4th Amendment Down

[buckthesystem]

Yowsers...sorry to leave you all hanging with my comment. I had a wonderful evening celebrating my wife's birthday...now i will explain.

I am extremely grateful for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of this country. However, I believe that most Americans practice idolatry when it comes to those documents. I do not. I believe that we have accepted certain "freedoms' in place of Godly righteousness. It is true that I believe myself to be the most pro-government person I've ever known. That isn't because I think the gov't is always right...its because I think God is in control and I am not afraid of losing whatever earthly rights a bunch of humans think I deserve. I have only one right on this earth...To live for my God.

People far greater, and far more Holy than I have lived their lives for God without the 'protections' of the Bill of Rights...who am I to question God when the crutch is taken away. I think that there are very few Christians who are prepared to live without that crutch even though we are warned again, and again in scripture of the persecution Christians will face.

BTW...there is ZERO credible evidence that George Bush called the constitution "just a piece of paper." That tidbit was written by a discredited liar who has been proven to make up sources, and lie about supposedly internal information.

It is not idolatry to appreciate the Rights given by the constitution...I agree. I think idolatry comes into play when we start accepting those rights at the cost of righteousness. The First Amendment, for example, gives each and every American the right to idolatry. You can worship whatever you want based on the First Amendment. Many Christians accept this with little or no concern. I hate to point it out but....the First Amendment of the United States flies smack in the face of one of God's most repeated commandments..."Thou shalt have no other God's before me." I think we participate in idolatry when we accept the First Amendment (and its protections) over Godly righteousness.

Don't get me wrong...I am VERY grateful to live in a land where I have the freedom to worship my Saviour freely. However, I could easily give up that 'freedom' because ultimately I would worship my Saviour with, or without, man's decree. While I think most Christians would agree with that, I also see them fighting to save a Constitutional right that is in direct opposition to one of the 10 Commandments. Thats idolatry.

I hope I'm making sense (even if people disagree)...there was a bit of confusion over my initial statement and I'm just trying to clearly address why I said what I said.

[Guest yod]

it is historically factual that some aspects of our Constitution and Bill of Rights have always been "temporarily suspended" in war times for the security of the nation. If we don't do that in this current globalist atmosphere there will be no nation....if we do, there will by necessity be a diminishing of some of our "civil" rights while the war is going on. (see my signature)

The solution is to win the war, eliminate the terrorist threat, and completely obliterate those who are seeking to kill us by the millions.

Dhimocrats don't have that kind of resolve though. If they would spend half the energy they use seeking political advantage from the legitimate things Bush MUST do to win the war, we would be closer to securing the nation and they would have more credibility when discussing these concerns.

[Janakev]

I think freedom of religion has been taken more broadly than it was originally intended. I believe it was given to keep the government from establishing a national church. I do not believe it was intended to give freedom of religion to worship satan or idol gods. That is what it has been used for, but I don't think the authors of the Constitution meant that to be the case. I would have no problem with an amendment to clarify this, and make it clear that freedom of religion only applies to those religions that worship the God of the Bible. The amendment process is part of the Constitution, so adding such amendments is perfectly within our rights as citizens.

So much for "Land of the free..."

No place on earth is truly a "land of the free." There are restrictions on all types of behavior, including in America. To not have certain restrictions would mean anarchy. I believe there needs to be certain limits to our freedom, and would be just fine with banning the worship of idol gods. I doubt such an amendment would ever pass, but I would support one.

However in most Western nations, freedom of religious worship is taken to be a basic right. Unless you think that it's a crime to belong to another religion? Or that such a person would be on the same level as a criminal or anarchist.

As well as that how would you establish if people were worshipping "idol gods"? A special 'Religious Purity' branch of the police or something?

[Janakev]

it is historically factual that some aspects of our Constitution and Bill of Rights have always been "temporarily suspended" in war times for the security of the nation. If we don't do that in this current globalist atmosphere there will be no nation....if we do, there will by necessity be a diminishing of some of our "civil" rights while the war is going on. (see my signature)

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

The solution is to win the war, eliminate the terrorist threat, and completely obliterate those who are seeking to kill us by the millions.

WAR IS PEACE

Dhimocrats don't have that kind of resolve though. If they would spend half the energy they use seeking political advantage from the legitimate things Bush MUST do to win the war, we would be closer to securing the nation and they would have more credibility when discussing these concerns.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Honestly, your contribution is worthy of little more than that as a response.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Janakev

[Axxman]

Axxman if you really feel the way you say you do in the first quote, then why put so much trust in man's government? It seems to me that if you really were putting God's kingdom first then you'd be more critical of man's government!

I don't equivocate between man's government and God's Kingdom. I also wouldn't say I 'trust' the government. I support the government that God has placed over me by accepting it as part of God's master plan. God is in control.

And I think you are really "drawing a long bow" to say that the first Amendment "flies smack in the face of one of God's most repeated commandments ......". You must know that the founding fathers didn't ever intend for the first amendment to be taken that way. They obviously meant that the government was never to interfere in the practice of religion, and they wouldn't have contemplated that anybody would take that to mean that it is acceptable to worship idols.

Call it an exaggeration if you will, and blame whoever you want...the fact of the matter is that the First Amendment is used precisely for that purpose today. Christians today are more in love with the idea of the First Amendment than they are in enforcing the will of God in their land. Thats idolatry any way you slice it. I think you are only partially correct in regards to the original intent of the First Amendment...I think the personal comments of the framers in regards to the First Amendment are squarely in my favor.

Although we believe in following Jesus, and we think it is good that others should as well, and we believe that it is up to us to "preach the word, and help people", that must be where it stops. Everybody here agrees that "convert because it law of the land" is a bad thing. In Malaysia (for instance) it is assumed and legislated for in fact, that a native born Malay is Muslim and they are not legally "allowed" to convert to Christianity or anything else. Imagine if America was like that? I.e. "you are not "allowed" to convert to Bhuddism, atheism or what ever, you were born in America and the constitution says that you must worship 'our way'"

You say that you think your only natural right is "to live for your God". While that sentiment is admirable, if the constitution did not exist you may not have that right. Try hanging on that right in Iran or China? I am not saying it is impossible, just very difficult.

I mis-spoke...I shouldn't have said the I have only one "right" and that is to "live for God." That is incorrect, and I can't believe I worded it that way. (My bad.) I should have said it is my 'responsibility' to "Live for my God." We are blessed to be able to serve God freely in America...but it will not always be so...and it won't change a thing about how I serve God. I will not defend a man-made document that gives men the right to worship false gods. It is the responsibility of every Christian to live for God and uphold His standard for all men to see.

There is no question that being born in America is preferable to being born in Malaysia. However, there are Christians in Malaysia who worship Christ without a 'freedom' to do so. It simply doesn't matter what any government says about my personal beliefs...they will not change.

Its not about forcing people to believe what I believe...thats impossible according to the scripture. Its about condoning sin in order to make our lives simpler.

[Guest yod]

Honestly, your contribution is worthy of little more than that as a response.

Be rude, if you wish. It's true.

Every war in our history caused some of our rights to be suspended temporarily. I'm not saying it's good or it's bad...just that it has always happened.

Get used to it; surveilance of citizens will keep getting more and more invasive from now on and not just from the government.

Edited August 15, 2007 by refugepsa91

[buckthesystem]

Honestly, your contribution is worthy of little more than that as a response.

Be rude if you wish. It's true.

Get used to it; surveilance of citizens will keep getting more and more invasive from now on and not just from the government.

As for "surveillence of citizens ........ get used to it!" You have got to be joking, why ever should anyone "get used" to a ridiculous situation like this? You may as well say "we will trample on all your rights, get used to it!" Now talk about rude.

Edited August 15, 2007 by refugepsa91

[Janakev]

Be rude if you wish.

I'll gladly reserve that right, thanks.

Every war in our history caused some of our rights to be suspended temporarily. I'm not saying it's good or it's bad...just that it has always happened.

I understand. However it does seem to have gone inordinately far.

Get used to it; surveilance of citizens will keep getting more and more invasive from now on and not just from the government.

I agree, though I will fight it tooth and nail.

My comment was more reserved for the "Dhimorcat" and the reference to your sig.

This kind of demonising of Muslims borders on conspiracy theory.

Terrorism isn't something you can fight with bombs and bullets. It's the ideology you need to fight and you're going about that in entirely the wrong way. Western involvement in Middle Eastern politics has gotten you where you are today; what makes you think doing more of the same can do anything but exacerbate the problem?

I realise my previous comment was provocative and I make no apologies for it.

Edited August 15, 2007 by refugepsa91

[buckthesystem]

it is historically factual that some aspects of our Constitution and Bill of Rights have always been "temporarily suspended" in war times for the security of the nation. If we don't do that in this current globalist atmosphere there will be no nation....if we do, there will by necessity be a diminishing of some of our "civil" rights while the war is going on. (see my signature)

The solution is to win the war, eliminate the terrorist threat, and completely obliterate those who are seeking to kill us by the millions.

Dhimocrats don't have that kind of resolve though. If they would spend half the energy they use seeking political advantage from the legitimate things Bush MUST do to win the war, we would be closer to securing the nation and they would have more credibility when discussing these concerns.

Every war in our history caused some of our rights to be suspended temporarily. I'm not saying it's good or it's bad...just that it has always happened.

________________________________________________________________________________

___________

Yod you seem to think that there's this big war going on and Bush just HAS to "suspend" constitutional rights for Americans.

It is one thing quoting the American civil war (even though I don't see why Lincoln "had" to "suspend rights" then either) but there is no war going on at this time.

If you are thinking of the Iraq war, then a regime change has been achieved and that was the stated aim, so doesn't that make that war "winding down", and it is not fought on American soil. Sure Habeas Corpus was suspended in Hawaii during WWII, and rights were also suspended to allow Japanese people living in America to be interned and The The privilege of the Writ was suspended in nine counties in South Carolina in order to combat the Ku Klux Klan (and I'm sorry but I can't remember the date that this occurred). However, I am sure you see what I am getting at: The fact that "suspension of constitutional rights" is normally associated with Martial Law and martial law could only normally be declared if there was a war or a great problem on American soil such that the civilian courts would be closed and there would have to be an alternative of military courts. But As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration (which may NEVER happen if people accept these weak excuses) for, if this system is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is totally unacceptable. Martial law can never exist where the courts are open, and in proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.

Now as none of the above conditions have been met, there is absolutely no excuse to "suspend rights". Also I find I just cannot be convinced that suspending the constitution, just the fourth amendment or just the writ of Habeas Corpus, or what ever, can ever be justified or will do anybody any good. Particularly now as there is no good excuse for it to happen!

[kari21]

it is historically factual that some aspects of our Constitution and Bill of Rights have always been "temporarily suspended" in war times for the security of the nation. If we don't do that in this current globalist atmosphere there will be no nation....if we do, there will by necessity be a diminishing of some of our "civil" rights while the war is going on. (see my signature)

The solution is to win the war, eliminate the terrorist threat, and completely obliterate those who are seeking to kill us by the millions.

Dhimocrats don't have that kind of resolve though. If they would spend half the energy they use seeking political advantage from the legitimate things Bush MUST do to win the war, we would be closer to securing the nation and they would have more credibility when discussing these concerns.

I am a Republican, and I do not support suspending the Constitution during the war on terror. This could be taking place for the rest of our lives, and the very idea of giving up our Constitutional rights for safety is a bad trade off. I don't believe it is necessary to suspend our civil rights to win this battle, and am concerned when I hear people so willing to give them up. The government could do untold damage during the time period while this is going on. They could be invading people's homes without probable cause, infringing on our free speech, confiscating our guns, etc., and we would have no recourse. That is the reason why we have militias, is to protect the citizens from an out of control federal government.

I agree.

BTW....Didn't Hitler pull that stunt soon after coming into office?