No Logical Barrier from Tyranny

New at Polemos
Some Good Quotes
Law, Civil

"The source of moral authority and law within a society will either be theistic or political; when the former is repudiated, the latter allows no logical barrier from tyranny."

Greg Bahnsen in Theonomy in Christian Ethics

The Salt of the Earth?

New at Polemos
Some Good Quotes
Law, Civil

"The church is called to function as a preservative in society ("the salt of the earth") (Matthew 5:13), and thus the early church and Reformers main­lined, among other things, that the civil "magistrate" is also a "minister" if God (Romans 13:4,6) and as such responsible to His authority and law. Previously the autonomous polis and natural reason, taken to be the source and authority for political law, were challenged by the church, but today the church has largely succumbed to the idea that God's law is extraneous, not only to personal morality, but to matters of statesmanship and civil government. The theologians of this century have offered no serious alternative to the world, giving the impression that "the salt has lost its saltiness." For instance, in a book on the very topic of The Christian in Politics we read these words by Walter James:

The Christian is called upon to act beside other men and no assurance is given him that he will sense God's purpose better than they. He can no more aim to be a Christian statesman than a Christian engineer. . . . He stands on a par with the non-Christian. . . . His religion will give him no special guid­ance in his public task. . .

In addition to not having anything to speak before kings (Psalm119:46) because of its endorsement of neutralism in civil affairs, the modern church has shown itself to be as antinomian in its theory of ethics as the autono­mous secular man. As a result the church fails to challenge "the powers that be" with the "power (authority)" of Christ (Romans 13:1 with 28:18) or to offer restor­ative guidance to its society...."

Greg Bahnsen in Theonomy in Christian Ethics

The Parental Rights Amendment

Parentalrights.org

From Parentalrights.org

Leading the Fight against the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child.

• 20 Things you need to know about the CRC
• Understanding the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child

Amnesty Bill's Worst Provision

Wow! And this was on CNN! This is why "Health care" will not be given to illegal aliens, they wont be illegal any more:



Thanks for the link Larry.

Politics through Predestination

New at Polemos
Politics/Government/Law
Audio Links

The doctrine of predestination simply stated is this:

"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

-The Westminster Confession

The usual knee-jerk reaction to this doctrine, even by many professing Christians, is “God ordains whatever comes to pass? What about our free will? That’s not fair!” and for this reason, apparently, it can not be true in their minds because God is always fair, right? Or is He?

What about the events surrounding our births? Did we have any say in whether we would be male or female or did God unfairly make that decision for us? Did we have any say in what country we would be born in or did God force that decision upon us also? Did we have any say in what family we would be born into? How about what race we would be, what color our skin would be, how tall or short we would be, etc. etc. Where is our free will in all of this? Where’s the fairness? Where’s the equality?

What about the man who is born deep in the heart of Africa, never has the opportunity to hear the gospel and perishes in his sin while another man is born into a Christian family, hears the gospel from his youth, and believes to the saving of his soul. Is this fair? Didn’t God send both of them to their appointed places of birth? Couldn’t He have sent both men to Christian families?

For that matter, what about all the other men and women who never hear the gospel and perish in their sins? Couldn’t God have sent the gospel to all of them? Couldn’t God pick me up right now and send to one or more of these people to share the gospel with them? Or better yet, couldn’t He have avoided the whole fall of man altogether? He didn’t have to make that tree, did He? He didn’t have to put it in the garden. He didn’t have to create Satan. He didn’t have to let him fall and He didn’t have to let him tempt Eve either, but He did all of that. Clearly He predestined all of these things to happen. Scripture teaches this and logic demands it. God could circumvent, avoid or stop anything that comes to pass; whatever does come to pass only happens by His knowledge, permission and decree.

But anyhow, I’ve heard many very good messages on this subject but found this one especially interesting as R.J. Rushdoony relates what the Bible teaches concerning Predestination to the subject of politics; two things generally not brought together in our dualistic "christian" mindsets.

Politics through Predestination
R.J. Rushdoony

Congress passes 'Pedophile Protection Act'

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Isaiah 5:4

• Congress passes 'Pedophile Protection Act'
  World Net Daily

"A "hate crimes" bill opponents claim will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, is poised to be signed by President Obama, a longtime proponent of the plan to give homosexuals and others with alternative lifestyles special protections not provided other classes of citizens.

The Senate approved the measure 68-29 today after Democrats strategically attached it to a "must-pass" $680 billion defense appropriations plan...." more....

Welfare Stampede in Detroit

Thousands line up in Detroit for their fair share of my (and my children's and grandchildren's etc. etc.) hard earned money, I'm sure that they will be very responsible with it. Thank you Obama for being so generous with other people's money! I was only going to feed my children and stuff with it anyhow.

Ron Paul on the FED

Congressman Ron Paul with some good, common, Biblical sense on the Federal Reserve:

The Unlimited Liability Universe

"A limited liability company is one in which the liability of each shareholder is limited to the amount of his shares or stocks, or to a sum fixed by a guarantee called "limited by guarantee." The purpose of limited liability laws is to limit responsibility. Although the ostensible purpose is to protect the shareholders, the practical effect is to limit their responsibility and therefore encourage recklessness in investment. A limited liability economy is socialistic. By seeking to protect people, a limited liability economy merely transfers responsibility away from the people to the state, where "planning" supposedly obviates re­sponsibility. Limited liability encourages people to take chances with limited risks, and to sin economically without paying the price. Limited liability laws rest on the fallacy that payment for economic sins need not be made. In actuality, payment is simply transferred to others.

Limited liability laws were unpopular in earlier, Christian eras but have flourished in the Darwinian world. They rest on important religious presuppositions.

In a statement central to his account, C. S. Lewis described his preference, prior to his conversion, for a materialistic, atheistic uni­verse. The advantages of such a world are the very limited demands it makes on a man.

To such a craven the materialist's universe has the enormous at­traction that it offered you limited liabilities. No strictly infinite disaster could overtake you in it. Death ended all. And if ever finite disasters proved greater than one wished to bear, suicide would always be possible. The horror of the Christian universe was that it had no door marked Exit. . . . But, of course, what mattered most of all was my deap-seated hatred of authority, my monstrous individualism, my lawlessness. No word in my vocabu­lary expressed deeper hatred than the word Interference. But Christianity placed at the center what then seemed to me a tran­scendental Interferer. If its picture were true then no sort of "treaty with reality" could ever be possible. There was no region even in the innermost depth of one's soul (nay, there least of all) which one could surround with a barbed wire fence and guard with a notice of No Admittance. And that was what I wanted; some area, however small, of which I could say to all other beings, "This is my business and mine only."

This is an excellent summation of the matter. The atheist wants a limited liability universe, and he seeks to create a limited liability political and economic order. The more socialistic he becomes, the more he demands a maximum advantage and a limited liability from his social order, an impossibility."

-R.J. Rushdoony in Institutes of Biblical Law

Socialism: Society Coveting by way of Law

"The names for the society whereby men can covet everything that is their neighbor's may vary: socialism, communism, a welfare economy, rugged individualism, fascism, and national socialism are a few of the names common to history. Their goal is the same: under a facade of morality, a system is created to seize what is properly our neighbor's. Not surprisingly, such a system shows a general decline in morality. Theft, murder, adultery, and false witness all increase, because man is a unity. If he can legalize and "justify" seizing his neighbor's wealth or property, he will then legalize and justify taking his neighbor's wife."

-R.J. Rushdoony in Institutes of Biblical Law

Joe Wilson for President!

O.K. I don't really know that much about Joe Wilson but thank you Mr. Wilson for speaking up!

Unavoidably Political and Revolutionary

I have had a great many unbelievers and professing believers alike tell me that we ought to keep our religion out of politics; but how can we do such a thing? Politics, like every other area of life, is necessarily a religious endeavor. God invented and established the political office and politics have to do with Law which is the legislation of morality and morality stands on the foundation of one religion or another. Politics cannot and never will be separated from religion. The question is this: which religion will your political system be built upon? It is either ignorant or just outright foolish to think that the two can ever be separated.

As Christians we are to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world and intrinsic to this gospel is the Lordship of Jesus Christ; every area of life is to be brought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10 : 5), this would include the political life of a nation. As the people of the nation come under the authority of Jesus Christ and the sway of His Spirit one of the natural results will be that those in the political realm will asks themselves “How would the God who established government have that government to function?” If our commission is to convert and disciple the nations it is inevitable that we will affect those nations’ governmental systems and this, brethren, makes Christianity a politically revolutionary force.

Governments, as already noted, are built upon some sort of religious presuppositions and when Christianity comes in and starts converting the people of a particular country to another religious system it is undermining the very foundations of that society; it is effecting a revolution. Likewise, when other religions begin establishing a foothold in a Christian republic, such as the United States used to be, they are undermining the foundations of that society and will bring about a political revolution as their religion and others spreads among the people. We are witnessing the political fruit of this religious revolution right before our very eyes here in the United States today.

Consider the Roman Empire for a moment. They killed many of the Christians as seditious political revolutionaries. Based on their religious presuppositions Rome granted a limited amount of religious freedom as long as those religions’ subscribed to the ultimate Lordship of Caesar. This the Christians could not do and thus they were seen as a threat to the political stability of the Empire.

Why do so many of the Muslim or Communist countries persecute and even outlaw Christianity? Part of the reason, no doubt, is the natural animosity in the hearts of unbelievers towards the truth, but they also recognize that a new religious system will undermine the very fabric of their society as it inevitably brings another system of Law and morality with it as it spreads. Tyrants’ especially fear Christianity as it always carries the seeds of freedom, and the collapse of their throne, along with it.

So if America is going to return to its former glory and strength (and we ought to desire the good of the nation we live in), it desperately needs a new revolution; not merely a political revolution but a spiritual, religious revolution. It needs to return to its Scriptural, Calvinistic roots and we need the return of a Church that isn’t sitting around waiting for the “rapture” thinking that some things are “spiritual” (like church and evangelism) while other things (like education, politics etc.) are somehow nonspiritual and outside the box of the lordship of Jesus Christ. This is Americas only true "Hope": a religious revolution with political consequences.

Democracy Never Lasts Long

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

-John Adams 2nd President of the United States

A Little History on F.D.R.

From Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin

“There was a time when Franklin Roosevelt, the Statist's favor­ite president, was an Originalist who respected the Constitution's wise formulations and purpose. In 1930, as governor of New York, he delivered a speech condemning "the doctrine of regulation by 'master minds,' in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce. . . . Were it possible to find 'master minds' so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost god-like in their ability to hold the scales of Justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interest of the country, but there are none such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history."! He added, "Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government.

But, alas, Roosevelt went on to become the very "master mind" he had denounced earlier in his political career. In his 1944 State of the Union address to Congress, Roosevelt declared, "This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, un­der the protection of certain inalienable rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty."" But for Roosevelt, these rights were no longer enough. He went on to propose a "Second Bill of Rights" based on "security and prosperity."

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; to earn enough to pro­vide adequate food and clothing and recreation; of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair compe­tition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; of ev­ery family to a decent home; to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; to adequate pro­tection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; to a good education.

This is tyranny's disguise. These are not rights. They are the Statist's false promises of utopianism, which the Statist uses to justify all trespasses on the individual's private property…”

"Progressive" Tyranny

From Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin

"For the Statist, however, the Declaration is an impediment to his schemes. The Statist cannot abide the existence of Natural Law and man's discovery of "unalienable rights" bestowed on all individuals by "their Creator." In ideology and practice, the Statist believes rights are not a condition of man's existence but only exist to the extent the Statist ratifies them. Furthermore, rights do not belong to all individuals. They are to be rationed by the state—conferred on those whom the Statist believes deserving of them, and denied to those whom the Statist believes undeserving of them. He acknowledges only that law which he himself sets in place, and which is subject to change or arbitrary application on his say-so. The Statist may wrap himself and his deeds in the language of enlightenment—claiming to be the voice of reason, the beholder of knowledge, and the architect of modernity—but recent history has shown him to be unenlightened in his understanding of mankind, moral order, liberty, and equality. Statists have launched bloody revolutions followed by violent periods of terror in France, Russia, Germany, China, and elsewhere, always under the flags of democratic populism, Marxism, national socialism, and fascism. For the Statist, revolution is an ongoing enterprise, for it regularly cleanses society of religious dogma, antiquated traditions, backward customs, and ambitious individuals who differ with or obstruct the Statist's plans. The Statist calls this many things, including "progressive." For the rest, it is tyranny."

Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin

Lately I've been reading Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin and I've really enjoyed it. He has some fairly good political insights for the most part but when it comes to the basis of political authority he really doesn't have all the lug nuts on his wheels, but more about that later.

If your looking for a book with some good, thought provoking political insights my first recommendation would be something by R. J. Rushdoony like the Institutes of Biblical Law, he blows away most other writers when it comes to understanding the Biblical revelation concerning the subject of politics and law, but if you'd like something fairly easy to read (my 15 year old son really liked it and read it in a day or two) with a some political history, lots of very interesting facts and some good insights into the governmental mess that we presently find ourselves in you might like Liberty and Tyranny as we certainly find ourselves as a country embracing the very tyranny that this nation was created to escape.

The Statist and Liberty

A good quote from Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin

"For the Statist, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. The individual must be dehumanized and his nature dele­gitimized. Through persuasion, deception, and coercion, the indi­vidual must be subordinated to the state. He must abandon his own ambitions for the ambitions of the state. He must become reliant on and fearful of the state. His first duty must be to the state—not family, community, and faith, all of which have the potential of threatening the state. Once dispirited, the individual can be molded by the state.

The Statist's Utopia can take many forms, and has throughout human history, including monarchism, feudalism, militarism, fas­cism, communism, national socialism, and economic socialism. They are all of the same species—tyranny. The primary principle around which the Statist organizes can be summed up in a single word—equality.

Equality, as understood by the Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, mak­ing his application of equality, even in the most just society, im­perfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in. all his human char­acteristics. Therefore, equality and inequality, properly compre­hended, are both engines of liberty.

The Statist, however, misuses equality to pursue uniform eco­nomic and social outcomes. He must continuously enhance his power at the expense of self-government and violate the indi­vidual's property rights at the expense of individual liberty, for he believes that through persuasion, deception, and coercion he can tame man's natural state and man's perfection can, therefore, be achieved in Utopia. The Statist must claim the power to make that which is unequal equal and that which is imperfect perfect. This is the hope the Statist offers, if only the individual surren­ders himself to the all-powerful state. Only then can the impos­sible be made possible."

Capitalization and Decapitalization

Rushdoony on Capitalization and Decapitalization

"Capitalization is the accumulation of wealth, the conversion of work, savings, and forethought into tangible working assets. No progress is possible without some measure of capitalization. It is a serious error to assume that socialism and communism are opposed to capitalization or to capitalism; their opposition is simply to private capitalism, but their dedicated policy is to state capitalism. For the state to plan any program of progress, public works, or conquest, work, frugality, and forethought are necessary. The work is exacted from the people by force; the frugality or savings is again forced out of the people by means of wage controls, compulsory savings and bond-buying programs, and slave labor, the forethought is provided by the state planners.

State capitalism is seriously defective for a number of reasons. Most notably, first of all, it represents theft. The private capital of the people is expropriated, as well as their work and savings. It is thus a radically dishonest capitalization.

Second, forethought is divorced from work and frugality, that is, the planners are not the ones who provide the work and the sacrifice. As a result, the planners have no brake of immediate consequences imposed upon them. They can be prodigal in their waste of manpower and capital without bankruptcy, in that the state compels the continuance of their non-economic and wasteful planning. The consequence is that, wherever planning is separated from work and savings, instead of capitalization, the result is decapitalization. Socialism is thus by nature imperialistic, in that it must periodically seize or annex a fresh territory in order to have fresh capital to gut by expropriation. State capitalism is thus an agency of decapitalization.

…. capitalization in a society requires a background of faith and character. In every era of history, capitalization is a product of the Puritan disposition, of the willingness to forego present pleasures to accumulate some wealth for future purposes. Where there is no character, there is no capitalization but rather decapitalization, the steady depletion of wealth. Society becomes consumption centered rather than productive, and it begins to decapitalize the centuries-rich inheritance which surrounds it.

Thus, decapitalization is preceded always by a breakdown of faith and character. Where men feel that private happiness is man's purpose and goal rather than serving and glorifying God, and finding joy in Him, where men feel that life owes them something rather than seeing themselves as debtors to God, and where men feel called to fulfill them­selves apart from God rather than in Him, there society is in rapid process of decapitalization."

From

Institutes of Biblical Law
By Rousas J. Rushdoony / P & R Publishing

Slavery Under the State

"What the Reformation did was to return most clear­ly and consistently to the origins, to the final reality, God; but equally to the reality of Man—not only Man's personal needs (such as salvation), but also Man's social needs.

What we have had for four hundred years, produced from this clarity, is unique in contrast to the situation that has existed in the world in forms of government. Some of you have been taught that the Greek city states had our concepts in government. It simply is not true. All one has to do is read Plato's Republic to have this come across with tremendous force.

When the men of our State Department, especially after World War II, went all over the world trying to implant our form-freedom balance in government downward on cultures whose philosophy and religion would never have produced it, it has, in almost every case, ended in some form of totalitarianism or author­itarianism.

The humanists push for "freedom," but having no Christian consensus to contain it, that "freedom" leads to chaos or to slavery under the state (or under an elite). Humanism, with its lack of any final base for values or law, always leads to chaos. It then naturally leads to some form of authoritarianism to control the chaos. Having produced the sickness, humanism gives more of the same kind of medicine for a cure. With its mistaken concept of final reality, it has no intrinsic reason to be interested in the individual, the human being. Its natural interest is the two collectives: the state and society."

A Quote From:

A Christian Manifesto: 25th Anniversary Edition
By Francis A. Schaeffer / Crossway Books & Bibles

Francis Schaeffer on the Basis of Law and Society

"Those who hold the material-energy, chance con­cept of reality, whether they are Marxist or non-Marxist, not only do not know the truth of the final reality, God, they do not know who Man is. Their concept of Man is what Man is not, just as their concept of the final reality is what final reality is not. Since their concept of Man is mistaken, their concept of society and of law is mistaken, and they have no sufficient base for either society or law.

They have reduced Man to even less than his natural finiteness by seeing him only as a complex arrangement of molecules, made complex by blind chance. Instead of seeing him as something great who is signifi­cant even in his sinning, they see Man in his essence only as an intrinsically competitive animal, that has no other basic operating principle than natural selec­tion brought about by the strongest, the fittest, ending on top. And they see Man as acting in this way both individually and collectively as society.

Even on the basis of Man's finiteness having people swear in court in the name of humanity, as some have advocated, saying something like, "We pledge our honor before all mankind" would be insufficient enough. But reduced to the materialistic view of Man, it is even less. Although many nice words may be used, in reality law constituted on this basis can only mean brute force."

From:

A Christian Manifesto: 25th Anniversary Edition
By Francis A. Schaeffer / Crossway Books & Bibles

Francis Schaeffer on World View, Politics and Law

“…many Christians do not mean what I mean when I say Chris­tianity is true, or Truth. They are Christians and they believe in, let us say, the truth of creation, the truth of the virgin birth, the truth of Christ's miracles, Christ's substitutionary death, and His coming again. But they stop there with these and other individual truths.

When I say Christianity is true I mean it is true tototal reality—the total of what is, beginning with the central reality, the objective existence of the personal-infinite God. Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth—Truth about all of reality. And the holding to that Truth intellectually—and then in some poor way living upon that Truth, the Truth of what is— brings forth not only certain personal results, but also governmental and legal results.

Now let's go over to the other side—to those who hold the materialistic final reality concept. They saw the complete and total difference between the two positions more quickly than Christians. There were the Huxleys, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), and many others who understood a long time ago that there are two total concepts of reality and that it was one total reality against the other and not just a set of isolated and separated differences. The Humanist Man­ifesto I, published in 1933, showed with crystal clarity their comprehension of the totality of what is involved. It was to our shame that Julian (1887-1975) and Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), and the others like them, understood much earlier than Christians that these two world views are two total concepts of reality standing in antithesis to each other. We should be utterly ashamed that this is the fact.

They understood not only that there were two total­ly different concepts but that they would bring forth two totally different conclusions, both for individuals and for society. What we must understand is that the two world views really do bring forth with inevitable certainty not only personal differences, but also total differences in regard to society, government, and law.

There is no way to mix these two total world views. They are separate entities that cannot be synthesized. Yet we must say that liberal theology, the very essence of it from its beginning, is an attempt to mix the two. Liberal theology tried to bring forth a mixture soon after the Enlightenment and has tried to synthesize these two views right up to our own day. But in each case when the chips are down these liberal theologians have always come down, as naturally as a ship coming into home port, on the side of the nonreligious hu­manist. They do this with certainty because what their liberal theology really is is humanism expressed in theological terms instead of philosophic or other terms.”

From:

A Christian Manifesto: 25th Anniversary Edition
By Francis A. Schaeffer / Crossway Books & Bibles

Speaking of Lex Rex...

Speaking of Lex Rex, I found a copy of A Christian Manifesto by Francis A. Schaeffer at a library book sale for just $.25. What a steal! I'm ashamed to say it but I really haven't read much of Schaeffer but this little book looks really good. In the dedication he makes the following mention of Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex mentioned a couple of posts ago:

"To all those who have said: "Here I stand" facing oppressive authoritarian civil and church power.

There were Peter and John who said to the Sanhe-drin: "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God." (Acts 4:19)

There were the Reformers of the sixteenth century when they had to decide whether they were going to obey God or man.

And most of all, to Samuel Rutherford. He has meant much to me for many years, but especially so from the time I began working on the material for the book and films How Should We Then Live? At that time I understood increasingly that Samuel Ruther­ford's Lex Rex was an important trailmarker for our day. In the times I have spoken at St. Andrews Uni­versity, the most outstanding thing for me was a feel­ing that Samuel Rutherford was not far away, that the old Rector was close by, and very contemporary!"

From the Dedication to

A CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO

By Francis A. Schaeffer

A Christian Manifesto: 25th Anniversary Edition
By Francis A. Schaeffer / Crossway Books & Bibles

More Pictures from the Tea Party

Here's a few more pictures from one of the Kansas City Tea Parties. I know Obama has taken this Socialism thing to a whole new level but I have to wonder, where were all these people when Bush was doing all his Socialist spending?

The Tea Party

I took three of my children to one of the local Tea Parties here in Kansas City this evening to see what was going on and we had a pretty good time. It was hard to hear any of the speakers but we had a good time watching all the people out by the street and seeing all the people driving by honking and waving. If nothing else we got some free balloons, a copy of the Constitution and a lot of really good pictures.

I have no idea what this was all about.

Just Wait Until You See Our Solutions!

Rex Lex?

New @ Pol'-e-store
Politics/Government/Law

I heard a man on a talk show the other night insist that the United States of America could not be founded on Christian principles because the Bible does not espouse democracy. He was half right, the Bible does not espouse pure democracy but neither was our country founded as a pure democracy. The United States of America was founded as a constitutional republic and the Bible clearly lays down the principles that our government was originally founded upon.

One of the most widely read books at the time of the American Revolution (besides the very Calvinistic Geneva Bible) was Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince by Samuel Rutherford. The title addresses the question; is the King (Rex), or the government in our case, above the Law (Lex) or is the Law (Lex) above the King (Rex)? We might rephrase the question; can our government officials just make whatever laws they like? Or are our government officials the subjects and administrators of a higher law?

The book is organized into 44 questions and Rutherford goes into great detail answering each one of them from Scripture, questions like: does the government have absolute authority? Can they legitimately rule without the consent of the people? Do the people ever have the right to resist their government? Can the people abolish their government and start another? And so on.

When all is said and done Rutherford’s arguments basically boil down to this; Scripture teaches us that Government rules by the consent of the people and it doesn’t legitimately just make up law out of thin air but is responsible to administer the Law of God to those under it’s authority. And when that government starts operating outside the Law of God, breaking the Law and harming those under its care those people have legitimate avenues to resist their government and even abolish it and create a new one.
Who can deny that this was the sentiment of the writers of the Declaration of Independence? Just read the second paragraph:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

I know this flies in the face of the modern notion of many who seem to believe in endless blind submission to a law breaking government but Rutherford’s arguments are entirely Biblical and thoroughly refute such shallow views of the Bible and Government.

Lex Rex is written in the context of a King or monarchy but the application to our own governmental situation isn’t that difficult. I must confess it is some rather difficult reading at many points but for someone who interested in stretching their thinking and understanding in this area it is well worth the difficulties.

Biblical Law, Property Tax and Eminent Domain

Here's a interesting little snippet from R.J. Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law on the subject property ownership as it relates to the 8th Commandment.

"The absence of any land and property tax in Biblical law very definitely protects enduring ownership, whereas modern tax laws destroy ownership. To cite an example, in one city, a lovely area of very superior homes, from ten to twenty rooms, some of stone construction, became, in about 25 years, so heavily taxed, that the homes either had to be torn down to make way for apartments, or sold for use as dormitories. The ownership of these homes was made prohibitive to impossible by means of taxes.

In another area, taxes led to the deterioriation of the area, as people moved out and homes were made into multiple dwellings. Taxes then went down, and others moved in, so that a 90 percent change in population occurred in less than ten years. People who had built there, expecting to remain for life, lost heavily. Taxation of property is a means of destroying property and is a form of robbery.

Taxation makes for the speculative use of land, and it destroys the stability of communities. There is a marked hostility today to the development and preservation of communities by religious and ethnic groups, and such hostility leads to the destruction of property. The destruction of the Boston West End Italian community by urban redevelopment and "slum clearance" has been ably described by H. J. Gans. A family centered society, extensively policing and disciplining itself, was broken up by a "slum clearance" project, because the area was coveted by planners. Both the taxing power, and the eminent domain exercised, are anti-Biblical.

Eminent domain is a divine right. It belongs to God alone. The "right" of the state to eminent domain has no place in Biblical law. The state has a duty to protect man and his property, but not to tax or to confiscate it.

To summarize the Biblical tax laws in relationship to the ownership of land, the basic tax was the poll or head tax (Ex. 30:11-16), which had to be the same for all men. It was paid by men only, all men of age twenty and over. This tax was collected by the civil authority for the maintainance of the civil order, to provide all men with a covering or atonement of civil justice…..

There was thus no land tax or property tax. Since "the earth is the LORD'S and the fullness thereof" (Ex. 9:29, etc.), a land tax usurps God's rights and is unlawful. The purpose of Biblical law with reference to land is to ensure the security of man in his property; a property tax of any kind is a denial of this God-ordained security."

Institutes of Biblical Law
By Rousas J. Rushdoony / P & R Publishing

How to start the day with a smile

I saw this this morning and had to smile -

How to start the day with a smile.

1. Open a new file on your Desktop.

2. Name it "Barack Obama."

3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.

4. Empty the Recycle Bin.

5. Your computer will ask you, "Do you really want to get rid of 'Barack Obama?'"

6. Firmly click "Yes."

Imposing a crushing debt on our posterity

Political Deists and Recovering Republicans

New at Polemos
Politics/Government/Law
Links

John Lofton, Recovering Republican recently left some link information in the comments section of one of my posts. After looking through some of the sites and listening to a couple of the radio shows I just had to add these links to the website. I especially enjoyed the Radio programs!

I know, I know, I hear it all the time: "Christians shouldn't concern themselves with politics" right?

But think about the logic of such sentiments with me for just a moment. God created politics and Government, didn't He? Are we really going to say that God created these things and now he isn't concerned with them any longer? Are we some sort of political deists with a God who created Government and now stands at a distance and just watches it go?

Where did we ever get the idea that politics is a God free zone that we shouldn't get involved with? Why do we seem to think that politics and government is an area of life that is exempt from the Lordship of Jesus Christ? Where are these notions taught to us in Scripture? Such ideas seem more closely related to gnostic dualism than Biblical Christianity.

Is it really any wonder that our country is in such a pathetic condition when most Christians don't even seem to think that the Bible deals with issues of Government and Law?

Thank you Mr. Lofton for the information!

• Institute on the Constitution (IOTC)

• The American View

• American View Radio

The natural progress of things...

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
-Thomas Jefferson

"Such an Embarrassment!"

Amen Ron Paul!

Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue...

“Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them” -Voltaire

The People Support the Government....

Watching the news lately has been something like watching a three ring circus side show of madness. Just when you think you've seen the greatest feats of financial insanity by our government officials they go and do more of the same or something even worse.

While doing a little studying of American history I came across this little piece of history from the late 1800s that I had never heard before.

In the late 1880s Texas was undergoing one of the worst droughts of its history and the crops in that area had been pretty much destroyed. In response Congress passed drought relief legislation to to give the farmers of the area seed for the next crop but amazingly Grover Cleveland, the President at that time, vetoed it.

How could the President of the United States do such a "cold", "cruel" and "heartless" thing? Here's his answer in his own words:

"I return without my approval House bill No. 10203, entitled "An act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in the drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."

It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution......

....And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people...............

.....The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has to some extent already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional to meet their remaining wants will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country......."

Did you catch that? The President of the United States of America said that it was not the Governments job to take money from some people and give it to others even if it was for a "good" purpose. He stated that this would be unconstitutional, encourage a welfare mentality and destroy our national character. Cleveland put the burden of helping the American people back on the American were it belonged and the American people gave far more than the Government had planned on.

But now that our national character seems to be as bankrupt as our national government can you imagine the outrage that would ensue if one of our present day government officials showed such wisdom? Can you imagine the fits that would be thrown by those of the welfare mentality of our day if the government refused to step in and hand out money to everybody who got in line?

Cleveland was exactly right; the handing out of money by the government would indeed create a "maternal" dependence on government by the people, but I doubt that he could have ever imagined how far it would go here in America. This is exactly what we are seeing in the news all the time; Catrina's victims demanding government help and money and being filled with rage when it doesn't come on time, irresponsible businessmen lined up to get their hand out from Uncle Sam, company Presidents spending $20,000 to fly private jets to Washington to beg for their share of our grandchildrens tax money. Where will the insanity end?

This is what happens when fallen man governs in his own wisdom without reference to the Word of the God who created Government.