Wirehead Studios

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/2860016.html (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/2860016.html)

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-...transcript.html (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)

I guess you can only peaceably assemble when it's convenient for certain interests, the free exercise of religion not being one of them.  I wonder what else they'll have to repress before people wake up.

There is much information missing here, and that lack of information is exactly why I'm not going to throw a fit about this one.

From reading this, she was not arrested for practicing her religion in public, but for not leaving the establishment when asked. Any person can be asked to leave any place of business for disrupting business -- the manager or person "on duty" at the time likely felt this way -- and it is within the establishment's right to have someone removed if they do not comply.

Unless more information becomes available, like the person responsible for calling the police clearly being anti-religious, I don't see any reason to blow a whistle on this event.

I would like to point out that it says she was standing on the shoulder of a public street - not inside a place of business.  This means she was on property that blongs to the public.  (pub?lic n. 1:  The community or the people as a whole.)  That means she had every right to peaceably stand there and pray because that street belongs to her as much as the next man.

Half a million illegal immigrants can clog major transit arteries and disrupt people's lives, commerce, and they're left alone.  Gays and lesbians can march freely in rallies and protests.  People can protest wars in the same manner.  But you can't peacefully pray on a public sidewalk outside of a movie theater, despite the fact that the freaking US constitution says you can.  What will it take before it becomes too late, hmm?  Or should it only matter when it affects someone personally?  How slippery does the slope have to get before people realize how far they've already slid down it?  Apathy is the doom of freedom.  It does not require guns, or swords, or conquering armies marching through the streets, it just requires people to sit on their asses and do nothing while their freedoms are stripped away from them.  I won't beg your pardon because I'll never apoligize for standing in the way of tyranny.

Call this a knee-jerk reaction on my part if you like.  I'm not ashamed of it.  The day that my passion dies is the day my ashes need scattering to the four winds, for it will be the last part of me, and I dare say the best part.

I'm trying to frame my response in a way that makes sense, and at 1AM, am failing spectacularly.

However, know that I am not blowing off cases of law enforcement, et. al., infringing on rights, I merely do not think that this exact incident is a case of someone's rights being violated. I may be wrong, but the article is unclear about exactly what was public and private property, and what the motive behind the woman's removal was. That's important information for me before I can get fired up about what happened.

You're as welcome to your thoughts on the matter as I am, and I certainly do not mean to try and extinguish the flames of your passion (no pun intended -- and there are about five of them there). I'm certainly not going to stand in your way, in fact, I am usually right beside you when it comes to standing in tyranny's way.

We differ in many of our beliefs, and have been able to agree to disagree in the past. I hope we can do the same in this instance, and I hope that you know that if I am wrong about what has transpired, I will admit that fault and stand with you once again.

Right on Phoenix.

As far as I am concerned, a religion is a set of beleifs, so what I conclude is that if you beleive in Gay tolorence, that could be accepted as a religious beleif. So I guess they should be arrested along with that woman that was praying. What if she wasn't actually in the protest? What if she was praying about something else?

You know what's funny? Schools are actually pressuring kids to attend their "acceptance" rallies.  Protesting against Christians and to support gay rights, support evolution, support abortion. Pushing their agendas down the youth's throat. The parent's stand by with their thumb up their asses, or their parents agree with this notion themselves.

"Good shall become evil and evil shall become good."

Realize this Phoenix, this is inevidable. You can protest all you want, but no one will care, after all, being politcally correct is the most important thing to have in your character, and they start teaching this in grade school, talking about the "evil white man".

This is how much I care about political correctness:

(http://image3.greetingcards.com/dgc/i/c/shs_middleFingerOneHand.jpg)
I got your political correctness for ya, right here...

By all means.  I also believe in finding out as much information as is possible about something, especially when the media is involved.  I'm just calling attention to the incedent while it's fresh.  I've seen articles like this just disappear before.  It makes it hard to follow up when the story gets vaporized.

Of course, we can't let the issue go unrepremended. That's besides the point.

So much for a liberal society.

seems like if this was real o'riely would be all over it. Of course i havent been watching o'riely lately.

Woods:  you can't expect a national-level pundit to get ahold of every story and have air time for it.  It's the little ones like this that slip under the radar, that don't get air time or attention, that concern me because for every one you might read about, how many do you never know about?

Scalliano:  If a "liberal" society was based on the dictionary definition of the word that states " Tending to give freely; generous", I would applaud and support it.  My views on political liberalism are documented, I don't see a need to repeat them here.  I don't want this thread to turn into a liberal vs conservative discussion, since that detracts from the point.  Now a liberated society, on the other hand - that is one that is set free from oppression, where the rights of individual people are respected equally and where justice prevails - I fully support.  What I'm concerned with is I am seeing liberties eroded and the people seem either asleep to it, blinded to it by propaganda and media spin, or else they are apathetic to it.  People should never have to be afraid of their government.  The government should be afraid of the people, and subject to their will.  That is the correct order of things, and I'm seeing this order reverse at an ever increasing pace.

Washu:  I posted my last post while you were posting yours prior, so somehow I missed reading it.  I know what's been prophesied, and I know what is inevitable as a result.  I feel it is my duty to warn people about what's going on around them in either case, regardless of what they believe, and regardless of whether or not they will listen.  I figure the least I can do is say what others will not.  What they make of that does not belong to me.

And if that isn't bad enough, check out this cute little gem I ran across a few minutes ago:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/24/D.../D8HQE6B80.html (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/24/D8HQE6B80.html)

Track everyone, identify everyone, your DNA, fingerprints, retinal images in a centralized computer database...  Sounds pretty Orwellian to me, and this is the mayor of New York City proposing it.[/color]

We were never 'free'... unless you mean in the context of the topic heading. That, I can agree with. I'm pessimistic, so I expect it to get worse as the years go by... nothing really surprises me any more.

Also not really in the mood to rant a bit on the situation (2:20am and tired).. so, I'll just end there. But hey.. why not go all the way if you're going to do it? Pull some Demolition Man crap and plant a chip into everyone's wrists.

I dunno, fingerprinting doesn't sound like some horrible plan, it seems secure without being invasive, however you just try to imbed something in my skin and i garuntee that you'll suffer blood loss.

granted I don't do much worthy of being watched for but, what i do and where i go is my own goddamn business and the second something like that becomes manditory here, i'm getting my ass out of the country.

as for the original topic, i'd say it's a bit too vauge... 30 feet from the box office could be in the theatre parking lot...

personally i think that if you're gonna protest something get as many people who are as pissed off as you THEN start planning something, the reason (i think) christians aren't getting similar protest rights is cause more often than not it's just one or two people on thier own doing something, creating less of an image of a large group of opinioned people and more of an image of just some crazy sporker.

of course i could be wrong on that.

Sometimes, you need to give up freedoms, so the country can run smoothly. This does not bother me in anyway, as wire tapping does not bother me either. I mean, why are people concerned of their privacy? If they are not doing anything illegal, what is there to worry about?

I have to admit though that Christians are getting rather uptight about "The Da Vinci Code". I mean it's fiction. That's why in the library they have a section clearly marked "Fiction" For the slow: "Fic-shun"

I think it's a great work of fiction. Even the author himself admits that it's fiction.

Damn, what a bunch of pompus morons.

That's the oldest 'argument' for restriction of privacy and freedom. It has never, ever, sounded convincing to me and I seriously keep wondering why it has worked and still works for some people. If you always obey the laws, why worry about having a chip implanted in your body that tracks your every move? Why would we worry about having our thoughts read? You have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. If you are against these things, you must have something on your conscience. This is a slippery slope if ever there was one, and the oldest brainwashing-101 trick.

I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe (some) Christians aren't worried much about privacy, because God is watching over them continuously anyway. Apart from the plain fact that I want or take no part of that, I don't see why something as corrupt(able) and flawed as a government should get that privilege.

Those who do not see a problem with this are a wee bit too trusting in their authorities.

Tabun, I am not no gullible moron. I really don't care what the government finds out about me, because I don't care about the government. God. It like they literally have a little office where the police sit around and spy on people. They see some guy sniffing women's underwear, and they laugh their asses off, then they go write a report in the local newspaper saying so and so is a freak and should be thoroughly sacked.

Would you care to explain why it is not so convincing? Why should we care? Why is privacy so important?

People seem to care more about their rights, than what IS ACTUALLY right.

Think of a totalitarian state in which everyone does what is 'right' (for now, never mind by whose standards). Everyone forced to abide the law, strictly. You're born with a handicap? Born just a little too 'stupid'? Had just a little too much bad luck and have been at the wrong place at the wrong time? Born gay? Got 'criminal-DNA' in your body? Your government will know. They will know what you buy and sell, using the information to work the economy 'for the right ends'. Governments and multinational organizations work hand in hand, knowing exactly what everyone is doing and how to manipulate the situation for a profit. A profit to be used for 'what is right', ofcourse. No worries.
I cannot make the obvious ridiculousness of the argument clear to those who do not acknowledge the value of privacy. It's similar the value of freedom, related to the ever present argument that you should be willing to give up your freedom bit by bit, because otherwise, the terrorists win. If you disagree, you must have something to hide, some freedom to abuse.
Freedom and privacy are closely related. Remove one or both from the equation of everyday life, and you lose what little there is left of the dream of democracy. That's fine, if 1984 is your thing.

Tabun:  We agree with something out of the gate. :thumb:

I don't mind God knowing everything I think and do because of the nature of God.  God is the ultimate power, nothing can surpass his might or misuse what he knows.  God also loves me, and has my best interests in mind even when I don't.  No matter what I do, I can be forgiven for it.  It's up to me to put my heart into the right place and be penitent, but God sacrificed himself for me to make up for my failings, he loves me that much.  That's why I don't mind God knowing what I do.  That and I know He's not going to swoop down with the Angelic Thought Police and lock me up in Room 101 the minute I consider doing something that might be bad.  I don't live in fear because I trust God.  I would not tolerate anyone else having that kind of access to my mind because I do not trust them with it, especially anyone human.

Washu:  A person should always be suspicious of government.  The old phrase "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" has a counter-phrase:  "everyone has something to hide."  Everyone has their little secrets.  Governments are composed of corrupt and corruptible people.  If you believe governments should be able to spy on people, I suggest you live in a totalitarian country, like Communist China, or North Korea.  Whoops.  Forgot, they don't like Christians there.  Now imagine if the government of this country should decide to ban religion someday.  Christians would be forced to worship underground.  Well, if they can spy on everything you say and do, you'll be caught, tortured, and forced to reject your religion, then they execute you anyway.  Think it can't happen?  It happened in Nazi Germany to 6 million Jews.  It happened in Soviet Union.  Never say "it won't happen here."  It damned well could.

You also have to remember that people do not agree on what is right.  For a Christian, what is right is the will of God, but look at how fractured and divided even Christianity is.  Why?  Because people of the same faith can't even agree on what they think the will of God is.  Note that I said think.  Now look over the whole world.  Muslims think it's right to kill infidels.  In some European countries, they think it's right to euthanize people who are severely ill.  In China they think it's right to stamp out dissent.  What actually is right is not the issue, it's what people perceive to be right because that's how they'll behave.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and you would be wise to understand that no matter how much you may try to safeguard against it, human nature has proven one thing above all else - men desire power, and once empowered they will use it to oppress.  That is why privacy and liberty are so damned important.  That is why limited government was the cornerstone of the foundation of this nation.  They knew governments will oppress and control if given the chance, so they did their best to safeguard against it.  Even that wasn't enough.

Why should privacy be important?  Why should people clamor for their rights?  Because that's what constitutes a free and open society.  When someone of authority says "What are you doing, and why?", the people should have the ability to respond, "Why should I have to answer that question?" without fearing imprisonment for doing so.  Laws should exist for the purpose of securing people's rights, not to allow governments to bully the public into submission.  That is tyranny.

It seems that everyone has forgotten that our government, elected officials and all such people/groups are supposed to SERVE the citizens that placed them in power.

not to mention I personally think that the constitution should be rewritten, lets face it, there has been more changes in the past 200 years than in the rest of the past two milennia.

KruzadeR.. you are awesome. That last post was the best thing I've read in a LONG time (on the internet anyway). Sarcasm used perfectly and in the same way I use it myself.. and the fact that I agree makes it even better. <3


...now if it's not sarcastic, then uhhh... delete this post and replace it with KruzadeR's, adding a nonexistant sarcasm tag in all the right places.

:thumb::slippy_thumb:

All governments degrade into tyranny. All systems of government are destined to fail. The only standard you can judge a state by is  how long they last and the standard of living its people enjoy while it functions.
  A Constitution is not written in stone, never has been never will be. But basic ideals like the freedom to own property and freedom of speech and religion must never be ?re-written?  under any circumstances because that would render the whole point of a constitution ( being the protection of the rights of its citizens ) meaningless. Of course a well founded system of government will be able to make the appropriate changes when the time comes without eroding the mentioned basic freedoms at least for awhile.
 Oh one more thing this might seem like I'm splitting hairs to some people but most western countries are really more like Republics than Democracy's. You might not be able to see the difference but trust me theres a big one.

..and to this republic for which it stands...

.... one nation under God.....

And God said that he put these people into power, and we shall submit to our authorities. And if you love God you will obey his commandments. So Phoenix, about those corrupt people in office, God put them there, and it's our duty as Christians to submit to government, no matter how bad they may seem to you. This sets an example to others, and may bring others into the faith. Be faithful, it's God's duty to judge and punish corrupt people in office, not ours. He basically said to submit, to authority, he will take care of the rest.

Now about what is right...
God gives people their rights, not the government. You don't have to beleive in God, it doesn't change the fact that he is indeed real, and his will is the only right will. The truth is not relative. I hate people who preach this. Truth itself, DOES NOT VARY, IT IS ABSOLUTE! The truth does not change because you don't beleive in it, for it's truth, and it's as solid as a rock. You can't just imagine truth away because you choose not to beleive in it. The concept of relative truth is the work of Satan himself, the most deceptive lie brought upon the world. Oh you're a buddist? Tough shit, nobody cares. I'm tired of people saying crap like, "What about the buddists and the hindus?" What about them? Oh well they're wrong. "By whose standards?" People like this are too afraid to put out their true feelings, because their politically correct buddies sipping their $6 frappicinos will think they are too single-minded. These are the same kind of people that write "he/she" in their writtings so not to offend the feminists. You know, I say screw them. You know what? It's bad to be too open-minded, I know this. You will fall into someone's heap of bullshit, not knowing it's bullshit because it "his truth", you'll keep digging yourself a hole and it will be too late once you realize that your in a cess pool, and you'll never be able to escape. My point, there's gotta be a point where you say, that's false, and this is truth. Not preach relative truth, which is a blatant lie. Call me arrogant, call me single-minded, call me an asshole. Sometimes it's good to be an arrogant asshole, it puts people in check, that way we'll have less morons in the world. People need to stop being so damn politically correct about everything. It's pissing me off.

That's a nice thought you got there. Nice altruistic line of thinking.

I do not do what I think is right. I do not know what is right. I do not profess to know better than anyone around me what is right. I do not profess to care about it more or less than anyone else.

I do not believe anyone when they say they know anything regarding theology, metafysics (or in most cases, even regarding politics). If anything, I will not fall into their 'heap of bullshit'.
I am not afraid of being called anything, nor am I afraid of admitting my honest ignorance. I do not care if one thinks me 'weak' or 'too open-minded' by this problematic and doubtlessly pointless stance.

"Truth" is a word and I am not afraid to admit I have not the faintest idea what this word means, how its meaning has changed throughout the ages and what we can do with it or indeed what it does to us. The same goes for "knowledge". (For that matter, why would a rock, ever exposed to erosion, be seen as solid?) I am not afraid to call anyone who thinks they do know what meaning these words have, and know it with certainty, foolish. Likewise for those who think it is they who use the words, and that it is in no means the other way around. I call them foolish because of my views on this matter, and I do not pretend that I have knowledge beyond these convictions to support I call them so.

I do not hold this position for any pragmatical reason, because I am not convinced that the use of anything is all important. I do not believe we can or should hang on to any specific tradition, standards or morals. I do not believe I have a right to live, nor a plight to give up or keep my life for anything. I do not believe the convictions of others, but will never pretend to be able to make decisions about these matters for them. I do, partly therefore, see the practical use of a social contract and the cultural value of tradition - but I do not pretend to know why either should convince anyone of anything.

(1) "You don't have to believe in God, he is real without you believing him."
(2) "God does not exist, it does not matter whether or not you believe in anything."

Both are pure speculation. Nothing is proved - and I believe nothing regarding this can be proved. I see no purpose in promoting either: preaching to the choir acquires nothing and no sane person will ever be swayed by an 'argument' like that.
God is dead. God is real. God is nothing. These are empty gestures, not relevant to anything in this thread, as far as I'm concerned. So, for me, it does nothing that anything is said to be given by God, fate, Allah or pure chance, when politics are discussed.

I don't know if this makes a difference or not, but those words weren't even part of the original pledge. They weren't added until the 1950s.

Besides that, I don't think God put anyone anywhere.. that shows a sign of manipulation which goes against his own concept of free will. He lets people do their own thing with their own thoughts.. if those thoughts are guided by his Word, then all the happier. He did tend to lash out in the Old Testament, and even still.. the people lived their own lives. He did seem to calm down a bit since then tho. (Or maybe he's still lashing out at times... Pompeii.. Hurricane Katrina.. never know).

Tabun: (about the existence/nonexistence of God)I agree. 100%

Tabun: I agree there also. :slippy_thumb:

Washu, I suggest you read this:


That is from the US Declaration of Independence.  These were God-fearing men who outright rebelled against their government.  So you could say this modern US government  is the product of people who defied the will of the government of their time.  How can it be legitimate then, if we were to apply your line of thinking here?

As for people submitting to the laws of the land, that is all fine and good, I have no problem with that - unless and until the laws become oppressive and unjust.  You also forget that THIS government - that is, the government of the United States of America is a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.  This is not a kingdom, nor an empire, nor a dictatorship (as much as the Bush-haters might think it is right now).  The people, the citizenry, according to the US Constitution are the authority in this country.  The leadership are elected by the citizenry.  Therefore, in THIS country, God has empowered the people to choose representatives.  The people are the rulers, not some bureaucrats in Washington.  You're familiar with the term "public servent"?  These people are elected to serve you, not to rule you.  That is what is different with America.

You've fallen into the trap of legalism.  Do Christians still live under the Law?  Or was the Law not fulfilled in Christ?  Do we not now live under Grace, until the Age of Grace is fulfilled?  Why is it that we, as Christians, have to constantly tell each other "You're not living right and here's why!"  We all have the same book.  We all can read its pages, and see what God intended for us.  If you wish to read the New Testament like a rulebook, I cannot stop you, but do not expect everyone to abide by your interpretation.  I know quite well the difference between right and wrong, so do not fear for me out of compassion or concern.  As for authority, I am a law unto myself.  It is up to me to decide what I will and will not do, and to whom I will and will not listen.  Nobody rules over me, nobody lords over me.  I was free before man walked this earth, and will be free the day it is scorched with fire.  If I submit myself to any authority it is because I choose to, and for no other reason.  My own authority comes from the Almighty, and it is to His will and His alone that I bend mine.  I will render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but I am God's so I will render myself only unto Him.  I will defy with wrath and vengeance any who try to claim authority over me, or try to impart on me what I must or must not do.  That is my law, the law of fire.

Now I would ask you to consider what your goals are in this life.  As a Christian, what is it you desire most?  What do you strive for?  Do you strive for the salvation of souls, or do you strive to get people to agree with you?  Is winning an argument more important than showing compassion?  The word compassion is a complex word.  It is similar to the word companion, and also has within it the word passion.  At its root, you could say it is passionate concern for others.  What is your passion?  What do you find worth fighting for, worth standing up for?  I can tell you mine at least.  I strive against evil, against the devil and his demons.  I oppose them because this is my calling, it is what God has given me power to do.  By doing so, I help to lesson the influence of evil on people's lives so that they may more freely choose to follow God.  That freedom is the most important gift second only to salvation itself that God has given every creature - the right to choose out of love to follow God, or not.  It is my desire to see no creature suffer.  I cannot bear to watch suffering of any kind.  Why then should I desire that any might, through any inadvertant actions on my part, choose a path that would turn them away from God, and suffer eternally in outer darkness?  If they choose it of their own accord I cannot help that, but I would do everything I can to encourage them to see why accepting Christ is the better way.  The best way I can think of doing that is to set a good example.  Sometimes I like to rant and squawk and get my feathers ruffled, I can't help that, but there are more times than not that I hold my tongue.  Experience in life will teach you that one unkind word is all it takes to sour someone toward you, and it takes much effort to bring them back into favor.  It would be foolish arrogance of me to think I am capable of "saving" anyone.  Only Christ ever saved anyone, but I can do my best to light the way, or at least try to respect what God intended for people.  I trust God in that He will do everything in a person's life to try to bring them into his fold.  Was that not what Christ died for?  Perhaps someone won't listen to me, but that doesn't mean I'll give up hope for them.[/color]

Tabun, check your PMs.



Now that this topic is totally derailed.....

I see your point, but you must understand, you submit to God, by submitting to authority.
I have a lot of crediability of this subject. I am a youth leader in my church's youth group. We did a series on submitting to authority. To quote the youth pastor's semon notes:

"Submission is not agreeing. When one agrees with the decision that he is called to submit to, he does not really have to submit in any way. By definition, submission is doing something one has been asked to do that he would not do if he had his own way. (2) Submission is not just outward obedience. It includes that, but also involves obedience from the heart. It is a wholehearted giving-up of one's own desires. (3) Submission is not conditional. We submit to authority, not because the one in authority deserves it, but because the authority comes from God; therefore, we are in reality submitting to God."

Fisrt Peter pointed his readers to the issue of authority. They were subjects of Rome, none of them in positions of power within the Empire. Most were employees of employers. Most suffered injustice at the hands of these authorities. Some persecution was movivated by greed and immorality; some was the result of their Christian faith.

When you're treated unfairly, it's hard to be godly. But such a time is a strategic opening for the gospel:

On Submitting to Authorities from 1 Peter Chapter 2 Vereses 13-17
 "Submit yourselves," the quoted text begins. This is a command, it's plural, applying to all.... no exceptions.

Why is this? "for the Lord's sake." The authorities are established by God: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities. for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities, that exist have been established by god." (Romans 13:4-5)

We are to submit to authority, not because the authority has earned our submission, but because the Lord directs us to do so. Out of love for our Lord, we serve.

We are directed to submit "to every authority instituted amoung men" (1 Peter 2:13). No exeptions are given. God's word is clear and practical: "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servents, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him. If you owe taxes, pay taxes: if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor; then honor." (Romans 13;6-7)

This is why it is important to submit and serve out authorites: "It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men" (1 Peter 2:25)

We should expect "ignorant talk of foolish men." We will get rid of any more slander of our faith more by actions rather than words.

"In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak malicously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." (1Peter 3:15-17)

"Live as free men," Peter encouraged people living under the great burden of Roman oppression. We can choose to live in freedom spirtually, even if we are not allowed to circumstantially, but "do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil." Liberty is not a license to rebel incessantly. We are saved so we can serve.

Peter's readers were by force of circumstance the servants of Rome and not of God. They could choose to serve God and not Rome, spirtually.

Suffer... For the will of God:
"It is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of god." (1 Peter 2:19-20) This is Peter speaking to Christian servents and slaves, whose authorities were repressive. We should expect unjust suffering. "Blessed are you, when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." (Matthew 5:11) Bear up under such suffering and persecution because you are  "conscious of God"  (1 Peter 2:19b)

If You are punished, be sure that your punishment is not deserved for wrongdoing. Rather, "if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God." (1Peter 2:20b)  Such suffering must be endured, for Peter's readers could not end it. Any unjust suffering is seen and rewarded by the Father.

Jesus's suffering was unjust and innocent. Jesus entrusted himself to God's justice and judgement, as we can.

So our Lord asks nothing of us that he has not first done. He submitted to authority, unjust punishment, and a slave's tortured death. He lived in the power and character of God so fully that others glorified God because of him. (Read Matthew 27-54) The Lord wants us to do the same.

So what am I saying?
Our founding fathers, if they were such "god fearing men". Would of known what God damandeth, and would have followed through. Which is that is to submit to authority, which they did not. They started a war that costed thousands of lives, and look where the governement is leaning back to. Repression, because our founding fathers did not do things God's way. God does not bless people when they are disobediant. Even if they did not know this, ignorance is not an excuse. I am a realist. I read the Bible, is says plain as day to submit to your authorities. I obey. I am not perfect, I am human, but I am going to try my hardest to be despite the fact I never will be.  There is no interpretation needed here. It's pretty black and white: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Romans 13:1) I do this out of love for Him. It is not my duty to battle with the Devil, for I cannot do it alone. This is why we have a Bible, to use it as a tool, as a weapon. It is our sword according to the Bible. You must use every part of it. So Phoenix, if you want to battle demons and Satan, you will submit to authority, as God himself commandeth.

I know exactly how you feel. You must let your reason overcome your zeal. I make the mistake of not doing this often, and thats how I get negative reactions out of people like what just happened to me. I know you don't like to watch people suffer, it sadens me as well, but the Word says "to endure the suffering".

Your authority comes from the Almighty, and the Almighty says to submit to your authorities. In the days of Rome, there was more opression and tyranny, than the U.S. Government has, and the Chirstians at that time lived happy, spirit fulled lives, because they obeyed God, by submitting to authority. You can't deny God's will. I had to realize this when I debated this with my pastor for a while. Now I understand His will even more.

I do not consider the topic derailed in any sense that makes it a less interesting discussion. I can't discuss along the lines of the last few posts though -- one needs a basic level of agreement before that becomes possible. Do not let that detain you to discuss political-theology or theological-politics (although I don't consider myself in any position to be able to stop it ;)), just count me out.

I will also take a back seat on this one... but will continue to read none-the-less.

Pho: All governments are dictatorships to a certain degree. Some populations get to pick and choose their dictatorships every couple of years, but I digress. Those who are put in charge of making the decisions by the people are open to corruption, and those who embrace corruption will do whatever it takes to a: stay in power, and b: not get found out, hence propositions like the one under discussion. This is why I agree with you. I sincerely doubt that anything like this is "for our own good", rather than the good of those holding the cards. Apathy is a terrible, terrible thing, and that is why ...

... Washu: I, as a free-thinking individual, refuse to submit to any authority capable of putting such oppressive principles into practice. I would like to think that God could make exceptions for those individuals who know that they're being mistreated or lied to by those whom they chose to serve them.

Scalliano:  Governments in practice are all tyrannical to some degree.  I understand the nature of corruption, and how power and corruption go hand in hand.  I'm merely speaking of how the US government was founded, and upon what principles.  I am quite aware that it functions differently in practice.  If it functioned the way the founders intended, we would have no need of this topic. ;)

Washu:  I understand your position, and why you feel compelled to say to me what you do.  I also do not doubt what you say about your experience and credibility.  I do not seek to undermine either.  However, I too have my own experience and credibility.  What you may not understand is my situation is rather unique as it applies to this discussion.  You see I do have authority myself, and I am bound in service by the authority that I hold.  It is not authority by or over men, nor under them;  it is apart from man.  I will not submit to the authority of men regardless of the principles of which you speak for reasons I am not at liberty to discuss.  I do respect those who hold authority, or rather I should say, I respect the position which they hold.  I do not have to respect the individuals if they be corrupt, nor the decisions they make if they be unjust.  I can and will oppose such.

Do not mistake what I say as promoting lawlessness among men.  I am, by my nature, a lawful creature and I respect law even when I disagree with it.  Maybe this is doing what you are asking of me anyway, I have been known to have heated disagreements over issues of semantics, but I digress...  I do believe that every citizen should obey the law within reason.  I saw within reason because there are times where laws are broken out of desperation, necessity, and quite frankly accident.  Many will say that ignorance of the law should not be an excuse, or that the law should be absolute, but mercy demands flexibility in the application of the law and of punishment.  Human laws are absurdly complex, and it is unrealistic to expect every citizen to understand every law on the books.  If it were so, there would be no need for lawyers.  Even the bible speaks of provision for those who do not have the law and who do not know it.  It certainly speaks of those who cannot keep it.  Our God is a forgiving God.  Now where the law conflicts with one's freedom to worship God, which it does in this situation (we're back on topic, yay!) then the individual has a duty to put God ahead of man.  Should this land become Muslim, and you forced to obey the laws of Islam, which would you choose, to obey the law of the land, or the law written in your heart?  What of lands where religion is forbidden?  That is a choice millions of Christians have to make around the world, risking death should they be caught.  Do not forget that the prophet Daniel defied the law of Babylon that forbade him from worshiping the Lord, yet the Lord sustained him in the den of lions and the fiery furnace.  It is up to the believer to discern when a law must be broken, and punishment risked, in order to worship God.  This woman being arrested simply for praying on a sidewalk is, to me, no different than what Daniel did, though the risk to her be much smaller of course.

Remember also that no man could keep the laws that God gave to the Israelites.  All have broken the law, and so therefore all are condemned by the law.  The laws of God exist to show man his transgressions.  God put mercy ahead of the law, and above it.  He knew nobody could keep his laws when He wrote them.  Salvation was in Christ fulfilling God's law and taking the place of the condemned.  If you intend to live under the law, you will die under the law.  You must also keep the entire law, from birth until death, without transgression to be called guiltless.  A lot of Christians love to quote from Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, failing to understand that the law was given to the Jew, and not the Gentile, and also that if one lives by the law one must keep the entire law without exception.  This includes all the sabbaths, all the feasts, all the fasts, all the animal sacrifices for atonement, all the rules about uncleanness, and so forth.  You cannot pick and choose if you're going to live by the law, or use the law to dictate to others what their behavior should be.  It is all, or nothing.  Christ only gave two commandments in the New Testament:  To love thy God with all thy heart, and to love thy neighbor as theyself.  People can't even do that, how can you expect someone to obey every law given to the Jews, or every common law in society?

Something else you are not grasping here is the concept of what government is and what it is for.  You speak of authority as being given by God to those in power.  Authority comes in many forms.  This country was founded on the principle that rights are given by God directly to the people, and that government should exist to secure those rights.  If God sets up and takes down powers at his will, then He also set up this land.  How he set up this land is His concern, but by what you said, that this land was founded in disobedience, you show you have missed one important thing.  Without America, the Nazis could not have been defeated, nor could Israel have risen from its ashes and become a nation again after having been scattered to the four corners of the Earth.  England would have lost the war, and it was England and America that provided the mechanism for the mass migration of Jews to the area of Palestine.  It was the holocaust that provided the impetus to leave Europe.  However, without America the holocaust against the Jews would have continued unabated, and would have spread througout Europe as a fire spreads through a storehouse of grain.  Yet, God said He would gather His people from all nations into their own land.  If America had not become a nation as it did, prophecy could not have been fulfilled, and God would have been made a liar since there would BE no nation of Israel today.  You KNOW that is impossible for God to lie, therefore this land of America, founded in an act of treason, was set up by God's will.  It may very well fall by God's will, who can say?  Perhaps He gave power and authority to those Founding Fathers.  Perhaps He used them to diminish the authority of the King of England.

There are times when governments and people with authority abuse their power.  In this case they are breaking the law themselves.  The corrupt have no authority from God, for all corruption and evil has only one master.  Is the devil not to be opposed?  Should man submit to the authority of Satan?  Should man submit to laws requiring him to sin?  God forbid!  There are many churches, many denominations that put obedience as a primary concern.  Obedience to God and to the law must be voluntary to have any meaning.  Coercing someone with force or guilt only breeds resentment and a rebellious heart.  Obedience based in love, a desire to do good, and a righteous heart reflect a godly nature.  Obedience based in love brings about peace.  You cannot force someone to love, it must come from within.  A person must be awakened to this, and only the Holy Spirit can bring about this awakening.  Perhaps this is something you have yet to learn, I do not know, but I do know that God allowed even his angels to rebel if they so chose.  He did not force their obedience, but those who remained loyal did so of their own volition.  They stayed because they love the Lord.

Where a lot of Christians make a terrible mistake is in second guessing God, or thinking they know what His will is.  Is He not inscrutible?  Are his ways not above ours?  Is he not the great Mystery of Mysteries?  It is arrogance to presume we know God's will and can dictate it to other believers, and non-believers alike concerning their individual lives.  God gave every living thing consciousness and free will, and part of that will includes discernment.  Is it not written that we are to discern, that we will judge even angels?  Why then do you not trust me to discern the Word of God myself and apply it to my own life?  You do not know what God intends for me anymore than I know what He intends for you.  You do not know what tasks He has given me in my life, or what authority, or what burdens.  I do not know what he has given to you, hence my asking you questions instead of making assumptions in my previous post.  Yes, I have suffered, and far greater than you know.  That is my burden to bear, and I will bear it so long as I am cursed to breathe the air on this earth, and so long as the Lord requires it of me.  I will not, however, lord over someone and tell them "You have to do this because it says X in the bible."  Rubbish!  I can tell people what I *think* they should do, but that's my opinion.  I can quote scripture from here to eternity, but it's still up to the individual to decide what to do with it, if anything.  Nobody has to do anything I say, nor do I have to do anything anyone else says.  I can choose to do what someone asks if I wish, but only if I wish.  People can choose to listen to me, or to not listen.  You can choose to think me dead wrong if you like, and you can choose to try to persuade me to think differently, as you have tried above.  You could also choose to see things my way, or at least understand that trying to change my mind with forceful words is like yelling at a forest and expecting it to burst into flames simply because you say it should.  You'd only be wasting your breath in both cases.  I can be persuaded with good points and flawless logic from time to time though, but even then I'm about as stubborn as they come. :)