Pastor / congressional candidate: "We have a constitutional remedy ... and the Framers say if that don't work, revolution"

1934 reads

There are 11 Comments

Paul J. Scharf's picture

Jim Peet wrote:
This is one where I would vote for the Democrat. [sup ]1[/sup ]

Another one would be the Delaware Senate race. [sup ]2[/sup ]

  1. I don't vote for idiots!
  2. I don't vote for witches Smile or people who cannot even manage one's own personal finances

The part about Delaware is a joke, right...I am hoping :Sp

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Curious Jim:

1. What's your issue with Christine O'Donnell

2. Which part of the Declaration of Independence do you find objectionable

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Jim's picture

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
Curious Jim:

1. What's your issue with Christine O'Donnell

2. Which part of the Declaration of Independence do you find objectionable

To Point # 2: Who said I had an issue with the Declaration of Independence?

To Point # 1:

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Jim,

I was thinking of these statements, indicative I think of the sentiments the congressional candidate expressed.

Declaration of Independence

Paragraph 2
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

Paragraph 2
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Closing Paragraph
"We..., appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world...do...declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;"

In this forum, I acknowledge that the political does not inform the biblical; that the biblical must always inform the political. We can certainly have that discussion, whether this thinking upon which America was established and which is woven throughout the fabric of our founding documents is right or wrong in light of Scripture. But, the candidate was not espousing a biblical position one way or the other. He was making a political point in a political forum.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Jim's picture

I view the Declaration of Independence as a historical document not a governing document (I view the US constitution a governing document)

From the original article:

Quote:
WASHINGTON – Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.

In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising "is not the first option," but it is "on the table." That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate."

I agree with the head of the Dallas County GOP!

------- observations ----------

  • Every election cycle presents several candidates that I regard as fringe or bizarre. [sup ]*[/sup ]
  • The function of government is to govern
  • I personally will not vote for or support candidates that I feel are unqualified to serve in the capacity sought

* Another case on the Democratic side is Alvin Greene

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Do you see the Constitution as being drafted in light of the Declaration, a continuation of a single process, or as an entirely separate and independent endeavor with no relation to each other?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Jim's picture

Back to my original point, when the guy is trying to run for congress, he is trying to work within the system. Reiterating my views

Quote:

In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising "is not the first option," but it is "on the table." That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate."

  • If " http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+table ]on the table " means (I linked to the idiom):

    • "it has been officially suggested and is now being discussed or thought about ". [color=red ]Comment[/color ]: Kind of premature to suggest violent uprising! I would be [color=red ]completely opposed[/color ] to that!
    • "no one is dealing with it at present but it has not been completely forgotten" [color=red ]Comment[/color ]: Ditto to my comment above!
  • We have plenty of constitutional ways to change government. Working through the system and getting qualified and respectable candidates nominated is one of them!
JobK's picture

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
Curious Jim:

1. What's your issue with Christine O'Donnell

2. Which part of the Declaration of Independence do you find objectionable

Christians should not be using the Declaration of Independence as a guide for anything, especially since it has no force of law and therefore is not covered by Romans 13. This declaration was written by a deist, one who rejected and scoffed at the deity, atoning death, miracles, resurrection etc. of Jesus Christ, and its mindset is that of humanist Enlightenment philosophy, not New Testament theology. Also, you would be hard pressed - especially in light of Romans 13 - to justify anything in the New Testament that supports violent sedition. If anyone had the right to use violent sedition to overthrow an oppressive tyrannical government, it was the Jews and the early church, which was cruelly oppressed by the Roman empire. Yet, the New Testament looks down upon such people, making a pointed contrast between Barabbas on one hand and Jesus Christ on the other, and even more so if it is accepted that Jesus Christ was referring to such violent political radicals when He spoke of "robbers" in John 10:8 (where the robbers were false messiahs coming in their own name offering political liberation through violent sedition against Rome, and He was the true Messiah who came in God's Name and is the Prince of Peace ... Jesus Christ correctly predicted that the Jews were going to reject Him and follow the false messiahs instead, leading to the destruction of the temple and nation by Rome).

I have no problem acknowledging that America is a far better place to live than is China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Israel or most other places on this planet. But we can't get carried away. There are earthly kingdoms and the heavenly kingdom. Those who are willing to commit murder for the former will have no place in the latter. America is not Old Testament Israel, and Christians are not Old Testament Jews. For a Christian to support the idea that we should be willing to take up the sword to defend human documents and ideas that have nothing to do with the New Testament (whether the Constitution, which makes no reference to God, or the Declaration of Independence, whose "creator" is Jefferson's false deist god and not the true God of the Bible, and yes, that is important) cannot be supported by the New Testament. And it also begs a particular question: should a Christian be willing to take up arms to defend a communist regime, a fascist regime or an Islamic regime if he happens to be a citizen of that place? Why would it be any more permissible according to the Bible for a Christian to resort to sedition to defend our Constitution and not the North Korean or Cuban or the Nazi era German one? Or should Christians in Muslim countries be willing to resort to violent sedition in order to defend sharia law in Muslim countries?

For the record, I believe that this pastor's position is constitutionally, legally correct. (Further, I feel that the manufactured shock at comments like these by the left are disingenuous, because in the 1960s and 1970s it was the left stating that this country needed to be overthrown violently. It is only because the people who were supporting terrorist acts to protest our role in the Cold War (not because our actions were wrong, but because they wanted the Soviets to win) are now the ones in power that they are trying to make violence to get them out of power appear politically legitimate. They themselves were perfectly willing and able to use violence and the threat of violence when they were challenging the system a few decades ago.) But being correct in a constitutional sense and being correct in a New Testament sense are two totally different things.

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura
http://healtheland.wordpress.com