Evangelical Republicanism:Exalting politics over Christ

PA Jim!!!!!!! Where ya been, man ?

Good to see you, hope all is well.

 

For many years "Bible believing" Christians were told to stay in your churches and leave politics to the politicians, God would straighten everything out in His soon return. During this time period the liberal/left/democrats were slowly taking over all the institutions of government and society.

So what do we get:

1. A society obsessed with pornography, and
2. 45,000,000 babies murdered, and
3. You name it!

 

We hope you were too...

Now...instead of coming in saying nothing to do with the topic, like a troll...why don't you contribute to it. Say what you disagree with. We're "big people"...we can debate rationally. </font>[/QUOTE]You really have a lot of nerve comparing someone to a troll. I have been here for years and you have been here for weeks. Yet you set yourself up as a judge of posts when you really are just posting unfriendly posts all the time and then always exalting yourself with statements such as you can debate rationally and that you are big and that you think that I should say what I disagree with etc. I hope that I am not handcuffed to you when you die because I am not sure which way you are going. </font>[/QUOTE]cmg, you obviously have no sense of humour. BTW...your post was troll-like. I have been accused of being a troll but I can't do it back? Oh...and many of my posts are friendly. It's just that I am not very friendly to you when I see some of the things you say.

And the fact that our brother who posted after you about ignoring me...well...it's nice to see that I should be ignored but many of the things you have said in my time on this site are excused. That is pathetic if you ask me. I can tolerate the double standards and the name calling now though. You are just saved sinners exactly like myself. And I wouldn't want to be handcuffed next to you either cmg. We don't seem to get along...but then...I know WHY we don't get along. I don't think you do.

 

9/11 happened...four years ago.

As for the latter...I respectfully disagree.

 

As far as the U.S. Constitution goes it was really a sellout to compromise with regard to Christianity. There is not one mention of God or Jesus Christ anywhere in the constitution. Rather odd foundation for a supposedly "Christian nation", isn't it? You see in the beginning the Pilgrims came over and established the Mayflower Compact which was clearly christian but could have been more inspiring. There certainly were true christians among the Pilgrims and Puritans but there were plenty of universalists that soon followed and the actual legal foundation of the nation was inspired by these rather than the true devout Christian. There are plenty of outwardly appearing christians in this world and devoutly appearing cultists and there is no reason to believe they did not also exist back then. This nation is based on what appears to be Christian, not what is truly Christian. If you were going to begin a nation anew, would you include any references to God & Jesus in it's foundational document? All this is not to say America has not prospered from it's freedom of religion because Christianity is clealy woven in and out of our society but it is not truly foundational. In many ways God has blessed aspects of this country because of the flourishing presence of Christianity but even all the worldly empires of history prospered greatly from Egypt, Babylon to the Roman Empire, so do not be mislead by the extent of a countries prosperity.
Far too many Christians nearly equate America with God projecting upon it the same allegiance they give to God and it is this devoution that is dangerous and without basis. This is not a Godly Christian nation and we would do well to see it for what it is and no more, a vehicle to spread the Gospel to all the earth. This country needs constructive criticism, it needs diagnosis to help repell the stranglehold evil would put upon it so it can continue to be at the forefront of our Great Commission. Misguided, everpositive national allegiance is no help. Just see it for what it is and use it. Make no mistake, God will use someone.

 

This Kyle Williams seems to be a wise young man. It is good to see someone that young trying to bring integrity and real honor back into play.

 

As far as the U.S. Constitution goes it was really a sellout to compromise with regard to Christianity. There is not one mention of God or Jesus Christ anywhere in the constitution. Rather odd foundation for a supposedly "Christian nation", isn't it?... [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Technically, there is a mention of God at the end of the constitution:

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

 

There really is no such thing as Evangelical Republicanism. There are Republican Evangelicals. However, when Kyle is old enough to vote, he will understand that most Evangelicals are willing to vote for any party that will make progress on the issues such as ending abortion. If Kerry had promised to end abortion no matter what, he would have been elected.

 

That's not always true CMG, there was only one candidate who promised to end abortion and he only got about 1% of the vote.

 

That was because Peroutka declared the war in Iraq illegal and promised to end it immediately and withdraw. So far the public has wanted a victory against the Islamofascists but the CP and the Communist Party have called the war illegal. I cannot remember for sure but I think that the Libertarians also call for immediate withdrawal. So that makes 3 parties and 1/2 of the Democrats against the war in Iraq.

 

Don't forget those members of the GOP in Washington who also voted against the war, there are differences of opinions within all parties. Do you hate everyone you have a difference of opinion with, or just the Constitution Party?

Make sure you get your facts straight, the Constitution Party supports going after the Islamofascists terrorist who are a threat to our country, we are opposed to nation building experiments and invading nations that pose no threat to the USA.

 

My facts are straight. The Constitution Party is against the war in Iraq not to mention Colombia.

Here is a part of their platform:

Since World War II, the United States has been involved in tragic, unconstitutional, undeclared wars which cost our country the lives of many thousands of young Americans. These wars were the direct and foreseeable result of the bi-partisan interventionist policy of both Democrat and Republican administrations.

The Constitution Party is opposed to the continuation of the same interventionist policy, with that policy's capacity to involve our country in repeated wars.

We demand that:

never again shall United States troops be employed on any foreign field of battle without a declaration of war by Congress, as required by the United States Constitution;

Congress refuse to fund unconstitutional, undeclared wars pursuant to presidential whim or international obligations under which American sovereignty has been transferred to multi-national agencies.

Foreign Involvement

The Constitution Party has consistently opposed American involvement in conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, and Central and South America. The United States has no interest in these areas which would justify the sacrifice of Americans on foreign battlefields - nor is our country properly cast as a merchant of death in international arms races.

 

Imagine that! The Constitution Party thinks that the Congress should abide by the constitution and actually declare war before we put troops in harm's way.

So you see, cmg, you are off-track. If the Congress had actually declared war per the constitution then the war in Iraq would not be illegal and unconstitutional. I think the opposition is more based on the constitution being circumvented than opposition to the war itself. If the constitution had been followed then all of the arguments for war would have had to have passed constitutional muster and we would have a document saying that the U.S. declared itself at war with Iraq. That would have up the stakes before we invaded Iraq to more than the Congress passing a resolution telling the president to do whatever he thought best.

 

That overlooks the fact, Ken, that Peroutka himself calls for immediate withdrawal:

"If elected President, however, I would move immediately to end our involvement in Iraq. I am not one who believes that when you are in a hole you should not be in, you should keep digging....--...Michael A. Peroutka "

So, Ken, there is another issue about the illegality of the war, also, and I have asked people if George Washington acted illegally in the Whiskey Rebellion?

Peroutka is against the war for 2 reasons--it is illegal in his opinion although not in the opinion of the court and Peroutka considers it a pit in which we should stop digging deeper.

 

Since we can't do anything about President Washington's actions they are rather irrelevant to this debate.

 

As Ken rightfully pointed out, Peroutka only considers the war "illegal" as you say, because he considers it unconstitutional to send troops on nation building experiments without Congress declaring war. If Congress acted withing the rules of the US Constitution and declared war on Iraq, Peroutka could not call the war unconstitutional or "illegal".

I will have to plead ignorance to the issue of the "Whiskey Rebellion", and will have to study the issue before I can say if George Washington acted unconstitutionally.

 

It is time to make sure that we have a well-thought out withdrawal and are totally out of Iraq by the end of 2006.

 

But George Washington did not have Congressional approval to wage war in the Whiskey Rebellion so there is precedent for the President's having war powers. Besides, there was an act of Congress--it just wasn't written to the CP's satisfaction and Peroutka has called for an immediate withdrawal from what he calls a hole and an illegal war.

To correct your post, Ken, it is time to make sure that we have a well-thought out withdrawal and are totally out of Iraq right after our total military victory there.

Not even Kyle Williams can fault Bush's war policy.

 

I'm sure that when Peroutka said we should "end our involvement in Iraq" that his plan would involved a withdrawal strategy, not just an overnight exit.

Similar to the CP's stand on Social Security, we are in favor of phasing out the SS system, while still keeping the obligations that are currently made, regardless of how unconstitutional the grounds for making those obligations may have been.