Cultural Mandate: Principles vs. Politics

We The People 5-6pm EST Mondays on www.1320wbob.com
Listen in and call in at 904-854-1320

This evening we discussed the Cultural Mandate and the Christian responsibility to rule and reign on Earth. This is a subject that is rarely discussed amongst the religious folk let alone the politicians. Pastors are apt to flee when confronted regarding the blaise attitude toward issues affecting the community at large and politicians are not going to speak on matters of faith without testing the wind.
Pastors fear losing people and money, not to differ from the politicians who fear losing their prestige and power if they do not tow the politically correct line. Just look at how they address the issue of fundamental islam and the creep of Shariah in America. When is the last time you heard either of the groups mentioned address the issue of Sharia law and it's incompatibility with our U.S. Constitution. Why would we welcome those whose stated goal is to subdue those who do not believe.
The muslim understands the culutral mandate of the Quran and strive zealously to follow it to the T. Yet Christians by and large are afraid to address the issues that effect our very values, beliefs and culture.
When will We The People finally take a stand and say enough is enough!

Faith is the Foundation For Freedom

Jerod

Court Orders Christian Child Into Government Education

Court Orders Christian Child Into Government Education: 10-year-old's 'vigorous' defense of her faith condemned by judge
Posted: August 28, 200912:35 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court. The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.

The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards. In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."
According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."

The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."

"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.

"The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take."

"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."

The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.

The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court. "Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda's schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court's decision daily," the court filing requesting a stay said. "Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court's ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.

"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda's faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda."

"The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent's constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be 'exposed' to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old 'vigorously' believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court's narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs," the ADF said.

"Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court's decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible," the documents said.

The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn't even look at homeschool curriculum. "I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian based," she said.

************************************************************************************
In my opinion, this is another example of the insidious assault on Christian values and the fundamental right to freedom of religious practice guaranteed by the US Constitution. The outrageous, shameful actions by this leftist, activist judge should not go unchallenged. Parents everywhere should exercise another right they possess (at least for now) and speak out against this insanity! In addition, the "guardian ad litem" in this case ought to be sued for civil rights violations.

Joshua Warren
www.AmericanDiscussion.blogspot.com

www.FirstCoastTeaParty.org

www.IncomeSysteMax.com

www.RunForTheirLives.org

Romans 13 Revisited

Romans 13 Revisited
By Chuck Baldwin
February 27, 2009

It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our
Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise
reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans
Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read
your Bible, and leave me alone," or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating
what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the
other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument
are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their
escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the
way.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously
misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans
Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but
of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist
shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good
works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that
which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the
minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be
afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God,
a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must
needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this
cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending
continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues:
tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear;
honour to whom honour."

Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not
oppose any political leader really believe that civil magistrates have
unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt
that they truly believe that.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal
custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval
custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on
the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren
sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I
think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a
law? I wouldn't.

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but
does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An
employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in
the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how
to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in
nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. Lordship
and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but
his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly
limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose:
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is
the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a
revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no
power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it
that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has
no divine authority or protection.

Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a
minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute
wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath
upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is
lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil
authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed
the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate
God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab
and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority
when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's
principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not
pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle
of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the
state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to
authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon
Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to
authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem?
Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused
to obey those authorities that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In
fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Virtually every apostle of Christ (except John, who survived being boiled in
oil, according to historians) experienced martyrdom from hostile civil
authorities. In addition, Christians throughout church history were
imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for
refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these
Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including
the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--including
civil authority--is limited.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be
predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said,
"Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than
just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means
we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness
of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a
result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Remember, too, that we are all subject to Natural Law. No human authority
has the right to demand that men surrender their submission to God's law
"written in their hearts." When any human authority attempts to do this, it
becomes tyrannical, because, again, it challenges the Lordship and
Sovereignty of man's Creator.

As William Blackstone (as studied and devoted a Christian scholar as there
ever was) wrote, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and
dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.
It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no
human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are
valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or
immediately, from this original." (Source: William Blackstone, "Of The
Nature of Laws in General")

Therefore, there are times when civil authority must be resisted. Either
governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could
precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist
civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that
discussion for another time.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a
monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this
country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of
men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress,
or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme
Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises
to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand
the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy
elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S.
Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every
citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Christians in America:

"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no
[Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the
Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt
have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to
thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the
Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the
minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution
is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render
therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom
custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our
responsibility to civil authority in these United States, per the teaching
of Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected
representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional
government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any
governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this
column, Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's
founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution,
and the Bill of Rights.

(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html )

In addition, if Christians (and others) had been properly obedient to the
Constitution (and Romans 13), they would also have submitted to the Tenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes the authority of the
States in matters not specifically ceded to the federal government. In other
words, the Constitution intended that the authority of the federal
government be small and limited, with most authority residing within the
States and among the people themselves.

As submission to the Constitution and Natural Law have provided a haven of
peace and prosperity in these United States, Christians (for the most part)
have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and
defy their civil authorities. However, as it is obvious that a majority of
our government leaders currently have almost no fidelity to their oaths to
defend the U.S. Constitution, it is becoming more and more likely that
we--like our forefathers--will need to rediscover Benjamin Franklin's
declaration that "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (Of course,
this effort, too, must be accomplished within the scope of law, both divine
and civil.)

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders
to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the
"supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly
believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil
magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?