Dumocracy rules!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Zakath

Jefferson,

What, in your mind, is the difference between a theonomy and a theocracy?

To chime in--"theonomy" is more or less the ideology that drives and is behind a theocracy. I'd say a theocratic government would just be theonomy in action...
 

Gerald

Resident Fiend
Originally posted by granite1010

To chime in--"theonomy" is more or less the ideology that drives and is behind a theocracy. I'd say a theocratic government would just be theonomy in action...
You realize, of course, that the theonomists will deny this...?
;) :chuckle:
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Gerald
Trust me, under your regime, adulterers, homosexuals and drug users will be too smart and too careful to get caught.
You mean like the epidemic of those crimes in Saudi Arabia? Oh, wait a minute. There is no epidemic of those crimes in Saudi Arabia. Hmmmm :think: I wonder why not?

Please, Jefferson, think of all those poor snitches caught spying on me, littering my front yard with their bloody noses and broken limbs.
You mean like all those poor snitches caught spying in Saudi Arabia? Oh, wait a minute. There aren't a bunch of snitches with bloody noses and broken limbs in Saudi Arabia. Hmmmm :think: I wonder why not?

And I suppose you don't have any axe to grind with public Hare Krishna, Muslim or Secular Humanist "pride" parades...?
Nope. None at all.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Zakath

Jefferson,

What, in your mind, is the difference between a theonomy and a theocracy?
A theocracy enforces the ceremonial/religious laws as well as the social/moral laws. But a theonomy only enforces the social/moral laws.

For example, the death penalty we have for murder comes right out of the Bible. To that limited extent, America is a Biblical theonomy.

In fact, the colonies had scripture verses next to their laws on the books. I think they did this back then just for fun. Just to tweak the noses of people like Gerald.
 

Gerald

Resident Fiend
Originally posted by Jefferson
You mean like the epidemic of those crimes in Saudi Arabia? Oh, wait a minute. There is no epidemic of those crimes in Saudi Arabia.
That you know of. You seem to be fixated on the notion that if you don't see it, it doesn't happen.

Remember, you're only in trouble if you get caught. And in Saudi, if you're royalty, you're not in trouble even then...

Have you considered moving over there? I'm sure they'd love you...
 

elected4ever

New member
Zakath, you don't seem to be getting the message. The 16th Amendment has nothing to do with a personal income tax. It has to do with the apportionment of taxes paid by the the state to the federal government sense that is the part of the constitution that was amended. The tax on the state income can be assessed on a state without regard to the population of the state, No mention of a personal income tax is ever made or referred too. A personal income tax therefore remains unconstitutional.

The constitution does not allow for a property tax and no state constitution can codify a tax that is not granted in the the federal constitution. The state does not have the right to charge you a property tax by the authority of the constitution so they must have a different clam on your property than a constitutional one. Can you tell me what that is?:confused:
 
Last edited:

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by elected4ever

Zakath, you don't seem to be getting the message. The 16th Amendment has nothing to do with a personal income tax.

The text of the sixteenth amendment, in its entirety:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The text says "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income", well maybe I'm just being uncessarily dense here, but I think E4E has been sniffing something mind bending to claim it doesn't have anything to do with an income tax...

The constitution does not allow for a property tax...
I never claimed it did, did I?

...and no state constitution can codify a tax that is not granted in the the federal constitution.
Wrong again. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constititution states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Unless you can demonstrate where the federal government prohibits property taxes, I find your argument to be without basis.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by Jefferson

A theocracy enforces the ceremonial/religious laws as well as the social/moral laws. But a theonomy only enforces the social/moral laws.
Thank you for clarifying.

For example, the death penalty we have for murder comes right out of the Bible. To that limited extent, America is a Biblical theonomy.
So, by this example, Iran is an example of a Biblical theonomy?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Zakath

Thank you for clarifying.

So, by this example, Iran is an example of a Biblical theonomy?
As far as this one limited example goes, yes. Islam claims the Old Testament to be inspired.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by Jefferson

As far as this one limited example goes, yes. Islam claims the Old Testament to be inspired.
I wasn't asking about their theology, merely whether their form of government qualified, in your mind, as a theonomy.

Are you suggesting that the U.S. would be better run as a theonomy than as a democratic republic?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Zakath

I wasn't asking about their theology, merely whether their form of government qualified, in your mind, as a theonomy.
I frankly don't know enough about Islam to judge whether or not they are generally conforming their laws to the koran or not.

Are you suggesting that the U.S. would be better run as a theonomy than as a democratic republic?
Yes.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Zakath wrote:
Are you suggesting that the U.S. would be better run as a theonomy than as a democratic republic?

Jefferson replied:
Yes.

Why is that, in your opinion?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Zakath

Why is that, in your opinion?
Because the mob will always be generally immoral (and vote accordingly) but the odds of a single monarch being a moral, godly man is greater.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by Jefferson
Because the mob will always be generally immoral (and vote accordingly) but the odds of a single monarch being a moral, godly man is greater.
I think if you study history you'll find that mobs form anarchies not democratic republics.

History has likewise shown that governments run by single individuals tend to be more despotic than altruistic.

The democratic republic attempts to ameliorate the problem you describe by having the larger group elect a smaller group who must cooperate to produce laws and judgements. In a religiously pluralistic society, such as ours, this is a very helpful process.

Of course it may be that you do not envision your theonomy as a religiously pluralistic society... :think:
 

Gerald

Resident Fiend
Originally posted by Zakath
Of course it may be that you do not envision your theonomy as a religiously pluralistic society... :think:
The theonomists around here insist up and down that competing religions/philosophies/worldviews would not be supressed under such a regime, but I cannot see how it would not be the case in practice.

All it takes is a particularly zealous ruler and you have a reign of terror...
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I've found that while many Reconstructionists are individually supportive of decentralized government--and while I agree with much of so-called "reformed theology"--I can't imagine a Reconstructionist America becoming anything less than a tyranny, eventually.

Reconstructionists are best toppling their intellectual opponents: dispensationalists, antinomians, and the like. But in practice, even on a personal level, they're a disaster. It is hard to imagine a more disenfranchsied, intellectually arrogant, and self-righteous group than some Reconstructionists. (Of course I'm sure the Roman Catholics could have said the same for the Reformers; just an observation.) This may explain why so many Reconstructionists have vicious and very messy--very public--falling outs. Quite frankly, if you can't even get along with your father in law, you have no business telling us how we should run a society.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by granite1010
... Quite frankly, if you can't even get along with your father in law, you have no business telling us how we should run a society.
Ouch! I think you've hit the nail squarely that time! :thumb:
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
It's a cheap shot, I'll admit that. I've met Dr. North several times. He's certainly not a fanatic; his observations of early American history and the state of the American church are sharp and insightful; and in regards to eschatology he's quite good at decapitating dispensationalists.

Bottom line, I agree with him that this society clearly needs some fine tuning. It's portions of his solution--public stoning, anyone?--that I question. As he is fond of saying, you can't beat something with nothing. But it's the "something" he proposes that scares the hell out of critics of CR (and some of his own associates).
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
I was involved on the fringe areas of Dominionism and CR back in the 1980's and while some of their ideas were appealing to the "chosen few", it sounded more and more that the general population would be reduced to what was essentially a form of feudal serfdom.

Enyart and his fellow royalists are another variation on the theme. Except they want to drag back the "divine right" kings of Europe and put them into power here...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top