The real reason for the movement of removing God out of this society.

[Jailminister]

Goals, "Communist Manifesto"

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single phrase: Abolition of private property. (page 82)

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeoisie, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. (page 84)

You reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. (page 85)

. . . the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (pages 85-86)

Abolition of the family! (page 87)

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality." (page 90)

Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality. (page 92)

Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. (page 116)

Goals of Communism (page 94)


Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

Note: the above pages reflect the paperback version, 14th printing, April 1976

Note: the above quotes also reflect the tenets of the religion of humanism.

 

[Gunther]

Frankly, I tire of the now 27 topics on Judge Moore. He is a pathetic example of Christianity to the world. You should be ashamed of supporting a man that would rather disobey the Scripture than do what it says.

Explain Romans 13, would ya'.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Gunther:
Explain Romans 13, would ya'.

I guess you want to still be under the Queen of England.

 

[Gunther]

Um, no.

Oh, I missed the exposition of obeying the government unless you are commanded to sin.

I wasn't aware that taking an idol down was sin. Have you seen all those people praying before it. They are even moving next to it like that will produce some kind of aura. Classic.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Gunther:
Um, no.

And just why not? You are being inconsistent. You approve of the Revolutionary War but disapprove of the War for Southern Independence.

Where do you think the right for the colonists to secede from England came from?

 

[Gunther]

Ken, without going into to it too much on this thread, there is a reason I would have fought for the U.S.

In the Magna Carta, which the then leader of the government signed into law, the Law became king, not the king.

In other words, the kings authority is under the Law and not vice versa.

The law provided for taxation with representation. Such was not allowed though. It could be argued that they were acting within their legal right.

Another issue is whether or not England had rightful rulership of America. Who declared them to be the ruler? They were not the first people in America.

As to the original issue, you cannot legislate morality. God's law could not make God's people any better off. We have christians today though trying to make man's law into God's law. Brilliant.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Gunther:
1)The law provided for taxation with representation. Such was not allowed though. It could be argued that they were acting within their legal right.

2)As to the original issue, you cannot legislate morality.

1) In the same vein an argument can be made for the Confederacy. My point stands.

2)As a libertarian politically, I totally agree.

 

[Sherrie]

How many threads are there going to be for one topic. I am sick of them all. How many ways can you say "for" or "against". Then you go and make polls out it, and we have more threads on it.

Enough already. Put them all on one thread.


Sherrie

 

[blackbird]

OK, I wasn't gonna say anything about the Montgomery issue but here goes! Some of you guys are gonna crucify me when I'm finished--

But why all the "hoop-la" over two and a half tons of granite with ten sentences scribed on the top of it?? It no more has power to save than a plastic statue of Mary ridin' on the dashboard of a car.

Go back and reread(or read for the first time) what God told Moses about those stones! He told Moses to etch the words of truth on the stones--but before he left God's presence on Sinai God gave him a message----that one day the words will be scribed---not on stone---but on the hearts of every believer!!! One day the living truth will be scribed on the hearts of every believer---oooooohhhhhhh, but that speaks of you and me, don't it!

The real place for the truth---is not scribed in stone on the steps of Alabama's Capitol building. The truth is on the steps of believer's hearts.

Corrie ten Boom and her sister, Betsie were standing in line at an inspection station while under arrest by the Nazi's. The Nazi "swines" had stripped all the women of their clothes. Trying to rob them of their dignity and respect.

Corrie looks at Betsie and says, "Betsie! They have taken our clothes! We are naked!!!"

Betsie looks back at Corrie and says, "True! They have taken the clothes off of our backs! But they can NEVER take Jesus out of our hearts!!!!"

So I would say to the men wanting to take the 2 1/2 ton display down---"If you want it---come and get it!!" Knowing down in my heart they'll have to come with a bigger piece of equipment if they want to take the truth out of my heart!!!!! That's why Peter and John told the council, "Boys! Ain't no way we can surrender the truth!! Its in our hearts---bursting out like water out of a open floodgate!"

Of course, to remove the 2 1/2 ton stone off of the "square" is gonna be a cinch!! They can come with a "Cherry Picker" and a dump truck and that'll be that!! But to remove the commands from a heart---ooooohhhhh, now that's a different story!! Ain't but one way to remove that sort of witness--and the disciples of Jesus knew it!! "To remove the truth from our hearts--they'll have to kill us!!! So be it--to the death with a denial of self and a taking up the cross of shame and following the Lord Jesus all the while drinking from the same "cup of death" that HE drank from!!

See my point?? Point at me and tell me I ain't right!!!

Your Southern Baptist preaching fool,
Brother David

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother Blackbird -- Preach it!

Sherrie: "Enough already. Put them all on one thread."

Oh, i don't know. I responded to some such
threads, and now i can't respond for
the thread has been closed. So let me put some
of it here.

I didn't like your 45K cut and paste.
For one thing, it is way to long.
For a second thing, i've read most of
it already, for i've been on the internet
(or it's precusors) for 19 years.
Please read what you cut and paste before
pasting. Your cut and paste had this:

"Now she (Madalyn Murray O'Hair) is ligating for
the ... "

Oops. She died about six years (?) ago.
I doubt if she is ligating anything
from athiest hell

Come on man, give us some new information.
Thank you.

 

[Sherrie]

but on the hearts of every believer!!!

blackbird........Amen!


Sherrie

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Gunther:
In the Magna Carta, which the then leader of the government signed into law, the Law became king, not the king.

In other words, the kings authority is under the Law and not vice versa.

A very good case can be made that this is exactly the problem in Alabama. The law is the authority, not the lawyers. The court's responsibility is to uphold the law. In this case, they seem to have failed. When the 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law, that means "no law." When they make a law regarding religion, they have violated the constitution. When a judge interprets a law in such a manner, they have violated the constitution. Secondly, the federal government is prohibited by the 10th amendment from interfering in matters not expresslyl granted to it in the constitution. In other words, in the state of Alabama in this matter, the federal government has no standing.

That constitution is king and it says "no law." Justice Moore seems well within the constitution when he argues that "no law" means "no law." This is a matter for the state of Alabama, who seems to have already spoken on this matter, both in their own constitution and in the public free election of Justice Moore to the bench.

Someone asked earlier if the state of Alabama could appoint a state religion. Based on the facts existing at the time of the writing of the constitution, we should say Yes, they could. It seems there were several states at the signing of the constitution that had official state churches. The men who wrote and signed the constitution, then sent it out for ratification knew this and accepted it. Their target was the federal government. States had their own governments. The expanding power of the federal government is increasing problemmatic constitutionally. They are stepping in areas where they have no constitutional standing.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It seems there were several states at the signing of the constitution that had official state churches. The men who wrote and signed the constitution, then sent it out for ratification knew this and accepted it. Their target was the federal government.

This is an interesting historical point of which some people may not be aware. While I oppose an official state religion, it appears that the majority of the framers were targeting official federal religion, since there were state churches before that still existed as state churches after the ratification of the constitution. If I remember correctly, Massachusetts had a state church or religion well into the 19th century.

 

[LadyEagle]

The expanding power of the federal government is increasing problemmatic constitutionally. They are stepping in areas where they have no constitutional standing.

Amen!

Examples: Madeline Murray O'Hare, Roe v Wade. The recent Sodomy case in Texas - a clear violation of States Rights.

The Rights of States are being continually eroded away by those who choose to legislate from the Judiciary.

 

[Jailminister]

Gunther said

Frankly, I tire of the now 27 topics on Judge Moore. He is a pathetic example of Christianity to the world. You should be ashamed of supporting a man that would rather disobey the Scripture than do what it says.

Explain Romans 13, would ya'

In the rules we are not suppose to be name calling, so I will refrain from using words like *attack deleted* in reguards to you. I would like to, but I won't.

I am not ashamed to be standing WITH Judge Moore but I am ashamed of you. Your kind gives the unsaved world a confused idea of christianity.

Now as for as Romans 13 goes, first, unlimited submission to government is not practical. For a philosophy to be a valid philosophy, it must be consistent. As a result, it does not make practical sense to blindly obey a tyrant like Adolph Hitler or deem a law such as abortion-on-demand a legitimate law just because one's government says it is public policy. However, if Romans 13 teaches unlimited submission to government, then we must obey and acknowledge all laws, good and bad, as the will of God. If all governments are of God, then all laws are of God. This in not practical from any point of view.

Second, it is not historical. Our founding fathers recognized and understood tyranny and despotism. They perceived the ultimate end of the king's actions. Thus, they besought George III to relent in his persecutions and implored him to uphold his covenant agreement.

[ August 22, 2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Your kind gives the unsaved world a confused idea of christianity.

Spend the time that you do in protesting the Moore saga and abortion clinics and work one-on-one with the hurting and lost world, and they will get a very, very clear idea of Christianity.

From talking to non-believers personally, issues such as disrupting the law in not removing the Ten Commandments does MUCH more in promoting a confused idea of Christianity than other things.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It seems there were several states at the signing of the constitution that had official state churches. The men who wrote and signed the constitution, then sent it out for ratification knew this and accepted it. Their target was the federal government.

This is an interesting historical point of which some people may not be aware. While I oppose an official state religion, it appears that the majority of the framers were targeting official federal religion, since there were state churches before that still existed as state churches after the ratification of the constitution. If I remember correctly, Massachusetts had a state church or religion well into the 19th century. </font>[/QUOTE]Hello Robert. Been a while. I hope all is well.

While this is an interesting perspective on the First Ammendment, the logical conclusion of such would be that states would also have a right to abridge free speech and the press as these rights are included in the same sentence.

As for the tenth amendment, didn't the first section of the 14th amendment disqualify this argument after the War Between the States?

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
I am not ashamed to be standing WITH Judge Moore but I am ashamed of you. Your kind gives the unsaved world a confused idea of christianity.

You are correct in your assessment of me. Folks like me who give the priority to the gospel create confusion. I know, I know.

I further the confusion by saying that you cannot legislate morality.

I even further that confusion by saying that in the end, the unsaved pagan and the unsaved moralist are both going to hell.

I even further that already gross confusion by insisting that believers obey the law of the land UNLESS ONE IS COMMANDED TO SIN.

For all of the above, I offer no apology.

Turn off Dobson and Kennedy and open up Paul and Peter and John.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
While this is an interesting perspective on the First Ammendment, the logical conclusion of such would be that states would also have a right to abridge free speech and the press as these rights are included in the same sentence.

While I am not Robert, nor the historical buff that he is, I think this statement is not true. Freedom of speech and press are specifically enumerated to the protection of the federal government by the constitution. Therefore, under the 10th amendment those rights can be protected and cannot be abridged. However, the 1st amendment says that the congress (federal) can make "no law" respecting the establishment of religion. That means that any law dealing with religion is out of bounds to the federal government. They can neither encourage nor discourage the issue. They can no more demand that the 10 commandments be removed than they can demand that they be erected. I think "no law" carries a bit more weight than many would like to give it. Most think that it means that the federal government cannot encourage religion and cannot allow religion in many places. The framers seemed to have intended a far broader application, that the federal government can make no law about it.

As for the tenth amendment, didn't the first section of the 14th amendment disqualify this argument after the War Between the States?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

</font>[/QUOTE]At face value, this is the constitution and therefore, the 14th amendment does grant certain provisions to the federal government under the constitutional provision. In other words, the 14th amendment did not violate the constitution; it is the constitution, duly ratified by the states. The 14th amendment expressly grants right to the federal government, thereby rendering the 10th amendment null and void in the matters addressed by the 10th amendment only. That does not provide a blanket provision for other issues. Those too would have to be dealt with by the constitution, not by a law.

 

[Sherrie]

Spend the time that you do in protesting the Moore saga and abortion clinics and work one-on-one with the hurting and lost world, and they will get a very, very clear idea of Christianity.

Yes! Excellent! I think he advocates just to hear himself advocate!

Sherrie