ShakeFistGod

The Left Officially Declares War on God

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

The meltdowns, lawlessness, and crises are coming so “fast and furious” now you can’t keep track of them all, which is why many of you probably missed a recent development that may actually be the biggest threat of them all to our constitutional republic.

This week, the same people who booed God at the 2012 Democrat National Convention openly declared war on their own Maker. For instead of repenting of their attempted tyranny, the statist/Marxist Left’s response to last week’s Supreme Court opinion in favor of Hobby Lobby (i.e. the First Amendment) was to remove any pretense whatsoever they still believe in the U.S. Constitution.

After previously lying…err…claiming that they’d never do anything to stop you from practicing your religion in your church “where it belongs,” the statist/Marxist Left has openly declared war on God and those who still believe what the Word of God has to say about moral matters.

The ACLU and other anti-American groups announced they are withdrawing their support for a heinous piece of legislation known as ENDA. Because with a scant 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court still believing in the First Amendment, it’s obvious to them that ENDA in its current form wasn’t heinous enough. ENDA, which stands for the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” is the unholy grail of the moral depravity lobby. The immorality peddlers have been peddling various versions of this bill for years, but the end result is always the same—you will be made to care.

The intent of this legislation is for the federal government to once and for all make someone’s private sexual behavior a publicly protected class in all of Obama’s 57 states, and thus also silence once and for all any moral or religious dissent to their depravity. Oh, sure, the version passed out of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate last year included so-called “religious exemptions.” But absolutely no one smarter than Joe Biden believes the same people who think the Feds can order the “Little Sister of the Poor” to pay for baby-murder, also believes these people are serious about protecting religious liberty.

Now that the High Court they’ve relied on so many times before to impose their statist edicts on the American people by fiat actually sided against them for a change, these anti-American groups on the statist/Marxist Left aren’t even going to pay lip service to liberty anymore. So they will no longer support any legislation that doesn’t tell religious institutions they have to obey man and not God.

Nero would be proud.

That means if you’re a Christian school with a teacher/administrator living an immoral life that undermines your mission, you can’t fire them. Like this example courtesy of Denny Burk at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

Last year, Azusa Pacific University (a Christian school) asked a female theology professor to leave after she began to assume a transgender identity. “Gender identity” is protected under ENDA. If ENDA were the law of the land with no religious exemptions, then it would have been illegal for this Christian school to dismiss this professor. Under ENDA, Azusa would have been in violation of federal law if they were to follow Christianity’s teaching about gender.

Burk correctly concludes:

These Leftist groups are pursuing a zero-sum strategy against religious groups and individuals. They have declared an all-out culture war and will offer no quarter to sincere religious dissenters. They are ready to use the coercive power of the state to trample the religious consciences of their countrymen. This is radical and chilling.

If you’re a Democrat that takes their faith seriously and you think guys like Burk and I are taking fringe elements of your party too seriously, consider the fact the Democrat majority in the U.S. Senate has “fast-tracked” legislation that would seek to undo the Hobby Lobby opinion. The bill would demand a company pay for abortifacients and baby-murder as Obamacare originally demanded.

Elected Democrats in the U.S. Senate are not the fringe of their party. They are the party. This is who this party has become.

The decades-long right-of-center/left-of-center argument we’ve having since the New Deal about just how much government should be used to even the odds for the little guy is over now. When Democrat Zell Miller got up and spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention that was symbolically the end of the old Democrat Party. A party that once claimed to represent the values of working-class and middle-class Americans, as well as ethnic and racial minorities, who believed they needed a check-and-balance against corporatism.

The generation of Democrats who gave us the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 20 years ago, which the Supreme Court used as the basis for its ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, is mostly gone now. Replaced by what David Horowitz calls “the New Left.” This “New Left” is not mere liberals. They are flat-out Leftists. They don’t want to grow government as much as they want to change it. They are Social Reconstructionists, whose goal is to empower government to replace our Judeo-Christian ideals of liberty and morality with what amounts to Cultural Marxism.

And they won’t stop until the American Exceptionalism they either don’t understand or loathe is eradicated once and for all. That’s why their ultimate goal is silencing the church, as all tyrants in history have tried to do, because the church has always been the obstacle to statism in a culture. For the church says that God alone is God, and government is not. Not to mention with God out of the way, so are your God-given rights, which makes you a de facto ward of the state and not a free person. As Chesterton once said, “whenever the government removes the god the government then becomes the god.”

You can’t share a culture with people who won’t share it with you. There is no negotiating with these people. You can only convert or defeat them.

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

comments

  • Tiny Hands

    So the “Left”, as you call them, haven’t “officially” declared anything, especially not war. You’re just trying to get people mad at LGBT people for… pursuing their own rights?

    Like Hobby Lobby was?

    As the Posting Policy says, “Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.” Also, I suggest using more buzzwords next time: I didn’t feel enough dehumanization to really get fired up.

    • Shain Eighmey

      But the outrage! Must be Outraged!!!

      • Tiny Hands

        I’m so mad at people who aren’t like me! They’re ruining this country! The Founding Fathers wouldn’t want us to all be different: we need to find one prescriptive way of living and stick to it, no matter how exclusive or damaging it is!

        Why can’t you weird, gross people be more like us?

        • helligusvart

          This is exactly what the attitude of the Left is toward anyone who differs from them.

          • Tiny Hands

            Yeah, I know you are, but what am I? (Good comeback!)

          • helligusvart

            No, just an immature one. To which you would reply, “I am not immature, you big poopoohead!”

          • Tiny Hands

            Exactly my point.

    • no more mr. nice guy

      That’s because you are so low you could walk under
      the belly of serpents wearing top hats!

      • Tiny Hands

        Yeah, good one. Your mom and all that.

        • no more mr. nice guy

          Punk!

          • Tiny Hands

            That’s the nicest compliment I’ve gotten all day. I’ll be listening to NOFX and Pennywise while I clean up my beer bottling now, thanks!

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Pervert!

          • Tiny Hands

            *head banging to Offspring*

            Can’t hear you bro, internet harder!

  • Jamocha Quebus

    All world events are exactly following the prophecies in the Holy Bible, identifying the conflict in Israel today as an example of prophecy being fulfilled. At the return of Jesus Christ all of the men who declare their self-ascribed authority against his kingdom will be gathered (tares) and burned. Cast out of his kingdom from his presence. They will be allowed the one small opportunity to stand before him and hear their judgment before they are cast out. Yes Steve, what we are witnessing as Born-Again followers are the events that the book of Revelation describes as the hatred of men toward the Living God. It is all coming to pass exactly as the Word of God has declared. Evil men are living the very last days of their lives.

    • Dawn1257

      All of those “world events” have repeated themselves multiple times throughout history. So, when is the “world event” the RIGHT “world event”?

      Inquiring minds want to know!

      • Jamocha Quebus

        Sorry Dawn that you don’t read your scripture. The events of the book of Revelation have not occurred “many times”, Jesus Christ has not returned yet to cast out all unbelievers and wicked men. No one has taken a mark to buy or sell, the devil has not been bound for 1000 years, the heavens and the earth have not been remade, there has not been a white throne judgment, the New Jerusalem has not been brought down upon the renewed earth. No, you are not reading your scripture. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. As an inquiring mind, read the Holy Bible, the books of Revelation, Daniel, Isaiah, Zephaniah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah.

        • Dawn1257

          Except that, they “have not occurred many times”, you’re right. None of that has yet happened. Still many times throughout history many people have claimed the world to be near the end times. Referring to, within their own generations as the time to expect Deliverance. Many times.

          You don’t have to look that far back to see it, i.e. Harold Camping. But why stop there? You can look to: Hippolytus 400 A.D., Rabbi Dosa – same time period, or how about Treatise on the Antichrist by Adso of Montier-en-Der around 950 A.D., etc.

          They all believed they were right, just as much as yourself. You couldn’t convince them otherwise. It’s all BUNK! Everything in your Bible is legend and myth contrived at the hand and fertile minds of men. Mere mortals.

          • Jamocha Quebus

            Except that the Bible identified the specific time of the return of Christ and the signs that would proceed his return. It would be with the rebirth of Israel as a nation that went into the diaspora. Jesus Christ said that when this occurred then “this generation ” would see all fulfilled. His return at this generation. All of the men you mention did not follow the revelation of the prophecies. None of them were correct and not obedient to scripture. Do you think that it is possible that the mark on your right hand is not something that will occur? Scripture declares that you will accept it or you will die. Have you not seen a push to implant humans with a chip anywhere in the media in the last 20 years?

          • Dawn1257

            “None of them were correct…………..”

            And, neither are you correct.

          • Jamocha Quebus

            These are not my declarations, they come specifically from the prophecies in the Holy Bible. Your statements of rejection do not nullify the prophecies that are coming to pass.

          • Dawn1257

            Except that the Bible is simply a contrivance of mortal men who talked with burning bushes, voices in their heads, and talking jack-a$$es.

            When’s the last time you heard voices, and have you seen any unexplained non-consumed burning bushes? Do your animals talk to you?

            If you ask me, they had some pretty good mushrooms back then!

          • Jamocha Quebus

            You’ll have all eternity to ponder your questions. The revelation of a Living God has been given to man in the person of Jesus Christ, in his life, his death and resurrection, in the Holy Bible, in the millions of followers of Christ, in their changed lives, in the healings, restored sight, hearing. Men who have been raised from the dead. In the Holy Bible surviving the best efforts of atheists to remove it from society. As Christ said; even if an angel or one from the dead came and proclaimed the truth to lost men they would reject it. Our salvation is by faith. The god of this world has cleverly blinded you to such a degree that having eyes you see not, and having ears you hear not neither can you understand. Your problem is not a lack of having what you require to know God, but rather your problem is knowing God exists by the clearly seen creation about you and rejecting his authority over you. You (as Christ said) are like your father the devil (spiritually speaking) who is in rebellion against God’s will.

          • 19gundog43

            Dullard!!

          • Dawn1257

            Such insight.

          • 19gundog43

            I like to keep it simple for simpletons . LOL!

          • Dawn1257

            I’m glad you recognize your limitations.

          • jamieson Hall

            Like you, was I a bit to direct, or rude?

          • Dawn1257

            I’m not the one claiming to be a “Christian”. I’ll treat you as you treat me. I have no issue with that. And, a clear conscience to boot.

          • jamieson Hall

            Tolerance is a Virtue

          • Truth Offends

            Tolerance of evil is not a virtue.

          • Norm

            Oh that wisdom will pass from the earth when you are no more. Paraphrase from Job, the oldest book in Scripture. 66 books written by many authors over a very long period of time, all of them saying the same thing and the prophetic voice of the writers coming true time and again. Read Isiah’s prophecy of Christ for example. Good example of the talking burro, are you applying for the job?

          • jamieson Hall

            Dawn1257 The miracles described, as well as the spiritual message, must be accepted on faith, which is the basis of our relationship with God. When the truth of Scripture is challenged by skeptics, archaeology can be used to demonstrate that the people, places, and events of the Bible are real. Anyhow, I’m curious if you ever took ice cream from a child or crash parties just for the fun of it, maybe your employed by the ACLU because I mean why do you even care that people and mostly good honest hardworking people attend Church every Sunday.

          • Dawn1257

            !! WARNING !! Proselytizing me is fruitless. Just so you know.

            Miracles? “Signs from God”? Prophecies foretold? Earthquakes, fire from the sky (meteors); simple misunderstandings in the workings of nature, mostly.

            “Anyhow, I’m curious if you ever took ice cream from a child or crash parties just for the fun of it, maybe your employed by the ACLU because I mean why do you even care that people and mostly good honest hardworking people attend Church every Sunday”

            I won’t go were I’d like to with that. No, to the first question contained within.

            Why do I care? Now, that is a good question. It requires a much longer answer than I’d care to take time for at this moment.

            Suffice to know that, my purpose is not to dissuade others in their pursuit of their beliefs. It is my preference to call ‘em like I see ‘em though. I mean after all, you see how I’m maligned by supposed “Christians”? And, no. I need no sympathy and not asking, looking for any, either. I got over my personal pain many years ago. I’ve reached a point that you, nor any other person can do or say anything that would force shame upon me, nor allow those attempts to whither me.

            Your premise of these “hard working people attend(ing) church every Sunday” might be just a bit of a stretch. Don’t you think? If not, then there truly is no hope for “Christianity” today. Also, why would you not include myself in that premise? You judge me a “welfare leech”? An Atheist? An abomination? Would it help you to know that I too, am a hard working person? Productive. Law abiding and supporting. Spiritual. Family centered.

            If you’re going to preach, live what you preach beforehand. So far you’re not showing that you do. Otherwise, you are just another wanna’ be “Christian” who deserves disdain.

          • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

            Dawn, you been reading way too much Dawkins again. Put down the book and learn to listen. I know its hard for a libtard, but do try.

          • MarcoZandrini

            Which version interpreted by whom?

          • jamieson Hall

            What I would like to do for you Dawn1257 is to try to capsulize what I’ve learned in ordinary terms so you can evaluate its truth claims and use that data in your search for
            significance and fulfillment. But let me warn you as you probably know by now, with every opportunity comes a challenge. If you do come ‘face-to-face’ with a truth here, your challenge will be to deal with it honestly and in some cases, humbly. Truth and reality have a strange way of holding us accountable for how we deal with it…in our personal, professional, and social lives.You let me know when you’re ready because this simple country boy is ready to rock your world.

          • Jamocha Quebus

            As a further explanation of the terms; end times, the last days; they began at the first advent of Jesus Christ. From the time of his visitation to when he returns are the “Last days”. This finite period of two thousand years is in the context of eternity a short period of time that is revealing the continuing flow of prophetical events that are heralding his return. Though men are setting dates they are always wrong. Even Christ said no man world know the day or the hour of his return, not even Christ himself.

          • http://www.Facebook.com/AaronVSteimle Aaron Victor Steimle

            While two thousand years might not be a long time in the context of eternity, in the context of the bible’s identified term since creation two thousand years amounts to a full ONE-THIRD of that time; that’s quite a substantial amount of relative time for consideration.

          • Jamocha Quebus

            The age of grace or the dispensation of grace as it is known to biblical followers. This highlights the fact that God is a longsuffering God that desires all men the opportunity to seek him.

          • Norm

            Very true. We are also told we shall know the season of these things, but not the “date” It would seem this is the beginning of that season where the scoffers are bold and the earth is trembling with birth pangs. Where immorality, theft and murder increase and the world begins the descent into complete and utter chaos.

  • tomd

    “…the Feds can order the “Little Sister of the Poor” to pay for baby-murder”

    Except that the drugs in question don’t cause abortions, and all “The Little Sisters” had to do was sign a piece of paper indicating a religious objection, and they wouldn’t have to pay for it at all.

    On the other hand, the HL decision opens the door for other religions to enforce *their* beliefs on employees. Welcome to Sharia law in the workplace.

  • Michex

    A recent joint study by the American Psychiatric Society and the Homosexuality Society of America, peer-reviewed by a group of homosexual doctors, found that a majority of Democrats now believe that homosexuality should be a religion, and that the male genital organ should be the new God.

    • 19gundog43

      Since there are so many dicks in Liberal land it would be like thousand of
      “gods” the Hindus worship! LOL!

    • MarcoZandrini

      BULLSHIT! You write absolute BULLSHIT!

    • helligusvart

      Please document this.

      • helligusvart

        I feel like a complete boob not realizing that this was a joke.

    • Steve Weinstein

      Actually the Pew Research Center just did a survey of American attitudes about immigration, and 23.7% of conservatives said that illegal alien children should be sliced up and served as luncheon meat.

  • Martin Rizley

    I sincerely believe that if elected officials ever try to use the power of office to repeal the first amendment of our Constitution, so that the government may force religious institutions like Christian schools, seminaries, colleges to employ teachers who reject the moral standards of the Bible, that would be the spark to ignite a civil war. I sincerely believe that for many people in our country, that would be the tipping point that would inspire revolutionary fervor at the grass roots level and move many otherwise peaceful Americans to take up arms and support state-led efforts to resist federal tyranny as part of a ‘well-regulated militia.’ If we ever reached a point where officials in Washington voted to annul the first amendment and abolish the free exercise of religion in America, then that would certainly lead to bloodshed. Many would regard such a move as, quite simply, an open declaration of war on the United States of America by “domestic enemies” whose true identity would then be starkly unmasked.

    • tomd

      Despite all the cries of false persecution, our biggest danger is not government trampling religion. Our concern should be stopping religion from exerting power through government.

      • Martin Rizley

        Our concern must be the same which animated the founding fathers to establish the first amendment– that is, a concern to maintain a ‘non-sectarian’ foundation for our national government. Immigrants moving to the colonies from Europe professed many different faiths. Some were Presbyterians, some Episcopalians, some Roman Catholics. Some were even Jewish or Unitarian. In order to hold together as one nation such a religiously diverse people. the founders passed the first amendment to establish a ‘non-sectarian’ federal government in which no sect enjoyed “legal ascendancy” over the rest– in which the federal government could neither coerce citizens to support a “national” creed or confession, or hinder citizens from living by and promoting in the public square the teachings of their own religious creed or confession.

        The founders did not believe, however, that the non-sectarian character of our federal government required legislative bodies to ignore or disregard the evidence of design in nature or pass laws without reference to God-given design, order, and purpose in nature. In fact, they believed that understanding and respecting ‘the laws of nature and nature’s God’ was essential to creating a just civil code. The founders did not regard recognition of natural design by legislative bodies as a violation of the first amendment, the way many atheists do today, who would love to see the U. S. turned into a atheistic ‘scientocracy’– a country in which public policy is determined by elites on the basis of materialistic science alone, instead of determined by the community on the basis of a commonly held recognition of God-given design in nature.

        • MarkSebree

          You are wrong from your first premise. A “non-sectarian” government still implies that the government is religious. Our LIBERAL Founding Fathers went with an entirely new and progressive idea and founded a wholly secular government, where religious has no sway at all. Our government has been “atheistic” from the start since it does not recognize any religious has having any say.

          In fact, it specifically denies that religious has any say in the Pinckney Amendment (no religious test clause in Article 6), the first two clauses of the First Amendment (forbidding the establishment of religion by the government, and guaranteeing the right to follow your own religion), and the Equal Rights and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. These form the foundation of the principle of the separation between church and state. Additionally, multiple times since the Constitution was being written, proposals have been made to add language to the Constitution that elevate Christian beliefs over others. These have been thoroughly shot down every time.

          • Martin Rizley

            You are wrong in your understanding of the design of the first amendment. Its design can be easily determined by studying various statements made by the framers of the Constitution– and that shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was the farthest thing from their minds to create a totally “non-religious government” in the modern atheistic sense of a government which does not recognize the existence of a divine Creator who has created all men equal and who has endowed them with certain unalienable rights. It is quite frankly absurd to say that what the first amendment requires is the establishment of a “de facto” atheistic government, which does not recognize and shows no regard for the “laws of nature and nature’s God” as the foundation of its civil code.

            Had you said to the founders, “There is no design in the natural world. Birds were not designed to fly, fish were not designed to swim, and human beings were not designed to function in certain ways in society, so we can pass any laws we please without regard to the demands of natural law and the unalienable rights with which the Creator has endowed all human beings,” they would have l looked at you in horror. No design in nature? No natural law? No unalienable rights with which the Creator has endowed men, and which the laws of men must never violate? Preposterous!

            In their minds, having a non-sectarian government was exactly what it meant to have no established religion, for a federal government that establishes no national church, has no national creed, and embraces no national confession of faith, is complying fully with the first amendment. It does not have to become a ‘de facto’ atheistic government by turning a blind eye to God-given unalienable rights or the demands of natural law in order to comply with the first amendment. That is an absurd position.

            As long as principles of justice or equity can be defended because they are in accordance with the self-evident design of nature, a design that rational men ought to perceive, then those principles can be enshrined in our legal system. I know the concept of ‘natural design’ – is ‘anathema’ to atheists because it implies the existence of a Designer; so atheists believe any reference to natural design in our laws “establishes religion.” The founders would not follow agree, however; while they wanted to establish a non-sectarian federal government, there is nothing in the Constitution which requires legislators to ignore or deny self-evident principles of design in nature as the foundation of our civil laws. In fact, that is the very basis of law according to the ninth amendment, which speaks of non-enumerated rights which ought to be self-evident to rational men (precisely because they are in accordance with natural law and natural design).

            The ‘no religious test’ clause simply means that no person has to espouse a religious belief in order to be elected to office. It does not follow, however, that our founders would have viewed all persons as equally suitable for holding office in the United States, no matter what philosophy they may hold. For example, a Muslim may serve in office, since no religious test disqualifies him, but if he believes that sharia law must be established in our country, he is unsuitable for office in the United States, because he cannot function honestly within the system of government established by our founders. His thinking is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of our American Constitution. It is not his Muslim identity per se which disqualifies him, but specifically his belief in a form of government that is in direct opposition to the principles of government set forth in our Constitution, that makes him unsuitable for office in the U. S..

            Likewise, a person who espouses no religious belief may or may not be able to operate within our American system of government. Some agnostics, for example, while espousing no religious belief as a matter of “faith,” nevertheless hold to the Kantian idea that existence of God is a necessary postulate for moral action dictated by “practical reason;” such individuals would agree, therefore, that our human rights come from a higher source than the government itself. On the other hand, a radical atheist who absolutely denies the existence of design in nature, natural law, and the God-given, unalienable nature of human rights, is so alien in his thinking to the thinking of our founders, he would be just as unsuitable for office in the United States as a Muslim who believes in Sharia law. Thus, while no religious test is permitted as a qualification for office in the United States, it does not follow that all philosophies are equally suitable for office bearers. Some philosophies are so diametrically opposite to the thinking of the founders about the nature of government– such as modern atheistic thinking, with its rejection of the concept of design in nature– that those who hold such a philosophy cannot honestly say they believe in our American form of government. I personally believe that radical atheists are as unsuited for office in the United States as Muslims who espouse shariah, because their views on government are at loggerheads with the philosophy of government set forth in our founding documents.

          • helligusvart

            This is utter baloney. Our founders did not create an “atheistic” nation, and you know it. And in addition to that, up until the mid-20th century people were successfully prosecuted for violating Christian teachings. Read “The Myth of American Religious Freedom” by David Sehat.

      • helligusvart

        Why are you so afraid of people simply living their convictions?

        • nobody

          Because they never limit themselves to that, they always try to impose them on all of us.

    • MarcoZandrini

      Waaaaaaaaaa! Now watch something other than FOX ( Fuddiedutties Of Xenophobia).

      • helligusvart

        People like you who mock us because you think things are going your way will have a rude awakening come Judgment Day. Jesus Christ has already defeated you and put you under His feet. (1 Cor. 15:25) On that day YOU will cry “Waaaaaaaaaa!”

        • Azrael

          …And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, “O LORD, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy.” And the LORD did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu… [At this point, the friar is urged by Brother Maynard to "skip a bit, brother"]… And the LORD spake, saying, “First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.”
          Book of Armaments, Chapter 2, verses 9–21,

          • Martin Rizley

            You may laugh at the thought of there being anything ‘sacred’ about civil authorities using physical force– even deadly force– in the administration of justice or in defensive warfare against hostile aggressors who threaten national security, but take a good long look at Romans 13:1-7. The civil magistrate is there called “God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” To carry out that God-given role, God arms the civil magistrate with the “sword,” the symbol of physical force used to quell rebellion and enforce law and order.

            The power of government is the power of physical force. If it were not for the power of physical force, governments could do no more than make suggestions to the citizens. They could not compel obedience. It is the threat of imprisonment, fines, or in some cases, death, that compels citizens to obey. Governments are to use this power of physical force for good, rather than evil. When they do that, they are acting as “God’s minister.” So in that sense, we can say that it is a “sacred” duty of elected officials to defend the people from crime through the “good” use of physical force, and to defend the people from armed attacks by “enemies foreign and domestic” in the same way– by a “good” use of physical force.

            It is a positive good, therefore, for elected officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution to use physical force as a “last resort” to resist any hostile aggressor who is attempting to trample on the sacred rights of the people and tyrannize them with mandates which violate the Constitution, which evince a design to reduce them to slavery, and which have no foundation in “the laws of nature and nature’s God.”

            If elected officials in Washington ever tried to rescind the first amendment and take away from the American people free speech or the free exercise of religion, I would hope the governor of my state, working with the legislature, would nullify that federal mandate and even be willing to use state troops, if necessary, to back up his act of nullification with a display of military power, letting Washington know that the people of our state will not bow willingly to tyranny. I would be the first in line to join such a militia. I hope things never come to that, but if cultural Marxists continue to push for the elimination of free speech in America, it could possibly spark such armed resistance on the part of some states, I believe. If you say, never, then you must either believe it is impossible for governments to grow tyrannical, or impossible for people to care enough about freedom to resist their own enslavement by tyrants.

          • nobody

            You really believe somebody would actually read all of that? You do realize what this wall of text makes you look like, right?

          • Martin Rizley

            It is true I have a hard time talking in “sound bites” when the issues raised by some comments are so deep and profound, they cannot be answered in a few words. Azrael’s sarcastic comment raises a very serious question about whether Christians are ever justified in supporting armed resistance to tyranny, or whether the only position consistent with faith in God is pacifism. That is a very serious issue that every Christian must answer, and it simply cannot be answered with a ‘sound bite.’

          • helligusvart

            You need to step back from the fantasy novels, pal.

          • Azrael

            Hey, at least i know they are fantasy, dude.

    • Steve Weinstein

      I sincerely believe that no such thing will happen,but hey, keep fighting your armchair war if it keeps you happy.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY UPDATES 7-11-14 | Mr. T's updates

  • Laura

    Yes, Steve, this is the equivalent of the “palestinian” position towards the state of Israel – the radical left has declared that Christians have no right to exist. The slogan the left loves to trumpet, “coexist”, is an open and deliberate lie. It is now a matter of conquer or be conquered, for their evil will permit no good to survive.

    • nobody

      Yes, you have a right to exist – in your church and only there.

      • helligusvart

        Threatened much?

        • nobody

          By what? A crappy fiction book character?

  • helligusvart

    What fools the Left will be shown to be when they realize on Judgment Day that they lost from the beginning of the world. Cheer up! Jesus has overcome the world!

    • nobody

      And you know a judgement day exists because…

      • helligusvart

        …the Word of God says so.

        • nobody

          And you know that this is real because… let me guess…. the bible told you so.

  • Azrael

    You can’t declare war against something that doesn’t exist.

    • Tiny Hands

      Tell that to George Bush.

      • Azrael

        You shouldn’t confuse the target of an invasion war with the reason for it.

  • Tiny Hands

    You’re good at this! I’m very glad your response passed through moderation.

    • no more mr. nice guy

      Tiny Brain!

  • nobody

    And why do you equate sodomists to atheists? And why do you believe your delusions to be the absolute truth?

    • Laura

      I don’t equate them, they equate themselves.Where have you been hiding? Have you not seen homosexuals attacking Christians all over our country? This began decades ago. Why do you refer to my “delusions”? Was it a delusion when the homosexuals attacked St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 during Mass, actually tearing the host from the hands of the priest and desecrating it? Are you an atheist or a sodomite?

      • nobody

        Actually no, they are just fighting back. If you wouldn’t have started the fight over your deluded ideas about sin nothing similar would have happened to begin with.
        And yes, i have enough brain to be an atheist that profoundly dislikes sodomy.

        • Laura

          It sounds like you’re defending the homosexuals to me. Attacking a Mass is “Defending themselves” ? The people in the church were worshiping God. This is the least interpretation we can ascribe to the 1st Amendment guarantee of religious freedom, yet you don’t even recognize that narrow right on Church property. So, no, I don’t believe you dislike sodomy and you have revealed yourself to be exactly what I surmised – an atheist AND a sodomite.

  • nobody

    I hate to destroy your delusions but the story of Noah never happened, it’s just plagiarized from babylonian myths.
    Think for a moment – why would an all-knowing god create something that he knows it will fail and he will have to recreate it again? Isn’t it logical to assume he should have created it correctly from the start?

  • Elcoguy

    We have both hate speech laws and sexual discrimination laws here in Canada, have had for years and last time I looked the churches and religious institutions are doing just fine. The bigger problem in America IMHO is the visceral hatred between the right, especially the religious right, and the left in your country.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!