markomalley

Of course, then there's this: Or there is this: Surprised that TWI hasn't gone after Opus Dei for a clear trademark infringement. LOL.

Actually I think he might be a Maronite. They still say their church liturgy in Aramaic.

Roger. And thank you for making that clear.

I know of a LOT of Christian groups that teach the tithe. As a matter of a fact, MOST if not ALL do, in some fashion or another. Including a lot of groups who have likely not ever even heard of TWI. Just because TWI abused the teaching for their own ends doesn't mean that the teaching is wrong...

Believe it or not, the interlinear is used. Take a look at this site: (the old bbs software used to edit the URL for the Pe*hitta version, so I "tinyurl'd" it) The Aramaic lexicon has the following copyright disclaimer: © The Way International 1988-89. All rights reserved. The contents and results of this search tool may not be used without the prior written consent of The Way International.

The following are pertinent registered trademarks: W WEBJAM THE WEB THE WAY YOU WANT WE ARE THE WAY. WE CAN TRUST OURSELVES. LEADING THE WAY TO FINANCIAL KNOWLEDGE LIVE LIFE. THE WAY YOU WANT. LEARNING. EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. IMPROVING THE WAY BUSINESS GETS DONE PREPARE THE WAY LEAD THE WAY THE WAY TO PRODUCT FIRST WE TEACH THE WAY YOU LEARN THE WAY OF SUDDEN AWAKENING SELLING THE WAY EXECUTIVES BUY IBA ILLINOIS BANKERS ASSOCIATION LEADING THE WAY THE WAY OF THE SHAMAN WINE, WOMEN, & HORMONES RELIEF IS ON THE WAY REALIGN THE WAY YOU LIVE CHANGING THE WAY PEOPLE ARE HELPED A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE CAPITOL THE WAY I SEE IT THE WAY OF PURITY CHANGING THE WAY THE WORLD PLAYS CHANGING THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS LOVE THE WAY YOU LIVE! LIGHT THE WAY CHANGING THE WORLD BY CHANGING THE WAY WE SEE THE WORLD CHANGING THE WAY THE WORLD DOES BUSINESS CHANGING THE WAY THE WORLD WALKS...ONE FOOT AT A TIME LEADING THE WAY CAREADVANTAGE TOGETHER...EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. ORAL HEALTH AMERICA LEADING THE WAY TO A HEALTHY FUTURE BETAPLUS LEADING THE WAY IN MS THERAPY SUPPORT THE WAY OF STORY THE WAY CME SHOULD BE THE WAY INTERNATIONAL THE WAY PEOPLE LEARN THE WAY OF EASE LEADING THE WAY THE WAY OF THE PRACTICAL MYSTIC PROJECT LEAD THE WAY THE WAY INTERNATIONAL NEW KNOXVILLE, OHIO THE PREVAILING WORD THE WAY CORPS DISCIPLES OF THE WAY OUTREACH PROGRAM THE WAY OF ABUNDANCE AND POWER THE WAY THE WORLD LEARNS TO DIVE THE WAY CORPS IT IS WRITTEN APOSTLES PROPHETS EVANGELISTS PASTORS TEACHERS THE WAY Looks like they've got a long ways to go before they have eliminated all competition. (On edit, I got rid of a table that didn't format properly. This BBS software doesn't like tables, does it?)

It is not that I'm necessarily against the death penalty, rather I think it needs to be applied more as a risk mitigation than as retribution. Face it, no matter what happens to the perps, the murder victims aren't coming back. So can we make sure that these punks can't commit more crime in the future? And if we are to use the death penalty as retribution, it needs to be done a whole lot faster than what happens these days. And if we are to use the death penalty as a deterrent, it needs to be applied far more widely than it is. And what happens if the judgment is wrong? (As has happened in not a few cases where DNA evidence has cleared people who were behind bars for decades) That's why I think it should be done on a risk management basis. Can the State assure that this person never be in the position to harm others in the future? Not just from the possibility of release or escape...but could the perp direct others from behind bars or, for that matter, continue to do what he is doing to other prisoners or staff (regardless of the means used to protect others from the perp)? Of course, cases like these make it very difficult for me to advocate for Christian mercy, in all honesty. More importantly, though, I think we, as a society, need to take a good, honest, hard look at ourselves. When you have more than 1% of the population of the country behind bars and horrific crimes such as these happening more often than any of us would like to admit, I have got to wonder what is going on now that wasn't going on 40 years ago. I really have to wonder if Charles Manson did what he did now, rather than 40 years ago, would that have even made the national news? FWIW

Or this one: Slain pastor was discovered nude in a 'crucifix position' at Anadarko (Oklahoma) church But (IMHO) neither the Christian/Newsome case nor this one beat the first one in the thread. Again, IMHO / YMMV

Didn't want to make you lose your lunch. But one thing to consider is that this crime, although fairly unique in its scale, is not at all unique in its type. That's why I ask about the societal issue with this.

...that I have heard about, for at least many, many years. <blink>Caution: the following crime is not suitable for reading by young children nor by those with weak stomachs. </blink> If you fit either description, I suggest you hit the "back" button before continuing (and, yes, I have left the more graphic portions to the news articles and didn't put them here) A 35 year old woman and her 16 year old son were attacked by a gang of 10 teenagers. She was repeatedly raped and sodomized by the gang. She was then forced to perform sexual acts on her own son. She was then doused in nail polish remover and the criminals were asking if any of them had a lighter. Accounts of the crimes are here and here. A 16 year old defendant pleaded guilty and testified against others. A 20 year old was just convicted of the crime and a jury is deliberating in the case of an 18 year old defendant, while the trial of a 17 year old has yet to occur. See here for reports of the conviction. I don't know about any of the other defendants. Apparently, the 20 year old received two life sentences. Does the punishment fit the crime? What do you think would be going through these kids' heads to get a group of 10 of them to do something like that?

Consider this: many religious denominations accept donations of material items from their membership. If you go into old churches, of any particular denomination, you likely will see that most of the stained glass windows were donations from people, as are other works of art. Many times, autos are donated by followers who own car dealerships. In other cases, retreat houses, camps, and other properties are donated by members of the church. In most cases, the ownership of the property does not fall to the MOG in question, but remains with the church group. When it is used by the MOG of the group, it is being used exactly as it was intended to be used at the time of the donation. Where I have a problem with it is when donations are solicited for one purpose and then are diverted for another use. For example, if you look at PTL and the luxury that Jim and Tammy Faye had, most of the donations were solicited based on a stated goal of evangelisation, not with the goal of building a palace for Jim and Tammy Faye. I think that is the biggest issue: not the properties themselves, but the fact that the funds solicited and used were solicited not to provide those properties but to "move the word." I post the above because I feel that the properties (motorcycle, motorhome, clothes, houses, etc.) were not the fault, but rather the deception used in gathering the funds for the properties. One important question, though, how many meals did the Vicster actually pay for? Vice how many meals were paid for by his "hosts?" How many bottles of Drambuie?

This version is published by a group called, the Institute for Scripture Research. They state they are from South Africa and were founded in 1992. People who have been identified as directors are: Lew White Dr. C. J. Koster Don't know if either name is familiar to anybody.

The graph literally took less than 5 minutes to create: Download the data: 1 minute (I already knew where it was)(+ a 30/10 FIOS connection is sometimes useful) Create the chart: 30 seconds (Excel is a beautiful thing) Screenshot and cropping: 30 seconds (Irfranview is a beautiful thing) Upload to Photobucket: 1 minute Insert into the post: 30 seconds (it took longer to write the above than it did to make the chart) As to the JPII and PioXI quotes, I knew exactly where they were, as well. I have studied the subject for several years. The reason why is that I wanted to make sure that my conscience was properly formed regarding this area, as it is so vital to one's Christian walk. I, frankly, would have mentioned those documents earlier on, but I've learned that it is generally more productive to restrict myself to Biblical quotes when arguing with non-Catholics. Just because we live in a country that has non-Christians and does not have a State religion, does not mean that I should stop arguing for Christian virtues to be advocated in the laws and policies of this State. Murder and theft are both considered sinful acts by Christians. Does that mean that we should tolerate them in a "secular" society? Of course not. Should we tolerate the sacrifice of virgins because we are "secular" and have a diversity of religious beliefs? Never. There is something that is called the "natural" law (which you quote a passage referencing). ALL people of good will should be able to recognize those things. Respect for life and respect for private property are two elements of this. There are four cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. Those are widely taught in moral theology courses (whether they are identified as "cardinal virtues" or are just spoken of). Those cardinal virtues are simply thrown away because one is not a Christian or that we do not live in a "Christian Society": they should be advocated all the stronger for those reasons. (And, btw, they predate Christ -- they come from Plato, of all sources) You mentioned the fact that we had a Muslim in Congress. Well, if I was in Congress and wanted to set up a system of private charity to supersede the current government system, one of the FIRST people I would go to is Keith Ellison. Why? Precisely because he IS a Muslim. Islam has a tremendous system of charity. And, frankly, if I knew of any orthodox Jews in the House, I would likewise try to work with them on the subject, too. Again, based upon their traditions. One other little point: I call the practice gravely evil. I call the practitioners and advocates for the practice mistaken or, perhaps, fooled. The only way, in relation to this practice, that I would call a person evil, would be if the person full well knew the slavery to which its "beneficiaries" are ensnared and the person still advocates it -- particularly if the person advocates it for that reason. You're right and I am not saying that. If you got the impression that I was saying that, I apologize for not making myself clearer. What it does is that it reduces the amount of resources that I have available to give. (If I didn't pay as much tax as I do, then I would have significantly more available to give) In addition, the government doesn't really encourage charitable giving as much as they could. Let me give you an example: - Let us say that a doctor wanted to treat some patients on a charitable basis. The doctor cannot do this as a charitable contribution, for two reasons: first, he cannot consider the value of the time he spends doing the charitable work as a deduction. Second, he cannot consider his time, his staff's salaries, or the materials he expends as a deduction, because you can't deduct a contribution to an individual. (Source: IRS Pub 526) - The same applies to hospitals, labs, pharmacies, and so on. - The above is not to say that doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, labs, and so on, do not treat patients for free? Absolutely not. I know enough to know that they do, but the way they have to handle it is as a write-off from their profit, not as a charitable donation. (And, of course, there are charitable medical organizations set up to do so and to which contributions are deductible) Can you picture what a change it would be if primary care physicians, pharmacies, labs, and so on were allowed to provide a portion of their services available and consider the expenses to be charitable deductions? You are apparently drinking too much of the liberal bathwater here (speaking of rhetoric). A "culture of entitlement" means that somebody owes you something -- and this becomes totally ingrained in our society. This refers to people like the widows of 9/11 bankers who had their nice houses in Westchester County, large life insurance policies, but yet who felt as if they were entitled to large payments from the government in compensation. This refers to military retirees, rated at 100% disability, who have nice GS-13 or GS-14 jobs ($75K - $105K per year) in the government (through preferential hiring) and collect a tax-free VA disability pension. (No problems so far) Who then lobby for collecting a taxable DOD pension on top of their tax-free VA pension. (That's where the problem comes in) (and, btw, I am a military retiree who was encouraged to submit disability paperwork but who didn't do so because it's not right) This refers to people who build expensive houses on hurricane prone beaches or mudslide-prone cliffs, who, after the houses are repeatedly destroyed from hurricanes or brush fire induced mudslides, rebuild in the same spot, knowing that the government will continue to finance the reconstruction through disaster funds. This refers to major wall street banks or major auto companies driving their businesses into the ground and then demanding government assistance to bail them out. A "culture of entitlement" does not simply refer to the needy. It infects all of us. We, as a society, absolutely have an obgligation to care for the needy. You and I agree on this much. And you accuse me of being judgmental? My oh my. Time to pull the plank from your eye, dear. Albert Einstein is often attributed as saying, The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Money is not the issue. Changing the overall paradigm needs to be the issue. Let me use schools as a subset of this. We spend an inordinate amount of money on schools. In DC, the amount spent is around $15,000 per student per year. Parochial schools in DC spend, on average, less than $6,000 per student (this is subsidized through contributions of people like me so that there are lots of scholarships out there). The parochial schools uniformly turn out far more qualified students than public schools. Why? Because their paradigm is different. - Parochial school teachers are there, not for the money, but because they want to teach kids. (They make on average about 2/3 of what they would make in a public school setting) - Parents are more involved, because they have a sense of community membership and obligation (all of them had to make at least some kind of contribution, even if the contribution was doing maintenance work on the school at night) - Parents and students recognize that being in a parochial school is a revokable privilege, not a right -- and so the learning environment is far more productive - One thing, it's not because of some strong Catholic identity (although the Church is deeply involved in schools) -- on average, only about 1/3 of the students within a DC parochial school are Catholic The point being not that all schools should be Catholic parochial schools. But the paradigms illustrated above (teachers having a sense of mission, strong parental involvement, and a lack of feeling of entitlement replaced by a feeling of obgliation) is what's needed...not simply more money flushed down the toilet. You're right, you likely won't convince me of anything. And I won't convince you of anything. But there are always the lurkers who might be convinced one way or the other.

One might think so, but in the Excel sheet from the Census that I linked to above, it shows the poverty rate for Hispanic families being pretty much constant, as well, even though the number of total families (both below and above poverty) rose dramatically. (And that is something that the utterly closed borders types should consider in their rhetoric)

Well, thank you very much for clarifying that point. Now we can move beyond that and deal with the real subject. Yes, I do believe that the government, particularly the national level government, providing social assistance, particularly long-term social assistance, is a grave evil. Sorry that you feel that it is a narrow, Biblical view (I guess that is supposed to be a bad thing). And, with reference to somebody in the peanut gallery, it grieves me that my views make Evangelicals, in general, look bad :blink: . It might be of some comfort to let you know that I am not the only one who holds those views. Let me give you a couple of examples: In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care. Karol Wojtyla, Hundred Years (1991), paragraph 48 And then another one: As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. Achille Ratti, Forty Years (1931), paragraph 79 The two passages above illustrate that my views might not be quite so narrow and "Biblical" as you might consider on first blush. Or at least that there are other narrow-minded people out there who believe as I do. We have had a fairly significant amount of "social assistance" payments go out since LBJ declared "war" on poverty. You can see that we are spending somewhere in the neighborhood of three quarters of a trillion dollars a year on it. But yet it is utterly ineffective. The above chart, based on <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov4.xls">census numbers, show that since 1966 the relative level of poverty is the same in 2007 as they were in 1966. The blue line represents the poverty rate reported by the Census Bureau. The black line is a "trend line." After spending trillions of dollars on poverty, you'd think that the number would shrink. Think about this a second: In 2007, $724 billion was spent on "human resource" programs (I exclude both Medicare and Social Security, as well as veterans health). There were 7,623,000 families identified as living below the poverty line. You could give each one of those families $94,987 for the amount of money spent on those programs. And this is not just this one time: it has been along that order every year for at least the past 10 years. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. I gave you the links to the documents. Bottom line: In addition to being morally wrong, this federal government sponsored "social assistance" paradigm simply doesn't work. Just to let you know, since I'm the one arguing against it (and used the term "grave evil"), I'm not an Evangelical. As to Jesus feeding the 5,000, I never realized Jesus was a representative of the civil government.

Geisha, The reason I am so blasted opposed to government assistance programs is not out of a desire to not feed the poor, it is because the programs damage our society as a whole. They tend to create a culture of entitlement rather than a culture of obligation. It's that simple. I think we both agree that individuals have obligations to the poor. I think our point of disagreement is whether individuals can fulfill those obligations through government action or whether those obligations must be fulfilled directly by that individual. I have cited Biblical examples of where individuals have obligation but have asserted that there is no basis in either the Bible or in the tradition of the early church showing that this should be translated to the government. If you can show me, out of either Scripture or out of the tradition of the early church to show me where I'm wrong, I'll be happy to review that. Your example from Romans 13 shows that I am obliged to pay my taxes and be a good citizen. But it does not put an obligation on the government to care for the poor. Therefore, the obligation still resides with the people. You may think that I have a very narrow, Biblical view. I know a lot of Calvinists who would gravely disagree with you. But I'll accept your slam on me. After all, Christ and His message should change society...society should not attempt to change Christ and His message. You have a good point about us not living in a theocracy. We don't and I'm thankful for that, because my particular brand of Christianity has been suppressed by the majority in this country in the past and would surely be again in the modern day if it was allowed. Despite the fact that we do not live in a theocracy, I am still obliged to follow my moral conscience, which is formed through my religious beliefs. The difference is that I have to respect the rights of others to disagree with my specific religious beliefs. It does not mean that I have to not follow my conscience, properly formed, in discourse. As to the country being blessed, we will likely have to disagree on this. I believe that the country is blessed by God only to the degree that the society and its members live godly lives. That does not mean a theocracy, that means walking upright in our day to day lives.

You might think so on the surface, but that would not be looking at it in the context of Rom 13:1-7, which is the verse originally cited back in post #13 of this thread. The assertion is that all government, no matter how evil, no matter how cruel, no matter what, is of God and that Christians have a duty to not resist the government, again, no matter what the policies they put in place. and that we simply have a duty to pay our taxes, and give the government respect and honor. In other words to shut up and let Øbama do whatever the heck he wants to do. And if we don't do so, we are wrong and God is going to get us in the end. I challenge that interpretation and instead assert that, while we have an obligation to be good citizens, that obligation does not extend to subordinating our moral consciences to support policies that are morally objectionable. And, in fact, I would assert that we have a moral obligation to oppose policies that are morally objectionable. While others have tried to limit the application of this Romans 13:1-7 passage to an attempt to cow opponents, like myself, to support government-imposed socialism, I assert that if this passage is applicable in this case, it must also equally be applied to other opposition movements. Thus, the pictures. And yes, of course, I picked out famous pictures of movements that would likely be approved of by liberals. Why? Because I know of only a very few people who would oppose movements like civil rights, women's suffrage, etc., if Romans 13:1-7 is a moral constraint on my right to protest socialized medicine then those movements were equally in violation of Romans 13:1-7. And since I would doubt that most would say that those movements were sinful for the virtue of them being anti-government policy movements (w/o regard for what they stood for), then it goes to show that Romans 13:1-7 should not be applied here either, because Romans 13:1-7 does not give a context of any policy imposed by a government. Usurp: 1 a : to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right <usurp a throne> b : to take or make use of without right <usurped the rights to her life story> 2 : to take the place of by or as if by force : supplant <must not let stock responses based on inherited prejudice usurp careful judgment> First of all, I am not limiting the statement, I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals., to "social" issues. It was about government powers in general. Secondly, government usurps powers reserved to the states or to the people all the time in multiple areas. The most egregious examples are through regulatory activities. A couple of examples: I have had to, through my time in the military, learn to do industrial electrical wiring. (One of the jobs I had was to travel around and install communications sites in "exotic" parts of the world) I am amply qualified to install electrical circuits in my home. However, I am constrained from doing so by government regulation. (Since my job currently does not involve this, I felt no obligation to go out and get my "master electician" license). Frankly, in most cases, that would be a regulation that makes sense: most people would be clueless and, thus, dangerous, poking around an electrical panel. But the government regulation covers it all. Another example are some new regulations that will be coming out in the next year that will make construction of low income housing (such as habitat-type homes) far more costly, as they will have to comply with some far more stringent energy efficiency regulations. As costs increase, it will become more challenging and more expensive to build. One other such regulatory concern is the return of FCC regulation on political broadcasting (link is to a broadcast law blog, not a r-w extremist blog) Third, government programs and government handouts (whether they be to low income people or to Goldmann Sachs) cost money. That money is either raised through taxes, through increased national debt, or through monetization. In the case of taxes, that removes available capital that can be used for private charitable concerns. In the case of increased debt, that furthers extended taxes or inspires monetization. And monetization reduces the buying power of capital that hasn't been taken by taxes, thus reducing the effectiveness of money that is contributed. Fourth, and most importantly, peoples' attitudes change. They expect government to act. What is the government going to do about this, that, or the other. This is not to say that when there is some disaster that we Americans do not open up our hearts and wallets. But on a day-to-day basis, we expect the government to do something. Interestingly, when one advocates direct action as opposed to government programs, the person is assailed as trying to take food out of the mouths of children. take away, prohibit your ability, right, and obligation to help the poor, It doeesn't prohibit it, but it removes a significant capability to do so, for the reasons outlined above. speak out on their behalf Not yet, it doesn't. However, it does impact it on a more macro basis: my message is not received well by most "social justice types", who largely advocate for more government involvement. I know in my church, we deal with constant appeals for money, are called on to lobby politicians to increase government spending, and so on, but the calls to directly participate in social work are very, very muted: limited largely to youth group activities or Knights of Columbus activities. Which is the opposite of what I believe should be. Like it's an either/or situation? It isn't, Garth, a totally either/or situation. Otherwise, I would be sitting back fat, dumb, and happy while the government takes care of my obligations.

Yes, I feel it is a grave evil for government to take a function that should be carried out by each and every individual. What part of that do you not understand? You say, Take another look at what it is you are opposing. The help, care, and concern for those less fortunate. That is a dishonest, deceitful, and loaded statement. I never once have said, nor have I implied. I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals. There is a difference. But let us try to understand here the hard lesson you are trying to teach: are you saying that it is sinful an evil to oppose the government or that it is sinful and wrong to oppose the government on matters where Geisha779 and GarthP2000 agree with the government? This gentleman is acting sinfully, in your mind. He is opposed to Health Care Reform. If he doesn't repent, he will go to h3ll. These people are acting sinfully, because they oppose government policy, right? This woman is sinful, because she refused to accept a sham re-election of Ahmadinejad in Iran. In this case, the people with the pro-"choice" signs are acting in accordance with the Scriptures, because they are supporting government policy, but those with the pro-"life" signs are evil, because they are not giving respect where respect is due (Rom 13:7). These Iraq War protesters and these Vietnam War protesters are horribly sinful, because they dare to oppose the "ministers of God" (Rom 13:6) "Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." (Rom 13:2) -- these folks should have simply gone back to their segregated schools, segregated neighborhoods, and gotten back in the back of the bus and gone home and pay their taxes and shut up. And, of course, these people are already in H3ll. They committed the ultimate sin: they opposed their government and started a revolution, over, of all things, taxes. -------------- Geisha, let us separate the arguments. There is a legitimate discussion as to whether or not it is a government function to provide social services to the less fortunate, there is a separate function as to the government's function to take over the healthcare industry, and then there is a discussion whether one may morally dissent from the government in any case. You, Geisha, are too new around here for me to know your position on the Iraq War based upon your posting history. Garth and I have had many discussions on the subject and so we know each other's position on the matter. So I don't know whether you would say that Iraq War protesters were morally wrong in protesting that effort. Based upon Garth's posting history, I would surmise that he would have a really hard time saying that Iraq War protesters (or Vietnam War protesters, for that matter) were acting in a morally illicit fashion (of course, some did, I am talking about peaceful protesters, not those who used violence). I would imagine, though, that you would support the aims of the civil rights protesters of the 60s and the women's suffrage movement of the early 20th century. (If I'm wrong in my assumption, please let me know). But these people, whose pictures I've linked, were protesting in opposition to established government policies and the authorities who enacted and enforced those policies. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.(Rom 13:1-2). Were these people, the civil rights protesters and women's suffrage protesters, acting in morally illicit fashion? Will they (or have they) incured the judgment of God? So before dealing with the moral licitness of the government performing certain functions, let us deal with whether a person can legitimately oppose the government or rebel against the government in any case. Is it always wrong or is it only wrong when one disagrees with Geisha? (And, by the way, what kind of veil do you use when you pray? (1 Cor 11:5) And, of course, I don't need to ask if you keep silent in the church (1 Cor 14:34) -- of course you do)

Most of the conservative church groups try to influence public policy...but they, for the most part (to my knowledge) stay off the public teat. For example, Christendom College (probably the most conservative Catholic college in the country) refuses to accept any government assistance (they do not even accept federal tuition assistance for their students). Hillsdale is the same way. I understand that there are a number of Baptist primary and secondary schools that completely refuse any student assistance (such as textbook programs and school lunch programs) from the government, as well (I'm not a Baptist so I can't cite examples). I don't have a problem with religious groups from either side of the aisle attempting to influence public policy. They have a legitimate voice and a legitimate perspective. So do environmental groups, business groups, "community organizers," etc. I do have a problem if one group and one group only has the ear of a president, regardless of whether it is a religious group or a non-religious group. (And if you try to cite Bush, let me tell you, several of my evangelical friends feel, in retrospect that he played them like a fiddle) I agree, to a certain extent. While I agree that a government employee should not be using government time to proselytize, nor should the Bible, Koran, or any other text be quoted as the basis of a government policy, I do think there is some legitimate role...without the government officially endorsing a particular religion. The biggest example I can consider are organizational chaplains, to include paid positions. They provide important services to organizational personnel. Now, in a government that does not endorse a specific religion, obviously, chaplains from multiple faith groups should be on staff in the relative proportion of the religious affiliation of the personnel within that organization and, if there aren't sufficient members of a given religion available to justify a full-time staff position, the organization should make provision to bring in part time chaplains or volunteer chaplains, trained in the nature of the chaplain job (as opposed to traditional clergy). Obviously, special consideration needs to be provided by these chaplains to avoid the appearance of proselytizing, and, yes, some consideration needs to be made for atheist and agnostic organizational personnel to care for their needs. And, believe it or not, I agree with you. We are mixing threads up between this one (that should be discussing the relgious aspects of government / church entanglement with the current administration) and the one down in the 'tacks sewer. So, just to keep it brief, the current issue is that this is obviously a desperate attempt to co-opt liberal religions. Why obvious? Because of the timing of the religious references. OK.

You gave me the answer. And, not surprisingly, it was the correct answer: God is justified in overthrowing anything He wants Now, I would add one thing to that. God can use whatever tools He deigns fit for the task. A lightning bolt, an asteroid, disease, pestilence, or anything else, including people. A survey of the Old Testament would reveal this, as I am utterly confident that you are aware. An overly strict application of Romans 13 would indicate that people are to stay in a state of oppression when God is calling them to do otherwise. And there are those who love citing that section as a supposedly "biblical" justification. Using that theory, there should have never been a civil rights movement, both for women and for people of color, during the first half of the 20th century. Because, after all, all government comes from God. Obviously, recognizing the basic human rights of women and minorities (the franchise, speech, movement, assembly, etc.) is the appropriate thing for a government to recognize. But yet, it would have never happened unless there was a push for it. So were the rebels who supported human rights in the wrong? Of course not. God made use of them for His purposes. Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread. A few posts ago, you made the assertion, You are not seriously telling me that taxes impede charitable giving are you? Because of net and gross? Well, I guess you are. . . not much I can say to that kind of logic. I think you really miss the heart of the matter. Well, excuse me, but I certainly can't imagine how. You will note with the example I gave above, Let us assume, for this example, you make a gross salary of $6,000 per month. $2,000 is paid for taxes (federal, state, local, sales, property, etc.). $600 for a tithe (which is really not charity), $3,000 a month for expenses (mortgage/rent, gas, food, etc.), leaves $400 to put away for savings (rainy day fund, retirement, kid's college, etc.). And nothing left over for charity. Now, let us assume that the government did not perform social assistance spending and taxes were adjusted accordingly: $6,000 per month for income, $1,000 for taxes, $600 for tithe, $3,000 for expenses, $400 for savings, and all of a sudden, you have $1,000 that can be given to charitable causes. You will note that I separated consideration of a tithe from charitable giving. And you will note the order. Taxes (which are deducted involuntarily before I ever see my paycheck), then the tithe, then bills, then savings, then charity (above and beyond the tithe). As with you, I believe that the tithe should be the firstfruits. But, you will notice that charitable giving, as described in Acts 4:34-35 (posted upthread), involves the giving of surplus vice hoarding it. Likewise, the Leviticus examples refer to a surplus, as well (leaving the excess on the vine so that the poor can glean). Hopefully pointing out the subtle distinction that I made between tithes and charitble giving helped clear up your misunderstanding. One other statement you made was Persecuted Christians in dangerous countries submit to laws and governments. . . .even to the point of death, but still perfectly obeying God. . . I would contend that most martyrs who died in the name of Christ did so precisely because they would not submit to the government. For example, most of the martyrs that occurred during the early era during persecutions by Nero, Diacletian, and so on. They would not follow government orders: orders to give worship and adoration to their pagan gods. A more recent example would be St. Thomas More: St. Thomas More, Martyr (Patron of Lawyers) St. Thomas More was born at London in 1478. After a thorough grounding in religion and the classics, he entered Oxford to study law. Upon leaving the university he embarked on a legal career which took him to Parliament. In 1505, he married his beloved Jane Colt who bore him four children, andwhen she died at a young age, he married a widow, Alice Middleton, to be a mother for his young children. A wit and a reformer, this learned man numbered Bishops and scholars among his friends, and by 1516 wrote his world-famous book "Utopia". He attracted the attention of Henry VIII who appointed him to a succession of high posts and missions, and finally made him Lord Chancellor in 1529. However, he resigned in 1532, at the height of his career and reputation, when Henry persisted in holding his own opinions regarding marriage and the supremacy of the Pope. The rest of his life was spent in writing mostly in defense of the Church. In 1534, with his close friend, St. John Fisher, he refused to render allegiance to the King as the Head of the Church of England and was confined to the Tower. Fifteen months later, and nine days after St. John Fisher's execution, he was tried and convicted of treason. He told the court that he could not go against his conscience and wished his judges that "we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to everlasting salvation." And on the scaffold, he told the crowd of spectators that he was dying as "the King's good servant-but God's first." He was beheaded on July 6, 1535. His feast day is June 22nd. And I will list one other example of a martyr for Christ: St. Paul. He stood in opposition to both the Romans and the Jews. Consider this: with a government that had declared his religion illegal, He continued to preach and to encourage others to go against the law. He refused to submit, either to the Sanhedrin or to the Romans, either by shutting up or by compromising and worshiping their gods. So He went to His death. You mention the example of Christ, Did Jesus perfectly submit to God's will? Did He overthrow the Romans? Isn't that what they were crying for Him to do? Was God's providence and sovereignty what happened? I would hardly think that Jesus submitted. In fact, He stood His ground. He knew the battle He was fighting and He overthrew principalities and powers because of it. And, yes, I would say that He overthrew the Romans, because He overthrew their pagan gods, resulting in the conversion of the Empire to Him. But He knew His battle. As He said to Peter: Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? Does this mean that I believe that all rebellion is of God? No. The cause must be clearly just and the regime to be rebelled against must be clearly operating in an gravely unjust fashion that puts members of the society in grave danger, either temporally or spiritually. Of course, all peaceful means of effecting change must have been exhausted. And there has got to be real opportunity to emerge victoriously (after all, to rebel otherwise would be literal suicide). But short of that, no person is under the moral obligation to act sinfully. If you are a medical doctor and the government orders you to perform abortions, you have the moral obligation to not do so. If you are a soldier and are ordered to go into a village and kill every man, woman, and child, you must not obey that order. If, in some country, a woman is placed in a state-run brothel, no government can order her to spread her legs voluntarily (and, yes, that does happen to this day in some parts of the world). "Respect for authority" does not extend to excusing personal sin. And so how does that relate to this current situation? Well, while I am morally obliged to pay my taxes. But I am also morally obliged to speak up about what I consider to be a grave evil.

I'm sure it is. Sure would be a lot easier if we all just shut up and sat in a corner, wouldn't it? But, hey, look, I learn from the victors. For example, I learned this from Hillary: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Garth, Thanks, but chill out. If somebody doesn't like what I say, then they've got every right in the world to indicate so. However they want (be it via voting or via responding or both). C'mon, man, I fought in wars to preserve that right.

Let's try this one more time. We'll make it simpler. Just a yes or no answer. Is it ever justified to overthrow a government?

Ahh, nostalgia Looks like NYC may get nailed and Boston is right down the center of the storm right now.

Seems to me that he'd need to grow a pair if he could get bullied to do something on the phone. Funny how they wouldn't notice that irony. (Please to note: I am not saying he would succumb to their persuasion or not. Not implying anything one way or the other on that)