Founder of Minutemen targets run for president

[c_yeager]

Why is it that so many of you Youngsters fear GOD & his Ten Comandments? Most of America's Laws including the Right To Keep & Bear Arms are based on Biblical Principals.

I think its very interesting that you say in the same breath that they base their opinions soley on the Ten Commandments, and that they also draw on "biblical principles" that extend beyond the those commandments. Which is it?

For one thing, its pretty assinine to believe that noone should have a problem with the Ten Commandments when they include these:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
-Right, because a state-mandated religion is really what we need to have.

2. You shall not make a graven image.
-there goes that pesky freedom of religion again. Despite the best wishes of some people there is a protected constitutional right to be an idolator in America. The actual making of an graven image is the very definition of protected speach as well.

3. You shall not take the name of God in vain.
-Seems that the 1st ammendment is getting brutalized pretty handily so far, here is another hit to that silly freedom of speach thing that we are so attached to.

4. You shall not break the Sabbath.
-I like working on Sunday, and why should the government get prohibit me from doing so? MY religion doesnt prohibit "Sabbath" labor.

5. You shall not dishonor your parents.
-Nice idea, good advice to live on actually, but not something that belongs in the government.

6. You shall not murder (kill: interpretation)
-Well, this must be why people say that our laws are based on the bible, this is the one we have so far.

7. You shall not commit adultery
-Not a bad rule, maybe its worth enforcing on a government level, maybe it isnt.

8. You shall not steal.
-Oh hey, there is the other one that we actually have in our legal system.

9. You shall not commit bear false witness.
-And this one is the third that actually appears in our system. Its a good law, and makes perfect sense in a democracy.

10. You shall not covet.
-Idiotic, your not allowed to want things? Thats great, so we are heading for our socialist paradise to enforce this one?

SO there you have it; The Ten Commandments, upon which our legal system is supposedly based. I think it is interesting that our legal system is based on a set of rules in which only three are actually represented in the afore mentioned system and three of them are outright unconstitutional, and one of them would require a complete abandoment of capitolism.

Notice also what is missing from these 10 comandments. For one thing there is no RKBA. I also seem to have missed the part about how horrible all those gay people are. Hell, there isnt anything in here that even touches on the thousands of rules regarding sex that we seem to extract from the bible. Where is the "lay down with animals" part? Or the "man layeth with another man" part? Oh right, those are from the *other* parts of the bible. Those are the rules that we get to cherry pick to suit whatever issue we want them to cover. Yeah, nice system there. Put enough social controlls in a book that noone reads and you can just pick and choose something whenever you want a new one. Thats definatly the system of government that we need.

Even if we were to assume that every single word of the bible was penned by the Notice also what is missing from these 10 comandments. For one thing there is no RKBA. I also seem to have missed the part about how horrible all those gay people are. Hell, there isnt anything in here that even touches on the thousands of rules regarding sex that we seem to extract from the bible. Where is the "lay down with animals" part? Or the "man layeth with another man" part? Oh right, those are from the *other* parts of the bible. Those are the rules that we get to cherry pick to suit whatever issue we want them to cover. Yeah, nice system there. Put enough social controlls in a book that noone reads and you can just pick and choose something whenever you want a new one. Thats definatly the system of government that we need.

Even if we were to assume that every letter of the bible was penned by the infallible hand of God himself the rules that we choose to follow are hand picked by the VERY fallible hand of man. So what we end up with in a bible-based government is a a rule of law that has no greater authority than what we have now, except that now we stone people who dont follow the rules.

 

[White Horseradish]

I sense that most on this Board are 30 or younger. Why is it that so many of you Youngsters fear GOD & his Ten Comandments?

I do not fear God. That would be silly. Fearing the Ten Commandments sounds like something that would require treatment.

I do fear people that are so presumptious as to think they know God's will. I do not trust them to keep from trying to impress their vision of it upon me.

Most of America's Laws including the Right To Keep & Bear Arms are based on Biblical Principals.

Once again, that is not true. Out of the 10 Commandments only three are actual laws and at least one would be unconstitutional if it were.

 

[ArmedBear]

Interested in how it looks when the Ten Commandments and other Old Testament laws are enforced by government?

Go to the Yuma Territorial Prison museum in SW Arizona, and stay a while. See the pictures of people who had to break rocks in that literal hell-hole all year, for several years, for offenses we can't BELIEVE were once punished with hard labor in over-110-degree weather. Some were women, too.

On the one hand, I think the threat of theocracy is grossly exaggerated. On the other, I really don't want to see theocracy.

I really encourage anyone who thinks that government should enforce "God's laws" to check out this place.

http://www.pr.state.az.us/Parks/parkhtml/yuma.html

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote:
"The idea that American jurisprudence has Biblical foundations is absolutely wrong. Professing such a belief shows either a profound lack of understanding of the subject or willful ignorance caused by religious faith. I don't want people with either one of those to be in charge."



Today's version of "American Jurisprudence" certainly lacks an Biblical foundation, that is for sure. Too bad today's version of "American Jurisprudence" is not in keeping with the intended method of "American Jurisprudence", considering the word "Jurispredence" derives from the word "Jury".

Today's "American Jursiprudence" is doled out by Leftist Federal Court Judges who somehow belive that no individual anywhere, should speak of Christ, and we have all been conned into believing that a Government Employee, rather than "We the People" as jurors, were intended as the ultimate decision makers of both fact, and of fairness of law.

Allowing totally agnostic, or anti-religious supremecy in law, contributes to the removal of the knowledge between right and wrong. That's how we came up with Roe v. Wade.

The Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion..." and goes on though, to protect the "free exercise thereof" in order that people can practice their religion anywhere, including public property, or government property. The right to practice your faith is not limited to a geographic area by the Constituion, much like your right to free speech.

The method used to effect this limitation though, was our current version of allowing a single Federal Judge to be looked upon as being our "American Jurisprudence".

 

[White Horseradish]

Today's version of "American Jurisprudence" certainly lacks an Biblical foundation, that is for sure. Too bad today's version of "American Jurisprudence" is not in keeping with the intended method of "American Jurisprudence", considering the word "Jurispredence" derives from the word "Jury".

That is wrong. Jurisprudence is derived from two Latin words - "juris" meaning "law" and "prudesse" meaning "to be good". "Jury" is derived from "juris", not the other way around.

American jurisprudence was never Bible-based, as has been eloquently demonstrated by c_yeager.

Today's "American Jursiprudence" is doled out by Leftist Federal Court Judges who somehow belive that no individual anywhere, should speak of Christ, and we have all been conned into believing that a Government Employee, rather than "We the People" as jurors, were intended as the ultimate decision makers of both fact, and of fairness of law.

Utter tripe and propaganda. For one, no one is forbidding the mention of Christ. Every Christmas I see at least a dozen Nativity scenes in yards just on my 5 mile commute.

Also, you make it sound like judges just waltz in and sit on the bench. Some judges are elected by the people, and the ones that are not are appointed by elected representatives of the people. You also make it sound like there has been a replacement of juries with judges, an that is not true either. There has never been a "Supreme Jury".

Allowing totally agnostic, or anti-religious supremecy in law, contributes to the removal of the knowledge between right and wrong. That's how we came up with Roe v. Wade.

This is as old as it is false. It is entirely possible to be an atheist or an agnostic and to have morals. I will not waste time on this, volumes have been written on the subject. Google is your friend.

The Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion..." and goes on though, to protect the "free exercise thereof" in order that people can practice their religion anywhere, including public property, or government property. The right to practice your faith is not limited to a geographic area by the Constituion, much like your right to free speech.

Free exercise of your religion may not include passing laws based on it since laws affect more than your co-believers. As to geographic limitations, look up "free speech zones".

 

[dmallind]

Erm a great deal more rules than that came from the big guy.

And human societies almost without exception have adopted rules against killing and theft etc (at least within the community, which is how these laws were applied too even by the big guy himself. Just ask the Midianites and Amelekites).

There is NOTHING - not one thing - unique or different in Christianity, and even if there was there is nothing that makes it an indispensable or even particularly useful as a method of running a nation.

The idea that we would want to institute our own version of sharia in whiteface is just mindboggling to me. Has anyone who actually espouses biblical law read them? What exactly are we supposed to do with disobedient children? Follow biblical law in Deuteronomy and stone them?

I could - maybe - if they agreed to some reasonable regulation of marketplaces in regard to negative externalities and understood more fully the economic (economic NOT political) concept of a public good, become a Libertarian, but supporting the CP would be building a figurative (and who knows perhaps literal depending on whose interpretation of biblical law comes in to power) noose for myself and every other rationalist secular person in the country.

 

[mp510]

Definetely sounds like an interesting choice. I am loooking forward to this, especially if the R's stick Giuliani or some other like minded individual up there.

 

[dmallind]

Hey Ira since when were private citizens not allowed to exercise their religion on public or government property? Heck let's have a bet - go and pray in a state park, or at a school. If you get arrested count on me to chip in for your defense fund. Might want to look up Matt 6: 5-6 before you do but hey it's your religion to exercise as you see fit even if the leader of it specifically said to do otherwise.

Now can the GOVERNMENT prefer or establish a religion, or can people co-opt the power of government to do so? That's a different story. Nobody wanted to stop Roy Moore praying or gibbering in tongues, but I don't think a 5000lb block of granite on public-owned property is necessary to exercise a religion, nor is blocking such a display from public property preventing Roy from being as religious as he wants, on public property or off it.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Here's a silly notion. Just for a minute, let's throw out all the religious mumbo-jumbo, and take a look at how this effects us as gun owners.

Let's say by some off circumstance this guy actually gets elected. I think it will be a good assumption that the Senate and the House are NOT going to a Constitution Government Party majority, therefore everything he pens will more than likely be shot down.

How many of his gun laws are actually going to get passed?

And on his behalf, let's take a look at his interests. How many of his immigration laws will actually get passed?

I'm guessing, that if it were physically possible, the number would actually be in the negatives.

 

[SomeKid]

Ok, before I begin, I want to note that I will try to focus on RTKBA as much as I can. This is the wrong forum to debate homosexuals, and abortion. (That isn't to say I do not wish to, but unless we want to create another locked thread, we shouldn't.) I will be a little OT, but I will try to stay as gun focused as I can.

Dunedin,

For those who are not Christians, "we do not discuss such subjects on THR" Nothing in the CP platform is about forcing you to convert, or live a Christian lifestyle.

White,

American law does have a basis in Biblical beliefs. Just to cite one example, all men are equal.

Regarding power corrupting, that works as a rule, but is countered by strong convictions. Example: Founding Fathers. They had strong convictions that kept them from creating some dictatorship. I have strong convictions that God made man free, and thus he should remain. Keep in mind, from a Christian viewpoint, God also gave man the freedom to reject God. Why should I try to force you to do something God wouldn't?

God only gave us 10 laws. The NT does not contain any new God given laws. (It does contain the way to live a Christ like life. But not new laws.)

c_yeager, regarding your assertion that #10 projects socialism, here is how that is wrong.

The Bible often talks of wanting. Covet does not equal want. You want a bigger house? Fine. But do you obsess over it, to the point of murdering its current occupants to get it? I hope not, because that would be coveting. However, how about a specific example of Jesus Christ himself advocating capitalism?

Luke 22:35-38.

35. And he said to them, When I sent you without purse, or scrip, or shoes, did you want any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36. He therefore said to them, But now let him who hath a purse take it, and, in like manner, a scrip; and let him who hath not a sword sell his garment and buy one. 37. For I tell you, that this also which is written must be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned with the transgressors. For those things which relate to me have an end. 1 38. And they said, Lord, lo, here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.

Christ told his disciples to SELL (the bold was mine) their clothes if they had to buy weapons. Selling is an obviously capitalistic thing. He did not tell them to beg for one, or command anyone to give it. It is also VERY relevent to the RTKABA. Christ told his disciples to be armed, because the world was full of bad people (transgressors). Swords were the personal weapons of the day, as are pistols and rifles today. This is of course, is one more reason the CP is pro-2A.

"we do not discuss such subjects on THR"

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

This kind of ridiculous simplification of the Bible is in large part what scares me away.

I don't care if they are Christian, so long as they are strict constructionist and pro constitution. Historically, most Americans have been Christians, and that was when we had the greatest degree of liberty, federalism and local self government, so it doesn't bother me if they are, by and large, Christians. A strict constructionist, whether Christian or not, doesn't believe in forcing their religion on anyone. They believe in strictly limiting the powers of the Federal Government, and returning to authentic federalism, where citizens of the States will decide what kinds of laws they want by way of their own State legislatures. That sounds damned good to me, after a hundred years of a growing super centralized Statist Leviathan based in DC. I would definitely vote Constitution Party. Got to be a hell of an improvement over the Republicans, at any rate. Those of you who see red whenever they see any mention of Christianity, try to look past it for a few seconds and see the other 99% of what they stand for.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

So, would that be FREE to choose abortion if their convictions tell them it's okay?

FREE to live a gay lifestyle in the same manner and with all the same rights as a hetero person if they deem that to be morally okay?

Those are moral decisions as well, dictated by a person's personal belief system whether you want to refer to it as religion or not.

The CP won't ask you to convert...just adhere to their interpretation of morality based on biblical teachings.....

Yeah...big difference....

Don't you get it? The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government authority over those things. Those belong to the States. If we had a CP president and Congress, it would still be up to California and New York whether abortion, etc., is illegal there. How do you think citizens of those two States will vote in that regard? They might be illegal in Tenn and Utah, but I guarantee they won't in New York and California.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Let's say by some off circumstance this guy actually gets elected. I think it will be a good assumption that the Senate and the House are NOT going to a Constitution Government Party majority, therefore everything he pens will more than likely be shot down.

As president, he could simply issue an order that all unconstitutional laws will not be enforced during his presidency. That means the ATF would not be able to enforce ANY of the Federal laws regarding guns.

 

[SB88LX]

How do we get this party's message out into the mainstream, and get support, by the masses, behind it? Anything is better than the candidates that will be fielded by the carcinogenic pieces of crap known as the republican and democratic parties.

 

[White Horseradish]

White,

American law does have a basis in Biblical beliefs. Just to cite one example, all men are equal.

You said God only gave us 10 laws.That is not among them. Where in the Bible does it say that?

Regarding power corrupting, that works as a rule, but is countered by strong convictions. Example: Founding Fathers. They had strong convictions that kept them from creating some dictatorship. I have strong convictions that God made man free, and thus he should remain. Keep in mind, from a Christian viewpoint, God also gave man the freedom to reject God. Why should I try to force you to do something God wouldn't?

You are a lot more trusting than I am.

God only gave us 10 laws. The NT does not contain any new God given laws. (It does contain the way to live a Christ like life. But not new laws.)

What about old laws? Are they valid or not? If they are, there are more than 10 laws. If they are not, why do you bring up homosexuality?

 

[White Horseradish]

I don't care if they are Christian, so long as they are strict constructionist and pro constitution.

Trying to bring American jurisprudence to biblical foundations that it never had does not strike me as a very pro-constitution thing to do.

Historically, most Americans have been Christians, and that was when we had the greatest degree of liberty, federalism and local self government, so it doesn't bother me if they are, by and large, Christians.

It's not that they are Christian that bothers me. It's that they want to make their version of Christianity law.

A strict constructionist, whether Christian or not, doesn't believe in forcing their religion on anyone.

Perhaps they are not as constructionist as they would like to appear to be.

They believe in strictly limiting the powers of the Federal Government, and returning to authentic federalism, where citizens of the States will decide what kinds of laws they want by way of their own State legislatures.

None of which has anything to do with biblical jurisprudence. And it's that part that turns me away.

That sounds damned good to me, after a hundred years of a growing super centralized Statist Leviathan based in DC. I would definitely vote Constitution Party. Got to be a hell of an improvement over the Republicans, at any rate. Those of you who see red whenever they see any mention of Christianity, try to look past it for a few seconds and see the other 99% of what they stand for.

I do not kneejerk at the mention of Christianity. My problem with these guys is that the branch of it that I belong to is not one of the more common ones in US. I got no problem with the existence of churches, I do have a problem when someone from a church I do not belong to makes laws for me to live by based on what he and his church think is the proper interpretation of God's will.

This has happened very recently here in Minnesota and it has afected me personally in a rather negative way.

It's not that I don't think these particular Christians are benign, I just don't trust them to stay benign should they get power.

 

[SomeKid]

White,

The mods are going to lock the thread if we continue this here. After this reply, come to PMs. I do however feel the need to reply to this part in a public format.
I know personally of one man who is a preacher who also posts on this forum, anything I cannot answer I can defer to him.

What about old laws? Are they valid or not? If they are, there are more than 10 laws. If they are not, why do you bring up homosexuality?

Christ himself said he came not to break, but to fulfill the laws.
You are confusing Gods 10 laws with man made laws. God gave us the 10 commandments. That is it. After that, the Hebrews created their own myriad system of laws, which are documented in the OT. As to Homosexuality, I did not bring it up, I simply responded when it had been brought up.

If you have questions about how the Bible pertained to self-defense or weapons, those are good in the public forum. From here on out, I won't contribute to OT discussion in this thread.

 

[XDKingslayer]

As president, he could simply issue an order that all unconstitutional laws will not be enforced during his presidency. That means the ATF would not be able to enforce ANY of the Federal laws regarding guns.

And how quick would Republicans and Democrats successfully call for his impeachment?

The guy doesn't stand a chance in the election given history, and doesn't stand a chance if he makes it given the numbers.

 

[Kaylee]

This is the wrong forum to debate homosexuals, and abortion.

Right in one!

As to the Bibilical basis or lack thereof of modern law, I would offer only this -- the Jews of the Biblical era were I believe the first in our cultural line we know of to practice a nation of law, rather than a kingdom under a dictatorial ruler*. THAT is a place we can clearly point to as an early parent to our present Constitutional Republic.

As to this man.. I don't know. On the one hand, He (and the Constitution Party) might well be a great move away from the present two parties. Certainly the RNC is just hemmoraging support from their base right now. The CP stands to gain a lot of that support.. much moreso than the LP I think.

That said.. I'm a little wary about the whole immigration thing in general of late. Certainly, it IS a problem that needs to be addressed SERIOUSLY.. but it also strikes me as uncomfortably easy to go from the present debate to a racial scapegoating movement. I don't think we're there yet.. but we need to watch ourselves I think.**

-K


*Until they got stupid and got themselves a King... eventually ending in the downfall of the nation. Interestingly, the Romans did the same thing.

** and the longer we wait before resolving it, the more likely we are to experience that I think.

 

[seeker_two]

In the Bible there is only ten rules. That's a lot better than we have now.

Actually, in the New Testament, Jesus reduced that number to TWO....

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself. (a.k.a. the Golden Rule)

I think we should at least make an EFFORT on number 2...


The rest is commentary & clarification.....

 

[c_yeager]

As president, he could simply issue an order that all unconstitutional laws will not be enforced during his presidency. That means the ATF would not be able to enforce ANY of the Federal laws regarding guns.

THe presidents JOB is to enforce the laws that have been passed by our duly elected representatives. Failing to accomplish this task really is (and should be) an impeachable offense.

I really wouldnt have a problem with these people if they took on a strict interpretation of the constitution. Its a shame that a party that calls itself "the constitution party" seems to be sourcing their rules from other documents, namely the bible. I dont have a problem with Christianity, I have a problem with theocracy, so did the people who wrote our constitution.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I think Gilchrist should run, i'd vote for him. Unfortunately, most of america are brainwashed on the two party system and the same thing that happened in the special cali election will happen if he runs for pres in 08.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

THe presidents JOB is to enforce the laws that have been passed by our duly elected representatives. Failing to accomplish this task really is (and should be) an impeachable offense.

And even if it wasn't an impeachable offense, you can bet the 535 Republicans and Democrats in Congress would be awfully tempted to look at it that way... checks & balances folks. The executive has the power to do all kinds of things, whether or not they can actually do it in any given environment is another question all together.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

THe presidents JOB is to enforce the laws that have been passed by our duly elected representatives. Failing to accomplish this task really is (and should be) an impeachable offense.

Not completely correct. He also swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution. If a law passed by Congress is in flagrant violation of clear Constitutional language, the president is obliged by oath to refuse to enforce it. That would pretty much eliminate most of what the Federal Government is currently doing, if anyone with integrity was elected president. It would certainly mean the end of the enforcement of any and all gun related Federal laws.

Remember, the Federal Government has no power to act in areas where no power was delegated. Additionally, the Second Amendment excludes by name any exercise of Federal Power having the effect of infringing on the right of the people to bear arms. Thirdly, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits government from depriving me of property without due process of law, which means that before it can be determined to be unlawful for any given American to possess any item of property, whether it be a machine gun, silencer, marijuana plant, etc., he is entitled to a separate hearing wherein he may plead his case before an impartial judge. Prior to that hearing, no crime can be said to have occured merely for possession of any property, as that would constitute a depravation of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

It's funny how when people talk about a Christian basis for our laws they always cite the 10 Commandments, Leviticus, and other things from the Old Testament. I would argue that those are not Christian at all, but Jewish.