Title: Huckabee: The Constitution Should Be Amended To Conform To The Word Of God Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Jan 15, 2008 Author:unknown Post Date:2008-01-15 14:08:52 by Critter Ping List:*Ron Paul for President 2008*Subscribe to *Ron Paul for President 2008* Keywords:None Views:255 Comments:14
I am not even going to bother watching this video, namely because I am sitting in a training conference with a grouchy old English atheist who is already freaked out that I believe such rubbish.
I don't need to watch it, though, to know that Huckabee is an idiot. The Constitution is inspired by the Word of God. Where do you think we got the three branches of government?
Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
Where do you think we got the three branches of government?
Montesquieu -- who believed in a tripartite division of government, with separation of powers -- was the author cited second most frequently in the debates of the Constitutional Convention. Only Blackstone was cited more frequently.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
Wouldn't that quote argue for absolutism, with the king (or president) having all power, and no separation of powers?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
Ron Paul said a few weeks ago 'When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross'...here they are
Battle Cry Campaign From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Battle Cry Campaign is an organizing initiative [1] of a parachurch organization known as Teen Mania Ministries. This initiative, started in 2005 and headed by Teen Mania founder Ron Luce, has an evangelical Christian orientation; it primarily seeks to influence American and Canadian social and political culture. Major backers include prominent evangelical leaders Joyce Meyer, Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson, Josh McDowell, and Jack Hayford. Contents
No, because the verse is alluding to the Trinity in its three mainfestations, One God in three persons. The government is one entity but it has three distinct parts. Each part is not the same as the other, but is still the same government.
Also, look at the kings of united Israel. The King did not hold ecclesiastical authority at all. That was exercised by the High Priest. That example also argues for the separation of church and state in its proper application.
No, because the verse is alluding to the Trinity in its three mainfestations, One God in three persons.
I was unaware that any Jews believed in the Trinity. Is there any evidence that they did?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I am Wiccan and don't want to be governed by larger, well organized religions. Especially by one that has inspired such persecution of people like me historically.
Huck has my attention. He is a dangerous idiot who cannot be trusted to raise his paw to swear to what he doesn't believe in.
I fully respect and defend the right to exist of any religion that reciprocates the same intentions and attitude toward mine. This idiot is a malicious panderer, a species we need to get out of government, not put into higher offices in it.
No, the Jews did not believe in the trinity. In fact, they call Christians polytheists.
Isaiah was merely dropping a clue even he did not understand. It is one of many that appear in the Old Testament pointing to the coming of Jesus Christ. Comprehension by the writer was not necessary, otherwise there would be no Old Testament prophecy of Jesus.