Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

God & Politics – Part II

Posted by truthtalklive on November 14, 2007

What is a Christian’s obligation when it comes to politics and voting? Today’s guest: Gary Demar www.americanvision.org.

If you want to donate a $75 radio kit to China please call Transworld Radio’s toll free number 1-800-456-7897 or visit them online at www.twr.org

Advertisements

45 Responses to “God & Politics – Part II”

  1. Troy said

    Wish I could have called in these last two days. I only caught the tail end of the show but Gary was saying some good things on this topic. He nailed it about pastors fearing losing their tax exemption so they stay out of politics mostly. Has anyone heard of the “Black Regiment” during the war of independence? Do an internet search on that.

    It’s simple, Christians are obligated in our representative republic, to be involved.

    For to many years Christians have prayed for our country to turn back to God but we have not been willing to be involved in the political system except when voting.

    I had basically sworn off being involved with the two party system until Ron Paul announced his candidacy. To keep from taking up to much space here, check out my reasons for supporting him from a Christian perspective here: http://patriotbeliever.com/dnn/Home/tabid/37/EntryID/23/Default.aspx

    Here is what Pastor Chuck Baldwin has written about him:
    http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin394.htm

    Here’s a good general site on Paul:
    http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/

  2. Dot said

    I was serious today when I called in to the Truth Talk Live show to ask what are we doing to fight back against the government’s taking away our right to have our religious beliefs and to have free speech concerning those beliefs. The people that scream “separation of church and state” are only talking about one side of the issue. The other side is where the government takes away our right to beliefs we have held for thousands of years and does not allow us to speak out about them. That is not separation of church and state. That is government run religion and that is not freedom. Stu and Gary were talking about how Hitler took away people’s religious rights and made the church a state church…and few clergy fought him. I don’t want that to happen in the USA. What is abominable is that the government won’t allow clergypersons speak their true beliefs. That is WRONG.
    What I’d like to do is start (and see it through to the finish) a ground roots petition to have our right to our beliefs and to freely speak out about them without reprisal. I do not know where to start but am willing to learn. Where do I start? I am willing to start in my own neighborhood and branch out from there. Is there anyone there that can help me?

  3. kandace said

    The issue is religion v relationship. I’m glad that religion is being challenged because religion is works-oriented, as if we humans can ever do enough to please God. A true relationship with Jesus Christ is attractive and cannot be touched by the ACLU or anyone else. As we live out the faith that is within us, the world looks with astonishment because there is something appealing about a person who reflects the joy of the Lord in the hustle and bustle of life.

  4. Anonymous said

    Dot, will you give us an example of how our religious freedom has been “taken away” please?

    Hitler was also famous for starting wars with false information and staged news events and for shipping people off to secret torture prisons. Sound familiar?

  5. Dot said

    Yes, anonymous, it sounds familiar.

    First, ministers are kept from speaking out about particular political candidates for fear of government reprisal. The government should not have the right to restrict clergy from speaking up about what they believe, even when it is concerning political candidates. The people that cry “separation of church and state” only want to keep the church out of the government, but do want to keep government in the church. Not good.

    Second, recently, an 85 year old lady in a nursing home had to sue to have the right to put up Christian Christmas symbols in the public areas. The nursing home is her home, so she should have been given that right to use those decorations from the beginning. The nursing home did it for fear of the government, fear of losing their accreditation, and fear of being politically incorrect.

    Third, The Philadelphia 4 were arrested for reading the Bible at a public parade. They had the legal right to be there, but were arrested by the police for “hate crimes”. Since when is reading the Bible a “hate crime”? That’s a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, if I ever heard one! The Bible has been around for thousands of years longer than “hate crimes”. And, BTW, all violent crimes are “hate crimes” and certain groups should NOT be given perference. (People from certain groups have committed “hate crimes” against children, and were not held accountable, nor did it even make the national news).

    Fourth, in my own experience, a number of places I’ve worked restricted Christians from speaking about the Lord, even when someone else asked them about the Lord. The companies were worried about losing their right to do business. So, their Christian employees lost their right to free speech. Wrong.

    BTW, why have you chosen the moniker, “Anonymous”?

  6. Anonymous said

    “First, ministers are kept from speaking out about particular political candidates for fear of government reprisal. ”

    So, what happened? The only “reprisal” that I can think of is losing their tax exempt status. Is that what you refer to? Who are these ministers?

    “The government should not have the right to restrict clergy from speaking up about what they believe, even when it is concerning political candidates.”

    I don’t know of any way that the government can restrict free speech from clergy. There are tax laws that restrict tax exempt organizations from certain activities in return for tax free status. Is that what you refer to?

    “The people that cry “separation of church and state” only want to keep the church out of the government, but do want to keep government in the church. Not good.”

    Yeah, that Thomas Jefferson was really un-American wasn’t he?

  7. Anonymous said

    “Second, recently, an 85 year old lady in a nursing home had to sue to have the right to put up Christian Christmas symbols in the public areas. The nursing home is her home, so she should have been given that right to use those decorations from the beginning. The nursing home did it for fear of the government, fear of losing their accreditation, and fear of being politically incorrect.”

    Reference? No offense, but that sounds like something Bill O’Reilly would make up to sell books.

  8. Anonymous said

    “Third, The Philadelphia 4 were arrested for reading the Bible at a public parade. They had the legal right to be there, but were arrested by the police for “hate crimes”. Since when is reading the Bible a “hate crime”? That’s a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, if I ever heard one! The Bible has been around for thousands of years longer than “hate crimes”. ”

    Well, I googled “Philadelphia 4” and it seems they weren’t charged with hate crimes. They were being disruptive and were charged with misdemeanors such as disorderly conduct, blocking the highway and failure to disperse. This from Snopes:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/inpublic.asp

  9. Anonymous said

    “Fourth, in my own experience, a number of places I’ve worked restricted Christians from speaking about the Lord, even when someone else asked them about the Lord. The companies were worried about losing their right to do business. So, their Christian employees lost their right to free speech. Wrong.”

    So, did these companies do something illegal? If they did you could get the ACLU to help you. I always thought that when you went to work for someone that you had to obey the rules.

    “BTW, why have you chosen the moniker, “Anonymous”?”

    I don’t want a brick through my window, or any more threatening mail from Christian fundamentalists.

  10. Ted said

    Wow, Anonymous….are you profiling us Christians? You think if you voice your opinion you’ll get a brick through your window? Thanks a lot.

  11. Anonymous said

    Ted, let’s just say that I speak from experience. Would you want hate mail or a brick through your window?

  12. Anonymous said

    BTW Ted, I too am a Christian.

  13. Ted said

    Glad to hear you are a Christian too, but not all of us are extemists, as you know.

  14. Jeff said

    Suggestion: Since there is more than one person using the name “Anonymous,” maybe you guys could at least attach a number to your name – say, “Anonymous 1,2,3 …” This way we could keep you straight and you would not be giving enough info to “get a brick through your window.” 🙂

  15. Scott Mullins said

    Again, I’m tired of people saying the government is “restricting” pastors from freedom of speech in the pulpit. The pastors WILLINGLY obey the government when they sign their churches up as a 501(c)3. The only reasons pastors are restricted from speaking, is their choice of the “love of money”. If pastors and “Christians” didn’t love money so much, they wouldn’t care if they receive “tax breaks” for their tithes. The Bible says to tithe, regardless of tax breaks…I see the problem as a “love of money” more than a love of God. Our churches and pastors are silent by choice.

  16. ADB said

    I’ve read some posts from folks saying that the government restricts pastors from preaching the Word. I guess they’ve missed my church. Somehow I’ve never noticed the government censors listening in while I preach on Sundays.

  17. stu said

    I’m with you , Dot.
    Why don’t Christians play a little offense, in stead of allways being ‘reactionary’ when our views are assaulted?
    One day we may wake up with little or no freedom to express our beliefs:

    3 documented pieces of legislation are aiming at this right now: 1. Hate Crimes laws 2. ENDA 3. Fairness Doctrine

    Anonymous, and Anonymous please google these 3 or goto aclj.org to save some time. All 3 of these anti-Christian bills are gaining serious momentum—-
    Where is the outcry among conservatives? Last month Homosexuals paraded into a Catholic church and exhibited the most heinous Blasphemy and disrespect—
    NO outcry from the media or any public official in SF or the nation—–save a few conservative talk show hosts. IF the same had been done at a local Mosque in SF or ANY other town in the US, what would have happenned? anyone care to guess?

    I dare any radical homosexual group to dress up in robes and carry on like they did in SF, not at a Catholic church, but at a Muslim mosque—–
    Of course I’m not for anyone disrespecting other religions, but look at the blatent hypocrisy in the culture, and the clear, deliberate descrimination against those who value the Judeo-Christian ethic that makes America great.

    where am I wrong? any thoughts?

  18. kandace said

    Stu,
    I have signed petitions on the issues you mentioned via ACLJ and Liberty Counsel – both are Christian legal defense groups which are actively involved protecting our liberties.

    I have contacted my elected senators and representative on these issues as well. I have informed my Sunday School class at my church along with other members of my church to get them involved on these issues. In other words, I have put actions to my prayers on these issues. We must act now if we want to remain a free society.

  19. fred said

    We are more free today to practice our religious beliefs than we ever were before in the USA. Right wing talk show hosts have axes to grind and it sounds like some around here have taken the latest talking points memo too seriously.

    Here’s the ACLU take on ENDA and Hate Crimes Legislation:

    http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/29544res20070424.html

    http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/speech/30565leg20070713.html

    I couldn’t find any information on pending legislation for the Fairness Doctrine in the U.S Congress.

  20. fred said

    “I dare any radical homosexual group to dress up in robes and carry on like they did in SF, not at a Catholic church, but at a Muslim mosque—–
    Of course I’m not for anyone disrespecting other religions…” (Stu)

    Must we point out out the blatant hypocrisy in those statements?

    “…the clear, deliberate descrimination against those who value the Judeo-Christian ethic that makes America great.” (Stu)

    Can you give us an example of this, please? Otherwise, we’ll have to toss this in with the…well let’s just say we’ll toss it.

  21. stu said

    Fred,

    thanks for the response, I’m afraid that
    you missed my point and lifted a statement out of context(#20)

    My statement was not hypocritical, but an attempt to point out the hypocrisy in the National media and elected officials for NO outcry over the incident by radical homosexuals at the catholic church—-it really happenned, but you and I never heard about it in the national press.

    why not? you want a specific incident, here it is.
    This is a specific incident that you , nor anyone has responded to. I’m curious why not?
    Because if it had been at a Mosque—-Which I’m NOT encouraging—-just making a point—-Front page of the NY TImes, no doubt

    furthermore,
    goto the afa website and look at all of the companies taking references to ‘Christmas’ out of their language. Why are there going to be all kinds of aclu lawsuits over those ‘highly dangerous’ nativity scenes and Christmas trees in the coming weeks?
    there’s way too much of this going on to make it all up.

    I’m not trying to incite hate, but genuine Love and action as demostrated by Kandace(#18)
    Her approach is how beleivers should respond , in addition to looking for opportunities to share the Gospel…

  22. stu said

    Fred,

    I went to both links for the ACLU, On ENDA,
    do you agree with their position?

    have you seen Jay Sekulow’s position at http://www.aclj.org ?

  23. Anonymous said

    “Because if it had been at a Mosque—-Which I’m NOT encouraging—-just making a point—-Front page of the NY TImes, no doubt” (Stu)

    That is pure speculation on your part, Stu.

    That incident in San Fransisco was hardly national news was it? The church involved declined to press charges. What was there to report? Nothing, or very little but that is what Bill O’Reilly specializes in.

    “Why are there going to be all kinds of aclu lawsuits over those ‘highly dangerous’ nativity scenes and Christmas trees in the coming weeks?” (Stu)

    And more war on Christmas? Give us a break. I must already have two dozen Christmas catalogs from the mail and it’s not even Thanksgiving. Christmas is alive and well. Are you on O’Reilly’s payroll?

    Here’s the ACLU on the fictional “war on Christmas”:

    http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/22324res20051207.html

    Happy Holidays!

    Fred

    P.S. I mean that!

  24. Fred said

    Stu, I haven’t had much chance to worry about whether or not Fundamentalist Christians will be coerced into accepting the Homosexual Agenda by the mean ol’ ACLU. I suspect that it is another straw man meant to distract us from the Fundamentalist Christian attempts to coerce non-Fundamentalists into accepting their agenda.

    Yes, based on what I read in those two links I would agree with the ACLU positions. If the ACLU endorses it (the legislation) then I am inclined to not worry about it.

    So far you and Dot have posted misleading and false information about these topics.

    Truth talk, indeed.

  25. Anonymous said

    Fred says: “based on what I read in those two links I would agree with the ACLU positions. If the ACLU endorses it (the legislation) then I am inclined to not worry about it.”

    The ACLU sides with pornographers, pedophiles, terrorists and legalized murder!

    I guess none of that worries you either?

  26. Anonymous said

    Another O’Reilly apologist gives us the latest sound byte.

    zzz…

  27. Anonymous said

    zzz. You got that right!!! Our society and too many Christians are asleep at the wheel!! Thanks for pointing that out!!

  28. kandace said

    Fred,
    On your post #19, you are correct in that the Fairness Doctrine has not yet been introduced as legislation; however, if you have heard the rhetoric of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and other Democratic leaders of Congress (as I have), this matter is due to be introduced sometime early in 2008.

    Congressmen Pence and Walden have introduced
    House Resolution 2908 – an attempt to get the Broadcaster Freedom Act out of committee and unto the floor of the House, and later, the Senate so that the feared Fairness Doctrine does not reach the Legislature.

    What the Broadcaster Freedom Act will do is to remove from the FCC the ability to impose a fairness doctrine by statute. The reason why this is crucial is because (should the Democrats win the White House) the new president can appoint commissioners to the FCC and then impose the dreaded Fairness Doctrine.

    We must not wait until the Congress comes back in 2008 and then hope that they don’t impose this dreaded doctrine. The US Supreme Court affirmed the FCC right to impose the doctrine in that landmark case in the 1970’s. That case directly involved Christian broadcasting.
    Thank God, the FCC rescinded the doctrine in the 1980’s or Truth Talk Live, in all probability, never would have aired over the public airwaves.

    Forgive this lengthy post, but here is one case when we have a chance proactively to prevent the dangerous Fairness Doctrine from seeing the light of day.

  29. Anonymous said

    “dangerous” “dreaded” “feared”

    All these adjectives to describe a political issue that may not go your way. Well, we know which side fears fairness in the media, don’t we?

    I say hurry, 2008!

  30. kandace said

    To Anonymous #29,
    The media is not balanced over the free airwaves. How would you like Truth Talk Live to be forced to air the exact equivalent amount of air time to the opposition? The liberals already control the free airwaves.
    The only media that they don’t control are programs like “The O’Reilly Factor”, “The Shawn Hannity Show”, “Rush Limbaugh”, or Christian radio talk programs.

    There are ample opportunities for the liberals to express themselves. The only group that will be hurt if the Fairness Doctrine ever becomes law is any group that is a Fundamentalist Christian group: James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Televised Church services, Liberty Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice. This is because we will not have the chance to share our side of the story.

    Therefore, you would lose almost all Christian broadcasting stations since they will not want to air Barry Lynn’s program (Americans for the Separation of Church and State). How would you like to be forced to hear from the Freedom From Religion Foundation? Your only alternative would be not to listen to radio at all. This is what the “Fairness Doctrine” would do.

  31. Fred said

    Kandace, I am not a conservative so I am not as likely as you apparently are to accept the right wing propaganda as gospel.

    The above diatribe is straight out of the O-Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh play book. It serves the Fundamentalist Agenda (taking back America). I disagree utterly with the Fundamentalist Agenda.

    We can disagree amicably if you’d like?

    regards,
    Fred (anonymous #29)

  32. kandace said

    Anonymous #29 (Fred),

    We can disagree aimically. I don’t take anybody’s viewpoint hook line and sinker. I have just studied the Fairness Doctrine issue as it was proposed as well as how it operated in the 1980’s.

  33. John said

    It’s good to see you posting replies regularly again,Kandace.
    We have missed you.

    Now I wonder whatever happened to Kenneth J.?

  34. kandace said

    From time to time I post things whenever there is a relevant topic and the comments posted express rational divergent viewpoints. I quit posting on topics when it seems that the discussion moves from useful dialogue and shifts to diatribe.

  35. John said

    Diatribe? It’s no wonder that we hardly hear from you[grin].
    Many would think it a difficult mix, rationality and religion.
    But it’s alllllllll interesting, no?

  36. kandace said

    John,

    I don’t spend a great deal of time on religion since religion is man-centered. I do refer to the only thing that matters – my personal walk with Jesus Christ and how He is relevant to our culture. Rationality is crucial. My model is the apostle Paul who knew God’s Word backwards and forwards, who could argue with the best of the philosophers of that day. Yet, the apostle Paul used tact and diplomacy in his discourse with the intelligentsia of that society. My I be counted as an spologist for God’s kingdom a la I Peter 3:15; II Tim 3:16-17, and other related Scripture passages.

  37. Mike Sears said

    With endorsements like this, who needs mud slinging opponents. Why not just ROLL around in it!!??

    News Headline: ‘BunnyRanch’ Brothel Owner Endorses Underdog GOP Candidate Ron Paul

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312872,00.html

  38. Troy said

    Mike, you are falling for this? Come on. It is to be expected that, as Ron Paul rises in popularity and has no dirt in his public life, some must be created.

    The AP story starts off claiming that Paul “picked up” the endorsement. The implication is that Ron Paul “solicited” the endorsement of a pimp but anyone following this beyond the sound bite level would know that MSNBCs Tucker Carlson personally went to his friend Dennis Hof, the brothel owner, to see if he wanted to check Paul out.

    The AP story fails to mention that

    “Paul spokesman Jeff Greenspan said Paul’s campaign were surprised to see Carlson emerge from a limousine with Hof and two of his celebrity prostitutes to attend the morning’s news conference at Lawlor Events Center.”

    It is apparent that the AP reporting of this is intended to make it look as though Ron Paul is pro-prostitution when he isn’t, as they do not mention that Paul does not personally condone such immorality or that he is a devout Christian. On prostitution, in Nevada it’s legal in 12 of the state’s 17 counties, including the county where the brothel that Hof owns is located. Paul’s spokesman said

    “From his campaign perspective, it’s not the role of federal government and it’s not in the Constitution for federal government to regulate these things.”

    That state legislature and the voters of Nevada have chosen that, not Paul.

    This story by the AP is a blatant attempt to marry Ron Paul with something immoral. It doesn’t wash and it is an indication that Paul is becoming or has already become a front runner in the GOP race.

    You might want to get a more thorough report before repeating the mainstream’s dribble. Here’s one on this in particular from the Reno Gazette-Journal that contains a few more of the more important facts: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071125/NEWS/711250335/1002

  39. Stephen Guidetti said

    JESUS SPEAKS ON TAXES.

    Let’s start by laying some scriptural groundwork. Turn to Matthew chapter 22 and we will read something here and hopefully put a verse into perspective that’s often misunderstood. Matthew 22: starting in verse 15:

    15. Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle him (JESUS) in his talk.

    16. And they sent out to JESUS their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Master, we know that Thou art true, and teaches the way of GOD in truth; neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou regardest not the person of men.”

    So JESUS evidently considered Himself free from slavery to other men.

    17. “Tell us therefore what thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”

    18. JESUS perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?”

    19. “Show Me the tribute money.” So they brought unto JESUS a penny.

    20. And JESUS said unto them, “Whose is this image and superscription.”

    21. And they said unto JESUS, Caesar’s “Then saieth he unto them, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto GOD the things that are GOD’s.”

    Many people use this scripture to try to prove that this means Americans should not only pay taxes but also do whatever the government tells them to do. However, we have a problem with that scripture in light of that explanation because in America we have no king or Caesar; unless you want to consider We The People the Caesar. So, therefore, if We The People are the Caesar and if somebody is supposed to render unto Caesar, then somebody must obey We The People. That is a far cry from turning it around and saying We The People are supposed to obey the government – that’s putting it in reverse. So you see this verse cannot suggest that Americans have to obey every statement that our government says, especially when our government lies to us. We The People are above our government therefore we judge our government. I am not saying that this is done without cooperation, without organization, I am just saying that Americans have to keep it in perspective. So, it does not apply to Americans because Americans have no Caesar.

    Look at Chapter 17 of Matthew

    This is another verse that is often misunderstood. As you read this I want to pose a question to you to think about: Do free men who are children of the king pay taxes? When these verses speak of children they are talking about children who are freemen by birthright. So, do freemen pay taxes? Notice what the verse says —- Matthew 17:

    24. And when they had come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money (tax collectors) came to Peter and said, “Does not your Master pay tribute?”

    25. He saith, “yes.” And when he had come into the house, JESUS anticipated him saying, “What thinkest thou Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take customs or tribute, from their own children or strangers?”

    26. Peter saith unto JESUS, “From strangers.” JESUS saith unto him, “Then are the children free?”

    JESUS is setting a principle here for Peter to understand: who pays taxes? And the principle is that freemen do not have to pay taxes unless they want to. Freemen are free to pay taxes or not to pay taxes and I will explain that later.

    27. Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take up the fish that first comes up. An when thou has opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for ME and thee.”

    So we see here that JESUS paid a tribute to the tax collector. So people say, well then that proves that you should pay your taxes. But, you see we are talking about what is lawful and what is an unlawful tax here.

    Let me explain that to you. Free people, that is people who are not under the ownership of kings, people who are not slaves to kings, choose what taxes they want to pay and this is done in America through legislation, supposedly or correctly. The people decide what taxes they pay if the legislation is carried out properly. So, we do not pay tribute to any king if things are in their order. JESUS makes that clear here when he talks about children being free.

    Let us go on to see why JESUS paid this tribute. JESUS had just crossed the border; He had come into a land, which was not His homeland. He was paying a border custom here. He was paying a custom for the privilege of crossing the border. He makes the statement that He is the child of the owner of that land by rights. However, the government that was in that land at that time, the Jewish —- Pharisaical – Edomite government, was a hostile government. It was not the government of His people, of his country. JESUS was a Galilean, He lived in Galilee. When he crossed the border He had to pay tribute to a foreign nation to a foreign government to cross. That was a lawful tax. JESUS did not pay an unlawful tax.

    When you compare this to our Constitution and you think about what is happening to us here you must realize that our Constitution is not hostile to Americans. To try to apply this to our situation causes problems. Our Constitution is not hostile to Americans –we have some bureaucrats in government that are hostile to Americans. But, you see, they are trying to usurp the powers of the Constitution and as a result this puts them in a pretty bad position —- pretty dangerous in fact; and they can only be checked if and when Americans ever relearn that the law of the land is the Constitution of the United States.

    While we are on the subject of bureaucrats let’s read from Romans 13 and we will explain this verse here also. This is the Chapter that lays out the role of public servants. Romans 13:

    1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers for there is no power but of GOD, the powers that be are ordained of GOD.

    Who are the powers that be in America? Well, some people say that’s our government, that’s our president, that’s our supreme court judges, that’s the bureaucrats. Let me remind you who the powers are in America. We The People are the power, We The People are the supreme power, We The People are the Sovereigns in America. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher power.” This means let our public servants, our president, our supreme court judges, our legislators, our governors, our senators, and our congressmen —- let all of these people be subject unto We The People.
    Continuing in Romans 13:7:

    7. Render therefore to all their duties: tribute to whom tribute is due, customs to whom customs are due, fear to whom fear is due, honor to whom honor is due.

    You see our public servants had better pay honor and they had better fear their owners, their employers, which is We The People. Now is that putting it in perspective for you because that scripture has been often misunderstood?

    Stephen Guidetti

  40. Troy said

    Good points Stephen. So few Christian’s have the ability to think beyond the out of context statements they hear about these issues. I’ll add something I wrote not to long ago to a local leader on these issues, concerning Roman’s 13. If we contextually “obey” Romans 13, America could return to the great representative republic it was intended to be.

    One thing I have come to understand, that is vitally important with Romans 13 is historical context, both then and now. There are clear contextual differences between the political organization and public policies of first century Rome and present day America. For example; considering that we do not have a human “king” in modern America (not yet anyway.) Also, Nero, Herod and Caesar were evil and sinful rulers. My simple understanding is that Paul was not telling believers to obey them without question all of the time but in as much as they were not asked to break God’s law or act contrary to the character of God as revealed to them, they were to obey the dictator king who was the source of their laws (Acts 5:28, 29.)

    To the surprise of many Christians today, we have a representative republic (definitely not a pure democracy) in which, originally anyway, we as citizens have a duty to a republican contract established by “We the People” that is the source of our laws and not to a king. Thus, a Christian American’s ultimate political allegiance is not to a President or to Congress, but to that contract that is explicitly based on God’s word and modeled in many ways after Israelite Old Testament theocracy. This allegiance is acknowledged in some public oaths like the one …I .. took upon enlisting in the Army. In it the first thing I swore was to defend and protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. In the oath, the physical paper Constitution is not what is referred to as much as the foundational ideals that are in it. The obeying of orders from superiors fell behind that in hierarchy for a reason.

    It is clear that Romans 13:1-7 cannot be applied exactly as it would have been under the Roman dictatorship of the first century. It is also abundantly obvious through researching the Federalist Papers and other Constitutional literature that in American law, the people which form the several states are the “higher powers” as prescribed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, not the Federal government. Thus “We the People” should obey the authorities in as much as they mandate laws that do not require us to break God’s law or the Constitution. This gets more complicated if you factor in the twenty thousand or so new laws a year that apply to us as citizens, but I won’t get into the intentional criminalization of our nation here.

    One last indication of where the authority lies in American government can be garnered in the duty “We the People” have to eventually “throw off” our government and start over if our system is compromised from within, according to the Declaration of Independence, a right and duty attributed in that document as coming from our Creator.

    That all being said, I understand that all scripture is applicable to all times, within the proper context. These things I have mentioned must be considered in understanding this passage in our day and country. The sad thing is, I have heard Romans 13 used by believers and non believers alike to justify all sorts of complacency toward government abuses and indiscretions.

    Take extreme examples in our recent history. Was Romans 13 disobeyed when German Christians took part in resisting Hitler’s laws and oppression considering Adolph Hitler rose to power legally initially? What about the founders of our nation? Were they disobeying scripture when they willingly declared war on their government to fight for independence from the throne of England? Those may seem extreme examples, but I believe they illustrate bona fide historical and situational limits of applying Romans 13 to government and rulers, especially in our blessed nation of America, a nation born out of Godly resistance to tyranny.

    I’ll relate two more applicable examples in regard to this topic. When Judge Roy Moore was ousted from his judgeship for disobeying his government, I believe he was doing what God required. Because he refused to remove the Ten Commandments from a public building as mandated by the court, he lost his job as judge. (By the way, the prosecutor in his case was rewarded with appointment to judgeship himself by our “Christian” President’s administration.) Judge Moore was obeying God rather than man.
    Along the same lines, I wrote to the President myself in December of last year concerning Lieutenant Gordon Klingenschmitt, a US Navy Chaplain who has more than a year long fight with the Navy and the DOD ordering him not to pray in Jesus’ name and him being disciplined for his stance. He refused to follow orders to stop his “offensive” style of prayer. It has cost him. Of course I received a form letter back about the President’s support of “faith based organizations” and what not, but nothing about the good chaplain. If you don’t know about this chaplain’s ordeal, look into it please. It should be spoken out about. The only Christian leader I have seen openly supporting this man is Dr. D. James Kennedy. Our “Christian” President has been silent on the chaplain’s behalf. I believe that Chaplain Klingenschmitt, an officer who took a reduction in rank to become a chaplain in the first place, was being obedient to God in disobeying his government. These are just two recent examples of my understanding of responsible Romans 13 application….”

  41. Mike Sears said

    Troy
    Watch what Paul says about this when asked by Fox News. I still think he’s rolling around in the mud. Video Headline: Pimpin’ for Paul

    Click on the URL below to watch the video:

  42. Troy said

    Again Fox News, “fair and balanced” takes a prerecorded interview with Ron Paul and tries to associate him as an endorser of prostitution, all the while showing as much skin as they can, then they cut to the “pimp” and one of his prostitutes. The anchor sets up the Paul “interview” segment with “was he shocked to get the bunny ranch backing?” (as if it were a prize he actively sought). Then the Paul segment rolls obviously cut right in the middle of Paul answering something about “screening” donors, not being surprised about anything.

    Fox has attempted setting Paul up more than a few times. For those paying attention, it is obvious what is going on. Ron Paul is easily one of most, if not the most moral candidate running in the GOP. Don’t fall for it and if you’re going to watch Fox News, do so prayerfully, as they have scantily clad women and sensual imagery on constantly.

    Look, fall for Faux’s antics if you want, but know that Rupert Murdoch has raised funds for Clinton. That’s publicly admitted, so consider the source for you information. Fox is who is “rolling around in the mud” not Ron Paul. Ron Paul will take the donations as long as they are legal, he’s running for president and even though Hof is immoral and detestable, he is an American.
    Fox can’t even pull off a real interview with both the pimp and Paul at the same time without manipulating it.

  43. Mike Sears said

    Fair enough and point taken on Fox’s sensationalism recently along with their propensity to glorify the scantily clad! Thanks for your input. Mike

  44. Troy said

    Thank you as well Mike.

  45. interesting gadget article…

    […]God & Politics – Part II « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: