https://newswithviews.com/mitch-mcconnell-blames-our-president-for-senates-failure/
(responding to that section of a blog following the header....)
Judge Roy Moore
The third candidate is Judge Roy Moore, the “10 Commandments” judge, and I hate to say this, but he is not a good choice. He is in the dominionist/reconstructionist (D/R) camp, and he is promoting a Constitutional Convention. Many people have tried to show him historical documents proving how dangerous a new convention would be, but he won’t listen. He believes he can get a marriage amendment by opening the Constitution. What fantasy!
The Constitutional Convention is a scary prospect. It's only usefulness would be that it might wake up a few frogs in the pan to see that no one at the Federal Level is willing to tell the truth about what they intend to do with your rights or freedoms. Come to think of it, there would be a "teaching moment" if some of our Liberal Churches who advocate women in church leadership, praise lgbt and socialism, would be honest and just repudiate the Bible and Christianity.
Your author here betrays herself by showing and ignorance of the historical fact, that the Constitution has brought us to where we are. If you fear that we might lose it if folks sit down and discuss how it might be changed -- you are about 200 years too late. You might say that the Constitution was honored and followed by the Federal-level officers at least until the ink dried. If the Constitution was a good thing, it doesn't help us, because it has not and will not be followed. And the fact is, it is not a good thing. It is the core of our problem.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
\ Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority
It is hard for me to fathom why Moore, who is a judge, will not read what Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly about the risks of opening the Constitution, and why he will not listen to ultra-conservative Judge Scalia’s statements.
that This thought hit me the other day, listening to Matt Trewhella's excellent work on the contradiction of how folks think SCOTUS makes law (instead of the Legislative Branch). Note how everyone assumes the Obergefell decision is the law, and now States cannot criminalize homosexual marriage, or (more importantly) withhold welfare money from capital sex criminals. They treat the opinions of the high court as the supreme law of the land. And yet, Justice Scalia visits a private estate in Texas, wakes up dead with a pillow over his head, and our representative, democratic government is not curious enough to bother with an autopsy, much less any kind of investigation. It proves the point. Suicides are fairly expensive. Accidents a little less, and assassinations cheapest of all.
Neither will he look at precedent of our 1787 Convention where the delegates were to discuss the commerce issue and revise the Articles of Confederation. They closed the doors, threw out the Articles and started anew. This is the precedent. We had statesmen then, we do not have them now. This will happen again if we open our Constitution, because the goal of establishment globalists and George Soros is to eliminate our God given rights.
This is a good point. The Constitutional Convention not only overturned what America was about, it was also illegal, undemocratic, and contradictory, thus making it impossible to implement. So no wonder...
Dr. Gary North, a leader in the D/R movement, advocates that the Constitution must be scrapped in favor of a new theocratic form of government, a valid reason for D/Rs to want a new convention.
She makes North sound so foolish as to believe that abandoning our idolatry would be worse than the new gods any convention would set up today. She is not accurately representing North's work in "Political Polytheism", and "Conspiracy in Philadelphia" nor his other writing. Anyone who understands Worldview principles, knows that every form of government is theocratic. Every man and delegate, every judge, legislator, and executive views some person or persons as having maximum power and goodness. Whoever that is, is the god of that person, the "Goodstrong". Does the average man on the street or Congress person know who that is for them? Not likely. Given opportunity, you will probably hear some blather about WeThePeople are strongest and goodest, and the definitions of crime and punishment should be what the majority want. They will slap "democracy" on that, and think they have a workable ethical model men can follow.
They cannot.
Tomorrow's Majority will change the law, which will call what Today's Majority legislated as evil, in the same way that Today's Majority will call righteous what what Yesterday's Majority claimed was evil. The next Majority or the previous one simply contradicts the foundational religious conviction that a majority constitutes ethical authority. When you think in contradictions like this, it is no wonder you become "lawful" prey.
As for Moore’s beliefs, he has set up the Foundation for Moral Law which files briefs in court cases concerning the public display of the Ten Commandments and other First Amendment issues. The foundation also prepares seminars that will teach judges, lawyers, and law students about Old Testament Biblical Law as the basis of America’s laws and Constitution. John Eidsmoe is a prominent Christian Reconstructionist theorist, who works at the Foundation for Moral Law.
It is the embarrassing truth, that such men use the Constitution as bait to lead people into considering the truths which are the real nutrition. It is true, the Constitution was unable to throw out all the Biblical principles in one convulsion. The Masons behind it thoroughly understood the Christian Worldview had to be jettisoned little by little (as you have seen). It was enough to throw out the foundational principle that Messiah, as both God and most exalted Man, remains the everlasting judge, lawgiver, and king of all nations. If He does not provide a more perfect union, defense, and the blessings of freedom and prosperity, they ain't gonna happen. How much less when He is repudiated by the Nation?
Dominionism derives from a small fringe sect called Christian Reconstructionism, founded by a Calvinist theologian named R. J. Rushdoony in the 1960s. Christian Reconstructionism openly advocates replacing American law with the strictures of the Old Testament, replete with the death penalty by stoning for homosexuality, abortion, and even apostasy.
This is not quite fair. Many of whom our author is lumping in to CR's might just be trying to get the Constitutional applications back to the strictures of OT law that everybody acknowledged was Just in 1789. Now she is employing the old trick of mocking the ancient applicational appearance hoping that the Reader will also throw out the General Equity which all Reformed and Presbyterians say they hold to in the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. We obviously must throw out OT law, and the Old Testament, and the God of the Old Testament, since He advocated murdering such minor offenders.
This doctrine comes in both “hard” and “soft” varieties, but D/Rs want a theocratic form of government, where only those of their doctrine will rule in life, art, education, health care, government, family life, law and so on. All these areas are to be based on Old Testament Mosaic Law, which is a theonomy, and the U.S. Constitution will be replaced with a political and judicial system based on Mosaic Law. [Link]
She is not able to articulate how the older (nor the newer) Reconstructionist writers actually intended Biblical principles to rule. She would be embarrassed by how democratic it would look, or how properly separated the church and civil government leadership would be.
These are the 3 principles she objects to (in the 'link' above)....
- Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy. [We don't deny the influence of the Enlightenment nor Unitarianism, rather we explain their idolatry, their sinfulness, their treason against the King of Kings, their foolishness. We highlight their disastrous consequences to freedom and prosperity.]
- Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity. [We point to the religious supremacy that FreeMasonry demands to itself. The Core of Americanism, characterized by the ideas of religious freedom, natural law, pluralism, 'equality of other religions', is basically the same as Roman Times when you could practice any private cult you wanted, as long as you acknowledged the Master Religion of viewing Caesar as the Son of God, owner of all things, and Highest Priest. In America no "private cult" dare contradict the Master Religion of Freemasonry which baits you with the contradictory and unworkable notion of "will of the majority". They only embrace as Masons the oldest, most fundamental principles, that all Religions agree on, and all men know. Yet, you may not learn the details of their religion until you take a solemn oath never to tell anyone what those tenets are under pain of a most gruesome death. Better you should review the "Natural Law: Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" article.
- Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or “biblical law,” should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles. [You mean, like what is etched in stone all around the courtroom of the Supreme Court Chambers? How dare you alter good old Americanism? I would just ask, "what other law do you think Jesus will judge us by?]
While most dominionists would say they favor the U.S. Constitution, and merely seek to restore it to the original intentions of the founders, in fact, their views are profoundly anti-democratic. Their worldview is not one based on the rights of the individual as we have come to know them, but on notions of Mosaic biblical law.
Ha! You would think that current law does a better job of protecting the rights of the individual than God's law or the Original Intent. God have mercy if all we have left is the "rights of the individual as we have come to know them". You mean like the current situation where if the Military wants to say you are suspect of aiding abetting terrorists in some way (like using crypto-currencies like BitCoin?) they can kill you or detain you indefinitely. Now you can get one military hearing once a year if you like (thank you NDAA of 2012).
Far be it from us that we would want our property protected by "thou shalt not steal" from private or government confiscation of what we have been given, traded for, produced, or won in a fair fight. Let me give you what the "rights of the individual as we have come to know them" look like out of a book my wife and I are reading now called "Just Mercy".
Exhibit One: Desperate, abandoned mom writes 5 bad checks (none over $150), yes, stealing, in order to provide food, rent, Christmas presents for her children. She ends up 10 years in jail at a taxpayer cost of what? say $35,000 a year? Worse, the women's prison she is in is notorious for no privacy for nakedness from the male guards. Occasionally the babies they have in prison show up with DNA from the prison guards. After all, the cameras don't cover all the hallways, and screaming is normal in a prison anyway. Thankfully, we are not under that oppressive religious law that says the penalty for theft is double restitution, minimum wage is zero (duh!), and the adultery which would throw mom and child into these kinds of hell (and worse) is kept to an extreme minimum by threat of capital punishment.
Exhibit Two: Another Mom in jail, only this time life sentence w/o parole by means of an unfounded accusation that she had murdered her child post-birth, when there was more evidence that it was still-born. Yet the taxing authorities are happy to confiscate money from productive and law-abiding citizen (even those innocent who abide by God's law for the most part) in order to pay the bill when fathers and mothers hire officially licensed assassins (don't try this at home, you must be a trained professional) to execute their most innocent and most helpless child inside the womb before the head clears the mother. The fetus is the capital criminal. Notice how the barbaric, out of date Biblical case-law of Jesus given through Moses and re-ratified in the first century would say: If there is any harm that comes from an accidental premature birth, law enforcement needs to take away the life of any who caused the accidental death, even of the child in the womb. (By the way, American law still arbitrarily chooses sometimes to prosecute for murder any who cause the death of fetus in the mother when it is not one or more of the parents hiring the government-designated Professional). It goes without saying that the lives of those who deliberately take the life of the fetus are guilty of a capital crime. They are to be taken, Says God, even from My alter to their execution and your eye should have no pity.
This would have prevented the destruction of the lives of these innocent women. The thief was not innocent of theft, but certainly liable to having to pay restitution. But the thief is not guilty of a crime who punishment should be incarceration. By the law of God, if you coerce to confine a human being whom God has not authorized to jail -- it is called kidnapping, and is - itself - a capital crime. Do you think there would be less injustice perpetrated by our courts and jails if government officials were executed when they have culpability in kidnapping the innocent?
This would also have prevented the massive theft from taxpayers. Some calculate the average cost for a year in jail to be between $30,000 to 60k (NY State) to 168k (NY City). That money comes from the producing "innocent", either from labor production (Income tax), or the economic stimulus of trade (sales tax), or faithful stewardship of land (Property Tax).
In the D/R worldview, those of other Christian doctrines or other religious beliefs are second-class citizens at best.
Not so. There is adequate, limited, religious tolerance, which is the most any master religion can ever provide, for any and all other religious behaviour which is not committing one of the crimes the Creator God has defined a responsibility for bystanders to punish.
There is more long-term, religious tolerance under a civil government faithful to Biblical law than there is under the supposedly pluralistic, Masonic, humanism that dominates US law today. And certainly a lot more justice, even by its own standards.
Dominionism means, as a matter of theocratic public policy, reducing or eliminating the legal standing of those who do not share their views. Sounds a lot like Islam, doesn’t it?
[Sounds like State and Federal Laws to me. The only reason you think the current government gives tolerance to other religions today, is because the views they dare express, are not in the crucial and core areas that those in civil government care about. Notice how those who point to what the Bible says about taxation (Irwin Schiff) and sex crimes(Sweet Cakes Bakery was not even saying it was a crime, they were just exercising their right as business owners to refuse service, and any other business is authorized to do) are being threatened with fines and imprisonment.]
The 613 Mosaic Laws
The Mosaic Law was given to us so we would know what sin is.
Notice, there will be no mention in this article that God has revealed anywhere in the inspired Scriptures what crime is and what their punishments should be. It is treason to maintain that the ethical authority to define crime and punishment does not belong to the majority.
Without going into the exegesis of why Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law, but are now under the Law of Christ, the answer is in Romans 10:4. It states that our Savior is the end of the Law, and that includes all 613, even the 10 commandments. Hence it has ceased to function. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by the works of the law, because no flesh is justified by works of the law, (Gal. 2:16) just as OT saints were saved by faith.
And rightly so. No one, old or new testament was ever justified by keeping God's law, except those to whom has been imputed by grace - the positive, and alien righteousness of Jesus Christ who kept all the law of God -- in both spirit and in letter -- perfectly. But we are not talking about justification in this article, we are talking about whence comes the ethical authority to define crime and determine righteous punishments for it.
Again, there is no sanctification or perfection through the law. Heb. 7:19. [This may well be true, but in the context it is also good to keep in perspective the passage in Romans 8:
Rom 8:3-4 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, (4) in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Torah Law is one unit, and there is no commandment that has continued beyond the cross of Christ. The Law is there and can be used as a teaching tool to show God’s standard of righteousness, and man’s sinfulness and need of a substitutionary atonement. It can be used to point one to Christ (Gal 3:23-25). However, it has completely ceased to function as an authority over individuals.
This preposterous claim eliminates any use of the majority of the Bible as a teaching tool to show God’s standard of righteousness for crime and its punishments. Murder, theft, adultery, perjury -- none of these are crimes any more, and there are no punishments ordained by God for them any more. God has abdicated all definition of punishments except what might come out of the thinking of the men on the handle-side of the guns, and Jesus will condemn you if you don't obey them. You know I don't believe this, but it is the implication of what mainstream American Christianity teaches out of "render unto Caesar" and Romans 13.
to whatever the men think The old law has been disannulled, and we are under the new law…the Law of Christ in Gal 6:2, and the Law of the Spirit of Life in Romans 8:2.
This is a brand-new law totally separate from the Law of Moses. The Law of Christ contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer, nine of which are very similar to those found in the 10 commandments, but are not from the 613 in Mosaic Law.
All very separate, except for 90% being the same, not to mention that God will use every jot and title of that old law to judge all New Testament believers in the Kingdom of Heaven, as their reward status for eternity will be determined by how they obeyed and taught it to others. Remember this in light of Romans 8.
Mat 5:17-19 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (18) For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (19) Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
There are no longer any property crimes against anyone except the State. Only our all-benevolent State has declared its ownership of everything, so that it can now charge you rent on land, on your labor, and on all your possessions that you exchange. If you see anything that your neighbor was last using (like his ox wandering or his lost wallet full of money), it belongs to the State (that is, everybody) so you are welcome to keep it until the State objects and finds out you have it. The human in the womb belongs to the State, so if they want to terminate its life through its licensed operatives, that is Its right. If it needs to reduce the purchasing power of all of Its own money which your bank says it currently owes you, it is Their prerogative to do so, either through inflating the money supply or by "bail in".
Aren't you glad that Jesus, when He judges the living and the dead, will defer to the voters and legislators of the Federal and State Governments as to what should have been punished, and how, while they kidnap arbitrarily chosen people and charge the productive taxpayers to prevent those prisoners from being a productive part of the economy.
So I have criticized, but have I supplied a solution to the obvious problems? Remember, we can't displace something with nothing.
It is certainly true that not all the 613 laws are directly applicable in our historical context, especially in their original case-law form. We are not dealing primarily with oxen, sheep, fields that can burn, and wild animals that prey on our livestock. However, that is not to say the spirit and principle of those old case laws don't apply today. God, the Trinity, has always been judge, lawgiver, and king over all nations and the coming of God the Son as a man cannot change that. What did change is that the Christian Man has a heightened level of responsibility and privilege to represent and testify to the Rule of Jesus Christ. Remember how He said, "All authority is given to Me in heaven AND IN EARTH?
What we are responsible to do is to take the principle, such as the following, and apply them in today's environment:
Exo 23:1-8 “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. (2) You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, (3) nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit. (4) “If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. (5) If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him. (6) “You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit. (7) Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked. (8) And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.
See, the Policeman, judge, and jailer needs to know exactly where the line is drawn between sin and crime, and what the punishments are. I'm sure you would rather have the protection of not being shot for stealing, even though 90% of the public might think that you should. This is not unheard of in human history. If the law enforcement officer jails you, mistreats you, or kills you when you are only suspected, and not guilty of any Crime God or man has defined -- what should happen to him for retribution or deterrence? Society is increasingly saying, "Nothing.". Are you happy with that? Perhaps you would rather us Christian Reconstructionists be listened to by the society and recognize that the Best Selling Book of All Time speaks authoritatively to that issue and fleshes out the "treat others as you would have them treat you" by specific laws against perjury, and specific, lex talionis punishments, even against law enforcement officers when they step over the line and become the criminal.
Currently, in America, we are still enjoying the freedom and prosperity handed to us by the Puritans and Reformation teachings which took seriously the application of Biblical law in America. This, in spite of the above author's attempts to ridicule and discount it.
You may have the ability to tear down the old fences and cast away those cords from us. But don't be surprised if you end up being unhappy where a spurned God allows wicked men to put up new barbed wire and bind you with harsher cords.
