Grumpy

Excuse me, but did I just see a proposed U.S. constitution that would establish a new monarchy?

In what century was this drafted?

Toto

It was the last century, before the Y2K non-disaster knocked the Biblical Law / Reconstructionists on their collective asses. I notice that the owners of the site appear to have lost their domain name. (The site is not down, it's reporting that someone else owns the name now.)

I think this thread can stay here, since it demonstrates why church state separation is such a good idea, but if you want I can boot it to RR&P, where it might get some more suitable attention.

Sabine Grant

Even though I am both a theist and a monarchist, I must admit that the Separation of Church and State is vital in a pluralistic country.

Which god or gods would want people to be forced into praying to him or them? or worshiping them?

Religious practices are to be spontaneous not induced by oppression. Which resonable theist can support the idea of a government which endoctrinates people into conversion by force? And the law is the force of a government.

Should we imitate the oppression of fundamentalist
islamic governments who endoctrinate children from early age?

As for Biblical laws..ceremonial laws were set in place for the tribes of Israel. Christ himself challenged those laws as he performed healings on the Shabbat. Note though that he never broke any of the Roman laws. He separated religious laws from the laws of the land.The message is clear to me : our civil life is to be led by the laws of the land. Religious laws apply only to religious people with their consent.

Extremist attitudes on both sides theist and non theist are to be blamed for the ongoing battle. Both sides keep reacting to one another.

Pro-activism on both sides is the solution. A spirit of " let us make peace and accept one another and our different ways".

It starts with each individual. Each attempt to make peace.

Goriller

Please quote me where I am recommending conversion by force. People would be free to live as nonchristians in my preferred system of government. I am not advocating a theocracy.

Are you saying you believe Christians should sin against Proverbs 22:6? - "Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

Quote:

Religious laws apply only to religious people with their consent.

Wrong. First Timothy 1:8-10 says, "But we know that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine."

Sabine Grant

GORILLER : Children are endoctrinated in early age in fundamentalist islamic countries by the government! schools for example.

I have no problem with mothers and fathers raising their own child in their faith. That is what the verse refers to. The stewardship of children is to be assumed by the parents not the government. The government has no accountability in sponsoring the spiritual upbringing of a child.

I have never written that you' Goriller' promotes a system which encourages oppression. I spoke in general as a believer myself. That the notion of conversion by any force is contradictory to the essence of faith. That was a general statement which I feel most theists should embrace. That is for any believer to promote any religious government it is a contradiction to their own faith.

The verse you quoted in Timothy does not endorse the belief that religious laws are to be the laws of the land. Timothy in the previous verse speaks of how teachers pertained to teach the Law of Moses in a false way. Timothy points to the fact that there is application of the Law of Moses for what was considered criminal activities.

Am I to understand goriller from your defensive reaction that you believe that Church and State should govern as one? please clarify.

Alludium Fozdex

I have been taking potshots at this little gem of political theory since it first appeared, and have never been able to get the people who advocate it to understand that it is a blueprint for abuse of power on an enormous scale.

It has been written under the assumption that the king and his judges are all paragons of virtue, and would not use their power for personal gain. Any monarch enthroned under such a document would appoint judges who would ensure that he remained in power.

Many of the proscriptions described in the document would be nigh impossible to enforce without a network of spies and snitches.

These just scratch the surface of an egregiously flawed constitution.

Goriller

Gerald:

Call Enyart on his show and discuss this issue. I think it would be a very interesting conversation. It doesn't have to be a debate, just a friendly discussion. If you don't want to call him, I will. Just let me know.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Goriller ]</p>

Goriller

See my post on the constitution of America above.

The entire New Testament epistles show that the ceremonial laws have been done away with because they were all fulfilled in Christ.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Goriller ]</p>

Goriller

You are likely in much bigger trouble since he probably has AIDS.

Mageth

Yes, the moral and "case" laws but not the ceremonial laws.

Are the Ten Commandments moral laws? If so, how can you reconcile the first few commandments with:

People would be free to live as nonchristians in my preferred system of government. I am not advocating a theocracy