Dumocracy rules!

[elected4ever]

Gerald

Which makes it a gilt-edged priority to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of fanatics like you, because if you ever get hold of them nobody will escape the carnage.

e4e. Then the purpose of the missiles is to enslave through fear. You really are not going to use them. But those who are to be enslaved by you must be keep from them. You really that afraid to die. You would not attack me if I had them would you? If I had them and you attack me I would damn sure use them. So much for your ability to enslave me if I can defend myself. Ahhhhhh but of course I forgot. Your way is the only way. My question is why have them at all if you are not going to use them? And who told you that I could not have them? Sense when is what I have and what I do not have any of your business?

 

[Granite]

"I believe in wars of annihilation not pacification."

So the German and Japanese should have been completely wiped out following World War II? Where do you draw the line or make exceptions, if at all?

"Christians who act in accordance with the law of the King and are persecuted by the secular society. An example is when a Christian executes a murderer that the secular society refuses to execute and can be expected to be treated as the criminal even though he is not guilty of a crime."

How can you say you don't support Christians murdering abortionists when this is what you imply?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath

We were discussing the Criminal Justice System, not the Constitution, Jefferson. Do try to keep up.

The ACM constitution and Enyart's criminal justice system go hand in hand.

Besides, is THIS public enough for you?

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by granite1010

"I believe in wars of annihilation not pacification."

So the German and Japanese should have been completely wiped out following World War II? Where do you draw the line or make exceptions, if at all?

"Christians who act in accordance with the law of the King and are persecuted by the secular society. An example is when a Christian executes a murderer that the secular society refuses to execute and can be expected to be treated as the criminal even though he is not guilty of a crime."

How can you say you don't support Christians murdering abortionists when this is what you imply?

I think what he's getting at is this: he believes that killing one who performs abortions is not murder, much like those who believe killing blasphemers and apostates is not murder; such as these are merely casualties in the War Against Evil™...

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath
I would do my level best to ensure that such a government does not come into power anyplace in which I live.

You would have striven against colonial America?

Failing that I would leave.

You would have left colonial America?

Given any choice in the matter, I would not live under a theocracy or a theonomy.

Remember Afghanistan and Iran. :think:

Are you comparing Afghanistan and Iran to colonial America?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

The ACM constitution and Enyart's criminal justice system go hand in hand.

Besides, is THIS public enough for you?

The book's cover describes it as a "syllabus", not the Justice System itself.

There are two meanings for the word "syallabus" in my dictionary:

• 
  Academic meaning - An outline or a summary of the main points of a text, lecture, or course of study.
  
  Legal meaning - A short statement preceding a report on an adjudged case and containing a summary of the court's rulings on each point involved.

Neither one sounds like what I'm asking for - a complete statement of content of Enyart's ACM criminal code.

He was supposed to publish the complete document on the Shadowgov website in 2002, but I never did see it there. Now everything's been removed from the public portion of the site, including the ACM constitution (of which I do have a copy).

Do any of the former Shadowgov'ers have a copy of this document to tell us what it contains? :think:

 

[Granite]

An organized religious government is not the solution: call it theocracy or what you want.

Christians within government is fine: Christians permeating society is noble. A government that joins organized religion hand in glove with the state is a nightmare.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson
You would have striven against colonial America?

The American colonies were not theonomies by the time of the revolution.

You would have left colonial America?

As an atheist, I would never have settled in colonies with a "required" religoius belief like Massachusetts Bay or Virginia. For one thing I would not have been allowed to own land or vote...

Are you comparing Afghanistan and Iran to colonial America?

No, I'm comparing two countries that put theonomy into practice in modern times to the Shadowgov's Christian Taliban™ ideology.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by elected4ever
I do not advocate the murder of anyone. Abortionist are the ones murdering the innocent, I advocate the just execution of murderers.

But who should be doing the "executing?" The government, or roving bands of Christian vigilantes?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

An organized religious government is not the solution: call it theocracy or what you want.

Christians within government is fine: Christians permeating society is noble. A government that joins organized religion hand in glove with the state is a nightmare.

I would agree. Such "mixed marriages" between religions and states have not worked well throughout history...

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Are you comparing Afghanistan and Iran to colonial America?

If they punished people for patently idiotic offenses like blasphemy and witchcraft, then yes.

 

[elected4ever]

Killing is not necessarily murder. We are not to kill without cause. To kill without legitimate cause is murder. To kill a rapist is not murder. To kill a thief would be murder.The thief is to pay the one wronged restitution. The thief's life is in the hand of his victim.How does one give a young lady her virginity back? How does on give back a life that has been wrongfully taken? How does the life that exist within the mother defend itself from attack when the mother permits the assault to take place for the purpose of destroying that life?

Recently we have had occasion to be appalled at the murder of a 12 year old girl at the hands of a madman. How much more horrible would it have been if the mother had participated in that horrible act. Yet just because the infant has not been birthed we give a licenses to murder the unborn little boy of little girl. Who defines the rights of these little ones?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Gerald

If they punished people for patently idiotic offenses like blasphemy and witchcraft, then yes.

Well, here in the colony of Virginia heretics could be executed, denial of the Trinity carried a three year prison term, blasphemers could have the custody of their chidren removed, church attendance was compulsory, and tax money was used to support the Anglican (later Episcopal) churches.

These laws were not finally repealed until January 16, 1786.

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

- Thomas Jefferson, speech to the Virginia legislature 1776

As summed up in Jefferson and Religious Freedom, by Merril D Peterson in Atlantic Montly Magazine, December 1994.

Present-day neoconservatives and spokesmen for the religious right argue, for essentially political reasons, that a common religion is the necessary glue of the nation, that we began as a Christian people, and that however pluralist we may have become, the survival of the republic rests upon the foundation of Christian or perhaps Judeo-Christian belief. God forbid, they say, that the government should regulate our economic behavior, but it ought to regulate moral and religious belief. Again, the whole thrust of Jefferson's philosophy was to reject that position, to reject any idea that a shared community of religious beliefs or of moral values, other than the value of freedom itself, was necessary to society. He sought to raise the republic on the inalienable rights of man, allowing every citizen sovereignty over his own mind and conscience.

 

[Jefferson]

e4e:

You are avoiding my question. Let's try it again: Who should be doing the "executing?" The government, or roving bands of Christian vigilantes?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by elected4ever

Killing is not necessarily murder. We are not to kill without cause. To kill without legitimate cause is murder. To kill a rapist is not murder. To kill a thief would be murder.The thief is to pay the one wronged restitution. The thief's life is in the hand of his victim.How does one give a young lady her virginity back? How does on give back a life that has been wrongfully taken? How does the life that exist within the mother defend itself from attack when the mother permits the assault to take place for the purpose of destroying that life?

Recently we have had occasion to be appalled at the murder of a 12 year old girl at the hands of a madman. How much more horrible would it have been if the mother had participated in that horrible act. Yet just because the infant has not been birthed we give a licenses to murder the unborn little boy of little girl. Who defines the rights of these little ones?

It is not the Christian's individual responsibility to execute capital offenders: that rests in the hands of the state. I've yet to see you make that distinction.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

It is not the Christian's individual responsibility to execute capital offenders: that rests in the hands of the state. I've yet to see you make that distinction.

And if the government won't do so, the Christians are just supposed to stand around and gripe, right?:think:

I think Jesus had some specific things to say about how YHWH would react to those who remained inactive while injustice was being done, didn't he?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Zakath

And if the government won't do so, the Christians are just supposed to stand around and gripe, right?:think:

I think Jesus had some specific things to say about how YHWH would react to those who remained inactive while injustice was being done, didn't he?

Whatever the solution may be, it doesn't involve following in the footsteps of Paul Hill.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010
Whatever the solution may be, it doesn't involve following in the footsteps of Paul Hill.

But he claims to be a True Believer™ and also claims that people who refuse do act are sinners and disobedient to your deity.

How come, after 2000 years, you people don't have a uniform solution to a relatively simple problem?

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Zakath
But he claims to be a True Believer™ and also claims that people who refuse do act are sinners and disobedient to your deity.

How come, after 2000 years, you people don't have a uniform solution to a relatively simple problem?

I suspect because the Agent of Darkness™ have bigger sticks and fight dirty...
:chuckle:

 

[elected4ever]

Jefferson

You are avoiding my question. Let's try it again: Who should be doing the "executing?" The government, or roving bands of Christian vigilantes?

granite1010

It is not the Christian's individual responsibility to execute capital offenders: that rests in the hands of the state. I've yet to see you make that distinction.

e4e ----Sense both questions address the same issue I hope this is sufficient to address both.

I believe that the Christian should endeavor to live a decent and quiet life. Commanding the respect of his piers with the holy life that he advocates with all honesty and purity of his thought and motive among them. When the society in which he lives adopts a murderous and unjust policy, What should be his response to it?

One response is to set on his hands and do nothing and offer no complaint. Calling no mans consciences into conviction but just fade into the woodwork so to speak. This was my initial response. I did not believe that I had the power to effect change so I did not act. But that ugly little monkey would not go away.

The next response is to effect legislative change through elected officials. We worked hard to form a power base to influence the inter workings of a political party. This took years and when push come to shove the political party compromised and watered down its plank to defend the life of the unborn. Our years and years of effort were compromised and every now and then we get handed a bone to keep our loyalty. The latest bone "Partial Birth Abortion" Babies are still being killed by the thousands.

The next plan, education and confrontation. I take my hat of to these groups. The secular government has through its liberal courts restricted the effectiveness of these groups. They are now marginalized to a great degree and there effectiveness reduced tremendously. The abortionist and there murder mills operate with relative impunity to prosecution and reprisal. There political supporters occupy the most honored positions in state and federal government. insuring that no meaningful law to protect the most venerable and weakest of our society remain unpassed.

There is only one course of action that is still not been tried and it might be the only course of action left to us. That is the defiances of the civil authority. This course of action may result in prison and persecution of all Christians. Are we,as was our forefathers willing to sacrifice our lands and families in a civil action against the government to secure the right of life for the unborn. We must be willing to occupy the white house if necessary. Should this fail then the execution of the criminal murderers of unborn Babies may be necessary.