the Constitution intended that the authority of the federal
    government be small and limited, with most authority residing within the
    States and among the people themselves.

    As submission to the Constitution and Natural Law have provided a haven of
    peace and prosperity in these United States, Christians (for the most part)
    have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and
    defy their civil authorities. However, as it is obvious that a majority of
    our government leaders currently have almost no fidelity to their oaths to
    defend the U.S. Constitution, it is becoming more and more likely that
    we--like our forefathers--will need to rediscover Benjamin Franklin's
    declaration that "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (Of course,
    this effort, too, must be accomplished within the scope of law, both divine
    and civil.)

    The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders
    to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the
    "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly
    believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil
    magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

    Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

    P.S. I invite readers to listen to my interview with Dr. Greg Dixon
    regarding Romans Chapter 13 at:
    http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Dixon.html
    Good post to read, I was troubled by this verse recently when someone told me that I was "of satan" to speak against the violence between israeli military and hamas. I neither favor israeli military or hamas and deeply have concern for the people torn between the conflict of war as a christian.

  7. #6
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    I appreciated Chuck's articles in 2007/2008 a great deal, and I still like a lot of his pieces now.
    I haven't followed him as closely though here recently, and I should probably try to make more of an effort and follow his stuff.

  8. #7
    So, there are limits to authority...

    An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
    the private lives of his employees?

    No.

  9. #8
    So, there are limits to authority...

    An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
    the private lives of his employees?

    No.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused
    to obey those authorities that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In
    fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

  12. #10
    Sad, looking at the names of the fallen...

  13. #11
    Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed
    the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate
    God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab
    and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority
    when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's
    principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not
    pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle
    of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the
    state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to
    authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon
    Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to
    authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem?
    Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused
    to obey those authorities that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In
    fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
    You know, I always remember being taught that Moses murdered the Egyptian taskmaster, that it was a flawed aspect of an otherwise godly man. But I think Chuck is right, that was a defensive action that was morally acceptable.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    So, there are limits to authority...

    An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
    the private lives of his employees?

    No.
    Drug testing started in the 80's with pilots. Good idea, no one want their pilots using drugs...

    Haven't you ever watched a "Cops" show on TV?

    Whenever they raid a crack house, etc. ...it is a bunch of pilots!!

    edit: Have you ever heard of an accident in commercial aviation where one of the pilots had drugs impairing their critical decision(s) that led to the accident? I'm not sure one could even find an alcohol impairment that led to an accident.

    My aim is not good, it seems I always pee all over the cup before handing it over to the tester.
    Last edited by Danke; 07-28-2014 at 08:57 PM.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Drug testing started in the 80's with pilots. Good idea, no one want their pilots using drugs...

    Haven't you ever watched a "Cops" show on TV?

    Whenever they raid a crack house, etc. ...it is a bunch of pilots!!
    If there's a clause in the contract that says "You can't use drugs as a part of this job and we will check you", that's acceptable as long as its a private company that isn't getting money from taxpayers.

    It would be a different matter if somebody signed a contract and then the employer was like "oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that I'm a rabid atheist, and if I'm going to spy on you to make sure you don't go to church."

    Partly its a basic human decency issue as well. Should an employer who makes a "no smoking on or off the job" policy be legally sanctioned? No. Is he out of line for doing that? Well, I personally think he is, even though legally he'd have the right.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    If there's a clause in the contract that says "You can't use drugs as a part of this job and we will check you", that's acceptable as long as its a private company that isn't getting money from taxpayers.

    It would be a different matter if somebody signed a contract and then the employer was like "oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that I'm a rabid atheist, and if I'm going to spy on you to make sure you don't go to church."

    Partly its a basic human decency issue as well. Should an employer who makes a "no smoking on or off the job" policy be legally sanctioned? No. Is he out of line for doing that? Well, I personally think he is, even though legally he'd have the right.
    It is a federal government requirement that employers bow down to. Probably written somewhere that you will be subject to all federal regulations, etc.

    When you buy a ticket, are you agreeing to be anally probed by a TSA agent?

    You want to get to that business meeting (or else lose your job), see your family over the holidays, etc?

    Even I won't submit to that. The flight will just have to be cancelled.
    Last edited by Danke; 07-28-2014 at 08:52 PM.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    It is a federal government requirement that employers bow down to. Probably written somewhere that you will be subject to all federal regulations, etc.

    When you buy a ticket, are you agreeing to be anally probed by a TSA agent?

    You want to get to that business meeting (or else lose your job), see your family over the holidays, etc?

    Even I won't submit to that. The flight will just have to be cancelled.
    No, I don't think buying a ticket is consent, because the Federal government is illegitimate and its agents are violent criminals.

    If there were no Federal regulations at all and a private airline decided to have its own security system and you signed a contract saying you'd comply with security procedures and those procedures were spelled out, that would be legitimate.

    I guess its the same with drugs. A company has a right to tell you you can't use drugs if that's the contract you agreed on. But when Federal regulations FORCE companies to put that into the contract, I would say that makes the contract signed under duress, IMO.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    .

    I guess its the same with drugs. A company has a right to tell you you can't use drugs if that's the contract you agreed on. But when Federal regulations FORCE companies to put that into the contract, I would say that makes the contract signed under duress, IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post

    Partly its a basic human decency issue as well. Should an employer who makes a "no smoking on or off the job" policy be legally sanctioned? No. Is he out of line for doing that? Well, I personally think he is, even though legally he'd have the right.

    Do you even read what you have wrote? So his legally vs. his right? WTH?
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Do you even read what you have wrote? So his legally vs. his right? WTH?
    I guess I should be clearer. What I'm saying is that according to libertarian law (which I support) there ought to be nothing saying an employer can't make a "no smoking pot at home" rule for his customers and fire anyone who doesn't comply. But I think such a rule, barring some specific good reason for it, would be something that I think employers should not do.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I guess I should be clearer. What I'm saying is that according to libertarian law (which I support) there ought to be nothing saying an employer can't make a "no smoking pot at home" rule for his customers and fire anyone who doesn't comply. But I think such a rule, barring some specific good reason for it, would be something that I think employers should not do.
    How about no missionary style humping?
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  22. #19
    A long explanation of the meaning of a short message is a rationalization for what one wants it to mean.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    How about no missionary style humping?
    I would say the same thing.

    Mind you, in both cases I don't see why an employer would do that, or how he could possibly enforce it, and any who tried would almost certainly go out of business. But if one really wanted to do that, they could.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    A long explanation of the meaning of a short message is a rationalization for what one wants it to mean.
    I can sum it up in one sentence:

    "Government was given the power by God to punish evildoers, but government's authority is limited in that it has no authority to punish those who do good."

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I would say the same thing.

    Mind you, in both cases I don't see why an employer would do that, or how he could possibly enforce it, and any who tried would almost certainly go out of business. But if one really wanted to do that, they could.
    So it is what the employer can get away with that makes it ok. Slave labor of Jews, no problem.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    So it is what the employer can get away with that makes it ok. Slave labor of Jews, no problem.
    You need to learn basic libertarian theory. If it weren't this forum I'd give teaching it to you a shot, but on this forum I really, really shouldn't have to.

    No, it has nothing to do with what they can get away with. It has nothing to do with the NAP. If you and your employer agree that your employer will pay you X amount of dollars on condition that you not only do your job but also do not use drugs during your spare time, there is nobody being aggressed against, thus morally no crime has been committed.

    Whether you can sell yourself into slavery is a matter that libertarians disagree on. Walter Block takes the position that you can, and that such a contract would be binding, while most other libertarians say that self-ownership is inalienable and that its impossible to make a binding contract where you sell yourself into slavery. I tend toward the latter view, but it is debated.

    By contrast, I assume you were talking about enslaving people without their consent, which every libertarian would consider an aggressive action that should be illegal. Although, incidentally, neocons are fine with slavery so long as it is called "the draft."

  27. #24
    If an employer tells you that he will only hire you if you agree not to use any drugs while you are employed by him, assuming you are able to quit at any time, there is no way this arrangement violates libertarian principles. That is not an aggressive relationship. The businessowner is unlikely to get away with it economically, but that's a different issue.

    If an employer enslaves Jews, he may get away with it and not get caught, but it doesn't matter. That's an aggressive act that should be punished, even though sometimes someone might get away from it.

    This is libertarian 101. Simpler than that actually. Its libertarian Pre-K. I think I could get a statist to understand that concept in like two seconds. Why this is even an issue I don't know.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    An open boarders are ok even though we don't have a free market and I am taxed to support aliens, etc...it is not just a philosophical argument...NAP ya know.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  30. #26
    If one is looking at this passage as it was written to the actual Romans, this passage makes some sense. In that day the ruler was the law. He believed he was invested with a divine right to do what he wanted and make people honor him.

    In the United States, *the people* are the law. The Consitution enumerates limited powers to elected representatives and no elected judged. The rest if the power belongs to us. That would mean we have a biblical and Constitutional responsibioity to do something about it, We also have a responsibility to understand that freedom is not doing what we want, but to have liberty to do what we ought to do. We have the right and responsibility to live, be free, and to prosper.
    Last edited by euphemia; 07-28-2014 at 11:10 PM.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I can sum it up in one sentence:

    "Government was given the power by God to punish evildoers, but government's authority is limited in that it has no authority to punish those who do good."
    That's not the message in Romans 13 1-7. I only see libertarianish Christians trying to change its message.
    Last edited by robert68; 07-29-2014 at 11:40 AM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    An open boarders are ok even though we don't have a free market and I am taxed to support aliens, etc...it is not just a philosophical argument...NAP ya know.
    What is NAP?

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I can sum it up in one sentence:

    "Government was given the power by God to punish evildoers, but government's authority is limited in that it has no authority to punish those who do good."
    No.. It was not.
    Governments were not created by God. Governments were installed by men,, and the stated purpose is to punish evil.

    It was not instituted by God..

    The first recorded instance of "government" in the Bible was Nimrod.
    Nimrod was the offspring of Evil. and resulted in the confusion of languages.

    The people of Israel called for a king,, to be like all the pagan nations. God eventually gave them one against his wish,,and warned them of the trouble it would cause.

    This is Satan's realm,, and it is he that gives power to whoever he wishes.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  34. #30
    NAP - Non-Aggression Principle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwrsKGzcZLM

    The Story of Your Enslavement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A Stefan Molyneux

    Bible is used as another tool to control the population.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Chuck Baldwin - Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission
    By FrankRep in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-03-2011, 01:26 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 10:15 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 03:04 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-20-2008, 06:16 PM
  5. Chuck Baldwin on AJ right now
    By cska80 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-13-2008, 01:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •