Progressive government is the antithesis of a biblically based republic.

Daniel Martinovich · Sunday at 2:19 PM

There are two main evidences to this. The Bible and history or nature. We’ll start with what is the easy way to learn it. The Bible. After the time of martial law during Moses and Joshua. They established Ancient Israel as a free republic. Although it may seem a little odd, this due to God’s purpose in separating the nation from others to bring the world his word and the Messiah though it. The Mosaic law was Ancient Israel’s constitution. There was no provision in it for imposed central government. It had 12 states, and each was to be self-governing. Their constitution said to choose or elect wise leaders to lead each state in keeping the law. Then there was the Levitical tribe of priests who had parcels in each state who were the pastors of their day. Tithes which were in essence voluntary taxes were to be given to them for their support since they were not given enough land to support themselves. But the taxes were not collected. They were voluntarily given, and the priesthood had no physical authority. They could only influence the public. Their military was 100% militia each state controlled its own militia. To show how loose or free to choose their own way this confederation of tribes was in relation to the nation. The tribe of Benjamin went total Sodom and Gomorrah at one point. This was hardly a theocracy as some would mistakenly compare it to theocratic monarchies.

Within this structure God would supernaturally ordain judges to influence or lead the tribes in time of war or oppression by foreign armies and bring them back to God when they went astray. The republic lasted 400 years. Then they decided they no longer wanted the personal responsibility necessary to maintain a free republic and voted God out and a king in. They said they wanted a king to fight their battles for them. God warned them sternly that their kings would enslave them, but they refused to listen. Take heed to this you Christian nationalists who desire a “Christian prince” to fight your spiritual and physical battles for your nation. This is the pattern upon which the United States was founded but adjusted to fit its circumstances. 13 independent states with their own constitutions, that like the mosaic law laid out the people’s religious responsibilities necessary for remaining free republics. You can see these religious responsibilities highlighted in each state constitution on this web page- The Original State Constitutions. Like Ancient Israel these responsibilities relied on personal religious devotion and also like ancient Israel’ s Levitical priesthood, pastors were to help this along. In fact some states required towns to hire a pastor of their denominational choice and build a meeting house for religious instruction. Public education was religious in nature, including university level and required by the states but run by churches. Almost every state had a favored Christian denomination, but all allowed complete religious freedom for all Christians. This freedom extended to super minorities of other religions but generally they were not allowed to hold law making offices.

Finally, just like Ancient Israel's republic had supernaturally ordained judges to bring revival, awaking or divine truth that had grown dim to light. The USA operated on the same level. America’s judges were the George Whitfield’s, the Wesley’s, the Jonathon Edwards and Charles Finney’s. Just to name a few. This is so important in understanding the difference between biblically ordained republics versus progressive government. Our government in the states or federally were never given the power to determine truth. In fact, the founders argued prolifically against government ever being able to have that power. Self-evident truth as stated in the Declaration of Independence was already determined in the Bible. It was to be ascertained by the people themselves, and government was ordained to do nothing more than to protect the process though which people could ascertain the truth themselves. This is precisely what Jesus meant when he stated his kingdom was not of this world. Truth cannot be imposed from the top down the way the world kingdoms operated. This was due to human beings being so easily corrupted by the love of money and Government is the easiest way for people to get their hands on other folks money. If government is given that kind of power it will not be truth they are imposing upon the population anyway. It will be lies that empower rulers and give them access to the fruits of the labor of the people. Progressive government turns a biblically based republic on its head. Government determines truth and imposes it. Its tendency is towards corruption exists simply because government now has the power to do so.
After this, these 13 states formed central government for two specific purposes. National defense and keeping peace between the states regarding trade, currency and other interstate relations. Before the states signed on to this a Bill of Rights was added to the federal constitution that greatly restricted its power over the states. First and foremost was the 1st amendment that deals with the most important part of what would be a successful republic. It’s religion, the religion of and about Jesus Christ and its relation to human government which really needs contextualized into the time 1st amendment was written rather than within the context of today’s popular thought. In the world the colonies just fought a war against. The state controlled religion through state run churches. It was not a matter of “the church” running the state which is how it is portrayed in modern education as propaganda. These state-run churches were created to control Christianity. A witness to this fact is that up until Northern Europe won the right in war for the general population to posses and own Bibles. The personal possession of the Bible without the specific permission of the authorities in supposedly Christian theocratic monarchies was illegal. It led to unauthorized preaching that if caught often led to the death penalty. It did not matter what the hierarchies in these state-run churches wanted because some of those hierarchies wanted the people to own Bibles. The state did not. The rulers had read it. They, just like every communist dictatorship that arose in the modern world understood the Bible in the hands of the general public was a threat to their rule. They were correct about this and history sure bears witness to it. Due to the commercial printing press that arose right when the Roman Empire finally fell in 1453 AD. Bibles began to be illegally mass produced making it far to difficult for the authorities to keep up with it. A Bible reading public led to the Dutch Republic where Bible ownership and reading along with the personal possession of a firearm was required for political participation. Yet right across the border you could still get burned at the stake for getting caught with an unauthorized Bible. The thinking that developed due to a Bible reading public led to the development and establishment of a free world and while that thinking was still developing, it migrated north America.

In North America the Bible was the basis of all public education. It was the main course of study and everything else surrounded it. It remained like this until progressivism began to get a foothold in the early 20th century. At that point the progressive movement started to chip away at public educations use of the Bible in non-sectarian public education. Their crowning achievement came in the 1960’s when in defiance of the 1st amendment a bastardized reading of the 14th amendment was used by a progressive supreme court declared itself, actually declare the state ruler, over the religious views of the people and their states. Republican led states should have immediately defied this ruling, and still should today. However, my assumption is since the courts had after one hundred years of effort by the Republican party to pass civil rights laws finally started to rule in favor of those efforts. Republicans did not want to upset the apple cart of actually being able to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments on states who were violating them. So, in my opinion, settled for allowing judicial supremacy over the religious\political views of the people. But as we can now all see, this came with a horrendous cost. You see, the progressive ideology, no matter how it is presented, as democracy or whatever. makes the state supreme. State supremacy is simply not possible when a population is intimately aware of the contents of the Bible. Hence the reason for all dictatorships, kings, emperors to keep it from the public. Progressive government which is by its very nature is corrupt due to its violation of the laws of nature and natures God has and will continue to try to keep the public an ignorant as possible about an accurate understanding of the Bibles teachings. And by the way will quote it extensively in a nation where it has influence for purely political advantageous reasons. They all have. So now we'll look at the 1st amendment within the context it was written rather than the context a progressive supreme court gave it that has now been popularized by progressive dominated public education systems.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Continued in the next comment or go to link.

Progressive Government Verses Biblically Based Republics

Progressive government is the antithesis of a Biblically based republic.

wordservice.org

Daniel Martinovich · Sunday at 2:22 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress (meaning the federal government) shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

All thirteen states had Christian teachings, prohibitions and requirements in their state constitutions. All of them where non sectarian in nature. The prohibition in the 1st amendment applied to the federal government. #1. To not found a national state church that was run by the government to lord over the states and their religious principles. #2 is covered in number #1. The feds could not found a church that prohibited free Bible reading and Bible preaching Christianity like Europe had done. Funny thing about progressive dominated public education loves to talk about the colony’s objection to taxation without representation. But fails to mention the king of England arresting “unlicensed” (mostly Baptist) preachers. Or his imposition of slavery on all the colonies when some of them, led by Christianity, wanted it banned. Now compare this to what the federal government has now done. It has used the 14th amendment to ban the second half of the first sentence. The federal government now prohibits the free exercise of the nations Christianity in the public square, in politics. It basically has confined it to the four corners of a church building. Now people are going to say that is an exaggeration. It isn’t when you understand the Bibles specific political ideology of limited government which take massive amounts of political activity to accomplish. How convenient it has been for progressive government to claim this law or that law or this policy is “unconstitutional' because its basis is in religious principle. Then out of the other side of their mouths claim the growth, size and scope of a kleptocratic government is demanded by the Bible to “feed the poor.” Real, Bible based Christianity is political, that is why both tyrants and kleptocrats fear if, and seek to crush it.

or abridging the freedom of speech,

How is the Gospel spread and the Bible taught? How is the influence of the kingdom of God spread? By free speech. There are no other means except the next phrase of the 1st amendment. Before you cite the perversion of this amendment which would call porn or sedition free speech. Remember, this amendment is about religion, it starts off being about religion. It does not change course in the middle of the sentience and start addressing other subjects. That leads us to:

or of the press;

Just like everything else about this amendment. This has been perverted to mean something it was never addressing. There was no such thing back then as a professional “press.” Newspapers were still a novelty back then. 70% of printing press operations were job work, books, pamphlets, bills, almanacs. Only 30% of the press work went to publishing a weekly newspaper and only one was dedicated to only a newspaper. (shut down by the British.) The press referred to here is the printing press. which was the realm of religion and politics born of religion. The very first thing that was printed on a commercial printing press were Bibles. It was the printing press that gave geographical area’s the Bible before the authorities had the chance to nip the problem in the bud. Tracts and books were hand or wood block printed in the tens of thousands per year in Europe. This immediately morphed into millions with the advent of the commercial press. There were wars fought over these presses and what they were printing. The king of England tried to regulate and censor them prior to the revolution. Look at it this way. When the internet first became a popular international tool. There were only a handful of professional news organizations that were birthed by it. The totality of the content was the general public and professional organizations not in the news business. This is hardly imaginable to those who were not using it back in the 1990’s. But now it is hardly recognizable as the publics means of expressing their religious and political ideas. It is dominated by media corporations and governments who have and still are trying to shut down the publics voice. Well this scenario is very similar to the what went on with the printing press in early America. It was the publics, the churches means of influencing the nation. Later taken over and dominated by by corporate media and government control.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Most assembling was done in local church buildings were politics and Christianity were one and the same in early America. I’m not saying no one met in pubs to talk treason. But pubs were not singled out as illegal assemblies and churches most of which were underground had been for 2000 years.

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is one of the oldest tyrannical political tricks in the book. Just not allowing any dissent from the narrative and demonizing it to the public. Look at how the Covid coup and the 2020 election was run to see it American style.

If you read this I hope it provokes some thought on the subject about what bible based Christianity should be seeking to accomplish politically. Not a theocracy but government limited to the things it does best and totally restricted from doing the things it should not be involved in. Maybe the idea of limited government should be recognized by the courts as based in religion. Because it is. Today however we face all kinds of challenges to this. First by progressives and the kleptocratic state they have unknowingly created. Then the challenge from what I would call the European right that wants a “Christian prince” to fight their battles for them. Right now this is more of an astroturfed movement but it could emerge into something larger. But mostly, our challenge comes directly form the very people who should be actively participating in the reduction of the size and scope of our government. Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians. Why? Because stranger than fiction, right along side the rise of the progressive movement rose the popularization of end of the world teachings. Teachings that spiritually rob the true believer of the incentive to dedicate their lives and make the sacrifices necessary to dominate the nations politics. Not talking about just voting here. I’m talking about occupying the nations elected and appointed offices. Had they not left off that duty to their creator, progressives would never have been able to fill that vacuum and remake this government into something it was never intended to be. Now we are fighting a monstrosity that is spending trillions of our tax dollars opposing any reform of reversal of the size and scope of government. So in reality. It has to start with the churches. False teaching and false prophecy by its very nature will lead a people into self-destruction. That is what end of the world teachings of spiritual and scriptural novices turned into tradition has done.

Richard T · Monday at 12:17 AM

Daniel Martinovich said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress (meaning the federal government) shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

All thirteen states had Christian teachings, prohibitions and requirements in their state constitutions. All of them where non sectarian in nature. The prohibition in the 1st amendment applied to the federal government. #1. To not found a national state church that was run by the government to lord over the states and their religious principles. #2 is covered in number #1. The feds could not found a church that prohibited free Bible reading and Bible preaching Christianity like Europe had done. Funny thing about progressive dominated public education loves to talk about the colony’s objection to taxation without representation. But fails to mention the king of England arresting “unlicensed” (mostly Baptist) preachers. Or his imposition of slavery on all the colonies when some of them, led by Christianity, wanted it banned. Now compare this to what the federal government has now done. It has used the 14th amendment to ban the second half of the first sentence. The federal government now prohibits the free exercise of the nations Christianity in the public square, in politics. It basically has confined it to the four corners of a church building. Now people are going to say that is an exaggeration. It isn’t when you understand the Bibles specific political ideology of limited government which take massive amounts of political activity to accomplish. How convenient it has been for progressive government to claim this law or that law or this policy is “unconstitutional' because its basis is in religious principle. Then out of the other side of their mouths claim the growth, size and scope of a kleptocratic government is demanded by the Bible to “feed the poor.” Real, Bible based Christianity is political, that is why both tyrants and kleptocrats fear if, and seek to crush it.

or abridging the freedom of speech,

How is the Gospel spread and the Bible taught? How is the influence of the kingdom of God spread? By free speech. There are no other means except the next phrase of the 1st amendment. Before you cite the perversion of this amendment which would call porn or sedition free speech. Remember, this amendment is about religion, it starts off being about religion. It does not change course in the middle of the sentience and start addressing other subjects. That leads us to:

or of the press;

Just like everything else about this amendment. This has been perverted to mean something it was never addressing. There was no such thing back then as a professional “press.” Newspapers were still a novelty back then. 70% of printing press operations were job work, books, pamphlets, bills, almanacs. Only 30% of the press work went to publishing a weekly newspaper and only one was dedicated to only a newspaper. (shut down by the British.) The press referred to here is the printing press. which was the realm of religion and politics born of religion. The very first thing that was printed on a commercial printing press were Bibles. It was the printing press that gave geographical area’s the Bible before the authorities had the chance to nip the problem in the bud. Tracts and books were hand or wood block printed in the tens of thousands per year in Europe. This immediately morphed into millions with the advent of the commercial press. There were wars fought over these presses and what they were printing. The king of England tried to regulate and censor them prior to the revolution. Look at it this way. When the internet first became a popular international tool. There were only a handful of professional news organizations that were birthed by it. The totality of the content was the general public and professional organizations not in the news business. This is hardly imaginable to those who were not using it back in the 1990’s. But now it is hardly recognizable as the publics means of expressing their religious and political ideas. It is dominated by media corporations and governments who have and still are trying to shut down the publics voice. Well this scenario is very similar to the what went on with the printing press in early America. It was the publics, the churches means of influencing the nation. Later taken over and dominated by by corporate media and government control.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Most assembling was done in local church buildings were politics and Christianity were one and the same in early America. I’m not saying no one met in pubs to talk treason. But pubs were not singled out as illegal assemblies and churches most of which were underground had been for 2000 years.

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is one of the oldest tyrannical political tricks in the book. Just not allowing any dissent from the narrative and demonizing it to the public. Look at how the Covid coup and the 2020 election was run to see it American style.

If you read this I hope it provokes some thought on the subject about what bible based Christianity should be seeking to accomplish politically. Not a theocracy but government limited to the things it does best and totally restricted from doing the things it should not be involved in. Maybe the idea of limited government should be recognized by the courts as based in religion. Because it is. Today however we face all kinds of challenges to this. First by progressives and the kleptocratic state they have unknowingly created. Then the challenge from what I would call the European right that wants a “Christian prince” to fight their battles for them. Right now this is more of an astroturfed movement but it could emerge into something larger. But mostly, our challenge comes directly form the very people who should be actively participating in the reduction of the size and scope of our government. Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians. Why? Because stranger than fiction, right along side the rise of the progressive movement rose the popularization of end of the world teachings. Teachings that spiritually rob the true believer of the incentive to dedicate their lives and make the sacrifices necessary to dominate the nations politics. Not talking about just voting here. I’m talking about occupying the nations elected and appointed offices. Had they not left off that duty to their creator, progressives would never have been able to fill that vacuum and remake this government into something it was never intended to be. Now we are fighting a monstrosity that is spending trillions of our tax dollars opposing any reform of reversal of the size and scope of government. So in reality. It has to start with the churches. False teaching and false prophecy by its very nature will lead a people into self-destruction. That is what end of the world teachings of spiritual and scriptural novices turned into tradition has done.

You make some good points on the balance of church and state. But the GOP and maga goes far beyond desiring state's rights. I have blogged in here about the use of immediate capital punishment to blow up boats and it is not particularily biblical. Critical Issues on Trump Policies in South America.

In all kinds of ways Trump and maga can be defined as progressive using your approach. For instance, the U.S. government now being the largest shareholder of Intel. This directly intervenes in the free market principles of "private ownership." Maga too violates Godly principles by continuing to increase the federal debt, and the use of Federal troops in the USA in state's where they are not wanted. Trump's heavy handed government policies have not freed up markets for energy, agriculture, ranching, crypto, etc. Though Trump has changed many policies within these areas, it is still prone to heavy government intervention.
Consider Trump's version of Shay's rebellion. In Shay's rebellion, the state of Massachusetts asked for help, but received none. Here we have Trump forcing states to receive help that have said they do not want it.
So in your defining progressiveness, Trump is impuned as well as democrrats. Your ideas are more in line with Reagan, who though not perfect, wanted to devolve more government responsibility to the state level. I know that I certainly applaud that.

The big elephant though in the room is what are your feelings about the consent of the governed as espoused by Locke and others? How can anyone push a Christian agenda for many states, that are no longer very interested in being a Christian state? Sure I wish too that the USA had more Christian influence, but the church has declined and in many states that are not interested in any specific set of Christian principles, including putting the bible at the center of education. You are right it has to start with churches. Repressive government forcing people into Christian thought seems doomed to failure and actually is not much different than what cultural neo-Marxists such as Gramsci called for.

I might argue too that without a safety net of health and welfare spending that America or any modern capitalist state has that the interruption would be quite dramatic and cause enough unrest that it would interrupt the usa or any nation's economy and system that some sofcial spending is now required.

America's maga movement will become a failure because it is based in politics and policies that nto only violate God's principles, but it does not start with the one thing that the bible suggests is needed - Humility. For lasting Godly, change, that is where it starts. There is no short cut as II Chronicles 7:14 and James 4:10 suggest.

I would note too your ideas of what freedom of the press are not backed up by evidence. Here is a more realistic view offerred in the words of Thomas Jefferson. “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Freedom of the press

Freedom of the press protects the right to gather information and report it to others. This vital freedom helps protect democracy.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

Daniel Martinovich · Monday at 7:42 PM

Richard T said:
You make some good points on the balance of church and state. But the GOP and maga goes far beyond desiring state's rights. I have blogged in here about the use of immediate capital punishment to blow up boats and it is not particularily biblical. Critical Issues on Trump Policies in South America.

In all kinds of ways Trump and maga can be defined as progressive using your approach. For instance, the U.S. government now being the largest shareholder of Intel. This directly intervenes in the free market principles of "private ownership." Maga too violates Godly principles by continuing to increase the federal debt, and the use of Federal troops in the USA in state's where they are not wanted. Trump's heavy handed government policies have not freed up markets for energy, agriculture, ranching, crypto, etc. Though Trump has changed many policies within these areas, it is still prone to heavy government intervention.
Consider Trump's version of Shay's rebellion. In Shay's rebellion, the state of Massachusetts asked for help, but received none. Here we have Trump forcing states to receive help that have said they do not want it.
So in your defining progressiveness, Trump is impuned as well as democrrats. Your ideas are more in line with Reagan, who though not perfect, wanted to devolve more government responsibility to the state level. I know that I certainly applaud that.

The big elephant though in the room is what are your feelings about the consent of the governed as espoused by Locke and others? How can anyone push a Christian agenda for many states, that are no longer very interested in being a Christian state? Sure I wish too that the USA had more Christian influence, but the church has declined and in many states that are not interested in any specific set of Christian principles, including putting the bible at the center of education. You are right it has to start with churches. Repressive government forcing people into Christian thought seems doomed to failure and actually is not much different than what cultural neo-Marxists such as Gramsci called for.

I might argue too that without a safety net of health and welfare spending that America or any modern capitalist state has that the interruption would be quite dramatic and cause enough unrest that it would interrupt the usa or any nation's economy and system that some sofcial spending is now required.

America's maga movement will become a failure because it is based in politics and policies that nto only violate God's principles, but it does not start with the one thing that the bible suggests is needed - Humility. For lasting Godly, change, that is where it starts. There is no short cut as II Chronicles 7:14 and James 4:10 suggest.

I would note too your ideas of what freedom of the press are not backed up by evidence. Here is a more realistic view offerred in the words of Thomas Jefferson. “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Freedom of the press

Freedom of the press protects the right to gather information and report it to others. This vital freedom helps protect democracy.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

Although I am a big Trump supporter. That is not what I am communicating. I'm communicating a very lost and hidden in darkness biblical doctrine on human government. Nor am I teaching that God will only work within this form of government. What I am teaching is this is God's best. Just like there are all kinds of church governments. God does not forsake his people just because they are part of an institution that does not perfectly reflect what the Bible has in mind for a church. There is God's best. There are some types of churches that God can barely do anything in and there is every point in between.

The easy to grasp point of this is that any form of government that makes the state supreme is dangerous, foolish, ignorant and in many cases downright evil. Jesus did not say his kingdom is not in this world. He said his kingdom is not of, as in like the kingdoms of this world. In that day and age, the governments of the world reflected nothing but the despotism of the supremacy of the state.

As far as my opinions about the free press. I'm not sure you are understanding my point. The newspapers of the day, pre bill of rights were basically larger pamphlets written by individuals with opinions who gained followings and paid printers to print their opinions every week. Just like social media today. It was not the "4th branch of government" that they view themselves as today. Newspapers as professional news gathering organization really came into being immediately after the founding of the nation. My whole point is that freedom of the press is the exact same thing as freedom of speech. Just like people have the divine right to speak, they also have the divine right to have their thoughts printed on a printing press and distributed as they see fit. Or, in today's world, published on the internet. Now because this developed into something far greater than anyone imagined. Does that mean it is wrong? No. It just needs perspective because it was the press. That is, the printing press that gave the world Bibles and Christian preachers and teachers pamphlets that empowered mankind to overthrow 7000 years of despotism. It was not a professional "press corps" that did this. In fact today. the professional press corp is the problem. not the solution.

Richard T · 2025-11-04T09:57:05-0600

Daniel Martinovich said:
Although I am a big Trump supporter. That is not what I am communicating. I'm communicating a very lost and hidden in darkness biblical doctrine on human government. Nor am I teaching that God will only work within this form of government. What I am teaching is this is God's best. Just like there are all kinds of church governments. God does not forsake his people just because they are part of an institution that does not perfectly reflect what the Bible has in mind for a church. There is God's best. There are some types of churches that God can barely do anything in and there is every point in between.

The easy to grasp point of this is that any form of government that makes the state supreme is dangerous, foolish, ignorant and in many cases downright evil. Jesus did not say his kingdom is not in this world. He said his kingdom is not of, as in like the kingdoms of this world. In that day and age, the governments of the world reflected nothing but the despotism of the supremacy of the state.

As far as my opinions about the free press. I'm not sure you are understanding my point. The newspapers of the day, pre bill of rights were basically larger pamphlets written by individuals with opinions who gained followings and paid printers to print their opinions every week. Just like social media today. It was not the "4th branch of government" that they view themselves as today. Newspapers as professional news gathering organization really came into being immediately after the founding of the nation. My whole point is that freedom of the press is the exact same thing as freedom of speech. Just like people have the divine right to speak, they also have the divine right to have their thoughts printed on a printing press and distributed as they see fit. Or, in today's world, published on the internet. Now because this developed into something far greater than anyone imagined. Does that mean it is wrong? No. It just needs perspective because it was the press. That is, the printing press that gave the world Bibles and Christian preachers and teachers pamphlets that empowered mankind to overthrow 7000 years of despotism. It was not a professional "press corps" that did this. In fact today. the professional press corp is the problem. not the solution.

Thanks for your response. I don't know the historic context of the press very well but it seems like the Jefferson quote reflects it was not like social media. But I guess it matters little, because the point is that thoughts and writings should not be prohibited, except slander. It seems you are arguing against the freedom of the professional press but I am not sure why? That even if the more modern interpretation is used, what is the harm? You want to regulate it more?

I think too with God overall the form of government is not as perhaps as important as the justice it serves. I certainly do not think God likes government to be self serving, corrupt or co-opted in ways that show favoritism to certain groups, races or classes. Anyway, I am glad you provoked my thoughts on this topic. By all means, I hope you continue to share your views.

Daniel Martinovich · 2025-11-04T18:31:24-0600

Richard T said:
Thanks for your response. I don't know the historic context of the press very well but it seems like the Jefferson quote reflects it was not like social media. But I guess it matters little, because the point is that thoughts and writings should not be prohibited, except slander. It seems you are arguing against the freedom of the professional press but I am not sure why? That even if the more modern interpretation is used, what is the harm? You want to regulate it more?

I think too with God overall the form of government is not as perhaps as important as the justice it serves. I certainly do not think God likes government to be self serving, corrupt or co-opted in ways that show favoritism to certain groups, races or classes. Anyway, I am glad you provoked my thoughts on this topic. By all means, I hope you continue to share your views.

No I’m not trying to regulate it. But it has tried to regulate us, the population and has used its influence to get the government to regulate us.

I guess I’m just trying to get folks to view the first ammendment in its entirety for what it was rather than the modern view of it.

Search

Search

Progressive government is the antithesis of a biblically based republic.

Daniel Martinovich

Friend

Progressive Government Verses Biblically Based Republics

More options

Daniel Martinovich

Friend

More options

Richard T

Well-Known Member

Freedom of the press

More options

Daniel Martinovich

Friend

Freedom of the press

More options

Richard T

Well-Known Member

More options

Daniel Martinovich

Friend

More options

Need help?

Similar threads

Progressive government is the antithesis of a biblically based republic.

Friend

​

Friend

Well-Known Member

Friend

Well-Known Member

Friend

Similar threads