Guns

[joanna1]

First off. America is a Republic, not a Democracy. .

Tuffguy with all due respect, you have the strangest encyclopedia I've ever come accross.
A democracy can be either a republic or a monarchy in my book. The USA are both a democracy and a republic, of the presidential variety.

 

[Tuffguy]

My mistake,,i got my Greek and Latin screwed up! Big deal.

America is not a republic and a democracy. The pledge of allegence makes no mention of democracy, only republic. It is mentioned several times in the Constitution also.

A pure democracy does not need a constitution, which governs all of our actions. In a democracy we could all vote directly to take away guns, and the next day it would be done. Our constitution protects us from ourselves.

 

[Suomipoika]

My mistake,,i got my Greek and Latin screwed up! Big deal.

America is not a republic and a democracy. The pledge of allegence makes no mention of democracy, only republic. It is mentioned several times in the Constitution also.

A pure democracy does not need a constitution, which governs all of our actions. In a democracy we could all vote directly to take away guns, and the next day it would be done. Our constitution protects us from ourselves.

Okay, not a dead serious thing! But you didn't really imagine all the democracies of the world as ruled by mobs, did you?

And, oh yes, America is a democracy. It's this easy to study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic ("In republics that are also democracies the head of state is appointed as the result of an election"). And yes, we do have a constitution in Finland, too. And we're a republic, too.

You should try and do your own studying first next time before calling China a democracy or something of that kind.And, for the record, China is a republic but not a democracy.

 

[joanna1]

My mistake,,i got my Greek and Latin screwed up! Big deal.

America is not a republic and a democracy. The pledge of allegence makes no mention of democracy, only republic. It is mentioned several times in the Constitution also.

A pure democracy does not need a constitution, which governs all of our actions. In a democracy we could all vote directly to take away guns, and the next day it would be done. Our constitution protects us from ourselves.

I believe you are confusing democracy and direct democracy (à la ancient Greece) . Democracy is the nature of the regime, it therefore exists by fact and needs no mention in the constitution.
Being a republic is relevant to it's organisation, and therefore it's essential that the constitution lays its foundations.

Direct democracy only remains in a few small states, like switzerland, and that's only on a local basis.
Democracy can translate itself into "direct" elections of the president (France, for instance), or "indirect" (the USA). In all cases, it's the people's vote that decides the leaders.
There's also a distinction between imperative mandates (where the elect are bound by the will of the people they represent) and non-imperative ones where the people vote in leaders who then make the decisions.
All the above are democracies.
Getting your latin and greek mixed up isn't an issue unless your understanding of the concept of democracy is based on it, which it appears to have been...and subsequently misled you in your argumentation.

 

[joanna1]

PS: re-the constitution. Britain is one of the few democraties that has no written constitution, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have one at all.

 

[Vigilante]

How seriously do you view the possibility of the people of America having to arm themselves for an armed conflict with their own government in today's world?

Basically zero at the moment. I'm no paranoia-drinking conspiracy theorist. But the preservation of our right to own firearms in this country is just as much in the interest of the future as it is the present. The 2nd Amendment is not for "the day that the dictator finally arrives," but "if the dictator arrives." If we sacrifice this right because tyranny seems merely unlikely, and several decades later the chips fall differently, we'll be biting our pillows. Twenty years before the Nazi occupation, who predicted Hitler's rise to power? Though always unlikely, it's not impossible that the same might happen in any country.

So what about "getting up in arms against the government" in the light of this God-breathed Scripture?

I, like you and everyone else on this forum, strive to obey two primary authorities: God and government. In the event that a tyrannical leader takes power in any country, we have basically two scenarios to look at:

1.) The tyrant outlaws prayer, reading of the Bible, public demonstrations of basic Christian values, the peaceful and private assembly of Christians for the purpose of teaching, worship, and other things.

2.) The tyrant leaves these alone, and instead outlaws other things that we enjoy but nonetheless are unrelated to our faith.

God requires that we do the things listed in scenario one. The tyrant requires that we don't. Obviously, we have a conflict of interests here. To obey one authority necessitates rebellion against the other. Since we cannot simultaneously obey both authorities we are commanded to obey in the Bible, we ask, "which authority do we side with?" And the answer is, of course, God.

All laws are eventually enforced at the barrel of a gun. If you choose in your actions to obey God and disobey the state, you must be able to defend yourself if you expect to live.

Now, if we're being honest, there is another alternative to choosing to obey God with guns blazing: choosing to obey God and accepting death. (You might say "you could accept imprisonment!" and you'd be right, but what happens when you continue your outlaw behavior in your prison cell? The history of tyrants hasn't painted a very merciful picture.) While this may sound like the right thing to do for some, it must be considered that your rebellion against the tyrant is done so in self-defense. This is a morally legitimate action. He has aggressed upon you first by seeking to apprehend you in your peaceful activities, and you have chosen to retaliate.

To those who question the validity of self-defense, do you also question the value of human life? That which is worth keeping is worth protecting. I can say very confidently that, if someone approached Peter from behind with a knife and attempted to stab him to death while Jesus was multiplying bread and fish, Peter would have done his best to fight him off. I doubt Jesus would have scolded him for it. Would He have told Peter after the scuffle, "You disappoint me. I told you never to use violence."? Of course not. Jesus' message was one of peace, not pacifism. Even Jesus Himself would not have accepted death if He knew it was prior to the timing of the Father.

This is my train of thought here:

1.) We are to obey God first, government second.
2.) We are to be peaceful, but as an affirmation of the value of human life, self-defense is included in this definition.
3.) When the requirements of God and state do not collide, we must obey both, no matter how unfair the state may seem. There is no Christian justification for the coup d'etat of a government that allows you to do the things that God has commanded you to do. Life sucks sometimes.
4.) When the requirements of God and state do collide, we must obey God.
5.) If, in our obedience to God, the state aggresses upon us, we are morally permitted to defend ourselves and our divine instructions.
6.) As swords were hundreds of years ago, so guns are today the most efficient means of issuing violence. As no one could defend himself against a sword without a sword himself, no one now can defend himself against a gun without a gun.
7.) If we, as peaceful, law-abiding citizens, are to have a realistic chance of preserving our freedom against the possibility of a religion-crushing tyrant, we require the lawful ownership of firearms to persist and prevail.


If there is a flaw in my reasoning in points 1-7, I'm all ears. I'm not pro-gun rights because I have some kind of blind gun love. I'm pro-gun rights because I think it's necessary. But if someone else can show my reasoning sour, I'd be more than happy to reexamine the situation.

 

[joanna1]

Vigilante, although I don't agree with your opinions, I do appreciate your attempts at rigourous and informed reasoning in order to defend your point of view... It enables constructive debate.
My personal response to your points about government is that dictatorship rarely establishes itself through force alone and would be unlikely to coming from a democracy. It establishes itself through indoctrination. First a suttle restriction of the freedom of the press, progressively transformed into propaganda, a lowering in the level of general education the people receive, ect... so everybody is willing to listen to the new leader. Some might argue the process is already well under way, yet noone has made use of their weapons to hold the government accountable for its words... and I'm scared that it's a phenomenon spreading beyond the USA. The new French president has elements of his educational policy (reducing the study of history, sciences at primary school level to focus on maths and reading) which I believe to be potentially dangerous, and he has also been involved in pressurizing the press.

 

[Suomipoika]

Thank you for an extensive reply, Viligante. A few comments..

1) First. To be honest, I find reading Romans 13 a little confusing. Because, if you want to take it literally, what it really literally says about the powers-that-be is that all of them are ordained by God and hence they all should be obeyed as if obeying God himself. "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God". All of them would also include the rules of evil dictators in world history, I don't think I need to list the names. It aslo includes the British rule in the times of the American revolution. It also includes any possible imagenary tyrant against whom you, the American people are keeping your ammo dry. And remember also, under whose earthly rule was Paul when writing the Epistle to Romans? Under the Roman Emperor, naturally. (Also, "give the emperor what is the emperors..") And the Roman empire ended up persecuting and executing Christians like we all know. And the martyrs were willing to die for their faith, in fact some of them even sought for such chances to 'give a strong witness'. And God's spirit lead the Church on. But now wait a minute. If the rule of emperor Nero was 'ordained by God', then why not also the rules of Hitler, Stalin & posse? ("For there is no power but of God..") And were they, too, only "executing God's wrath upon them that do evil"? I think I must give up that kind of literal reading of that passage..

One irony that I see about 'exploiting' Romans 13 could be typified by this example: I listened to a firey sermon about the capital punishment given by James MacDonald. He was very emphatically drumming into his listeners' heads the passages of Romans 13, "THE BIBLE... SAYS... THIS!!", referring to the powers-that-be and them 'wielding a sword'. He was trying to entrench into his listeners' minds that "this is a simple passage, just read it as it's written". But anyone who really thinks Romans 13 is a very simple passage, raise your hands. I, for one, think that with closer examination it really appears to be a very complex one.

What else... what would be my 'comment 2)'.. okay, this can do for now!

 

[Tuffguy]

Okay, not a dead serious thing! But you didn't really imagine all the democracies of the world as ruled by mobs, did you?

And, oh yes, America is a democracy. It's this easy to study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic ("In republics that are also democracies the head of state is appointed as the result of an election"). And yes, we do have a constitution in Finland, too. And we're a republic, too.

You should try and do your own studying first next time before calling China a democracy or something of that kind.And, for the record, China is a republic but not a democracy.

Doing a quick internet seach does not prove America is a democracy. I am not saying that we are not quickly turning into a democracy through, corrupt and loose policies, but rather we where not founded as a democracy.

We do appoint a head of state. However, that person does not have the power to make decisions based on what the majority wants. After we appoint that person, the responsiblities lie with congress, senate and the house, who are all sworn to up hold the constitution, not the majorities whims. The head of state is still held to that document and does not have supreme power.

Republics are governed by law and democracies are run by the will of the majority.

In a democracy, what happens to the rights of the minority? Poof! Gone.

 

[joanna1]

Doing a quick internet seach does not prove America is a democracy. I am not saying that we are not quickly turning into a democracy through, corrupt and loose policies, but rather we where not founded as a democracy.

We do appoint a head of state. However, that person does not have the power to make decisions based on what the majority wants. After we appoint that person, the responsiblities lie with congress, senate and the house, who are all sworn to up hold the constitution, not the majorities whims. The head of state is still held to that document and does not have supreme power.

You never cease to baffle me! Please read about my explanation about imperative, or not, mandates. It appears you are under the impression that in countries where the mandates are not imperative, one cannot speak of democracy. Yet democracy is a definition that regards the mode of election of the leaders, not the scope of action of those leaders once elected.... And again, you are reducing your definition of democracy to that of "direct democracy", which only represents a *tiny* proportion of democratic governance worldwide.

I can garantee you that the USA was founded as a democracy... Maybe Vigilante can explain, as you seem wary of of our euro explanations... I give up.

 

[Tuffguy]

"A Republic, if You Can Keep It"


By John F. McManus Published: 2000-11-06 06:00

On Constitution Day, September 17, 2000, President Bill Clinton spoke at the ground-breaking ceremony for a National Constitution Center at Independence Mall in Philadelphia. On that occasion the president remarked that the men who signed the Constitution “understood the enormity of what they were attempting to do: to create a representative democracy.” He heaped praise on “Washington, Franklin, Madison” for having created our form of government.
President Clinton turned the work of the Founding Fathers on its head. Washington, Franklin, Madison, and the other men who gave us independence and our form of government never set out to create a “representative democracy.” Those men recognized in democracy a danger to freedom just as deadly as that represented by the worst despotism. Mr. Clinton is not the first politician to claim the Founding Fathers established a democracy. But the fact that this error is widespread does not make it any more accurate.
Intent of the Founders

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” This exchange was recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry that was later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review. Yet in more recent years, Franklin has occassionally been misquoted as having said, “A democracy, if you can keep it.” The NRA’s Charleton Heston quoted Franklin this way, for example, in a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Mike Wallace that was aired on December 20, 1998.
This misquote is a serious one, since the difference between a democracy and a republic is not merely a question of semantics but is fundamental. The word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica — which means simply “the public thing(s),” or more simply “the law(s).” “Democracy,” on the other hand, is derived from the Greek words demos and kratein, which translates to “the people to rule.” Democracy, therefore, has always been synonymous with majority rule.
The Founding Fathers supported the view that (in the words of the Declaration of Independence) “Men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” They recognized that such rights should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be violated by an unrestrained king or monarch. In fact, they recognized that majority rule would quickly degenerate into mobocracy and then into tyranny. They had studied the history of both the Greek democracies and the Roman republic. They had a clear understanding of the relative freedom and stability that had characterized the latter, and of the strife and turmoil — quickly followed by despotism — that had characterized the former. In drafting the Constitution, they created a government of law and not of men, a republic and not a democracy.
But don’t take our word for it! Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, who — one after another — condemned democracy.
• Virginia’s Edmund Randolph participated in the 1787 convention. Demonstrating a clear grasp of democracy’s inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Constitutional Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy....”
• Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. “Democracy never lasts long,” he noted. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” He insisted, “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’”
• New York’s Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his state, thundered: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”
• James Madison, who is rightly known as the “Father of the Constitution,” wrote in The Federalist, No. 10: “... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.” The Federalist Papers, recall, were written during the time of the ratification debate to encourage the citizens of New York to support the new Constitution.
• George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention and later accepted the honor of being chosen as the first President of the United States under its new Constitution, indicated during his inaugural address on April 30, 1789, that he would dedicate himself to “the preservation … of the republican model of government.”
• Fisher Ames served in the U.S. Congress during the eight years of George Washington’s presidency. A prominent member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution for that state, he termed democracy “a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders.” On another occasion, he labeled democracy’s majority rule one of “the intermediate stages towards … tyranny.” He later opined: “Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes.” And in an essay entitled The Mire of Democracy, he wrote that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism.”
In light of the Founders’ view on the subject of republics and democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word “democracy,” but does mandate: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”
20th Century Changes

These principles were once widely understood. In the 19th century, many of the great leaders, both in America and abroad, stood in agreement with the Founding Fathers. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 echoed the sentiments of Fisher Ames. “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos,” he wrote. American poet James Russell Lowell warned that “democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.” Lowell was joined in his disdain for democracy by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that “democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.” Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans. “I have long been convinced,” he said, “that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” Britons Benjamin Disraeli and Herbert Spencer would certainly agree with their countryman, Lord Acton, who wrote: “The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
By the 20th century, however, the falsehoods that democracy was the epitome of good government and that the Founding Fathers had established just such a government for the United States became increasingly widespread. This misinformation was fueled by President Woodrow Wilson’s famous 1916 appeal that our nation enter World War I “to make the world safe for democracy” — and by President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1940 exhortation that America “must be the great arsenal of democracy” by rushing to England’s aid during WWII.


One indicator of the radical transformation that took place is the contrast between the War Department’s 1928 “Training Manual No. 2000-25,” which was intended for use in citizenship training, and what followed. The 1928 U.S. government document correctly defined democracy as:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct expression.” Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.​

This manual also accurately stated that the framers of the Constitution “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy … and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had formed a republic.”
But by 1932, pressure against its use caused it to be withdrawn. In 1936, Senator Homer Truett Bone (D-WA) took to the floor of the Senate to call for the document’s complete repudiation. By then, even finding a copy of the manual had become almost impossible. Decades later, in an article appearing in the October 1973 issue of Military Review, Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Parham explained that the Army ceased using the manual because of letters of protest “from private citizens.” Interestingly, Parham also noted that the word democracy “appears on one hand to be of key importance to, and holds some peculiar significance for, the Communists.”
By 1952 the U.S. Army was singing the praises of democracy, instead of warning against it, in Field Manual 21-13, entitled The Soldier’s Guide. This new manual incorrectly stated: “Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our Government will be organized and run....” (Emphasis in original.)
Yet important voices continued to warn against the siren song for democracy. In 1931, England’s Duke of Northumberland issued a booklet entitled The History of World Revolution in which he stated: “The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise.”
In 1939, historians Charles and Mary Beard added their strong voices in favor of historical accuracy in their America in Midpassage: “At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of ‘We, the People,’ in the preamble.... When the Constitution was framed no respectable person called himself or herself a democrat.”
During the 1950s, Clarence Manion, the dean of Notre Dame Law School, echoed and amplified what the Beards had so correctly stated. He summarized: “The honest and serious student of American history will recall that our Founding Fathers managed to write both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without using the term ‘democracy’ even once. No part of any of the existing state Constitutions contains any reference to the word. [The men] who were most influential in the institution and formulation of our government refer to ‘democracy’ only to distinguish it sharply from the republican form of our American Constitutional system.”

 

[Tuffguy]

Yet democracy is a definition that regards the mode of election of the leaders, not the scope of action of those leaders once elected.... And again, you are reducing your definition of democracy to that of "direct democracy", which only represents a *tiny* proportion of democratic governance worldwide.

That is an incorrect use of the word democracy. It is not a method of election, but a type of government.

 

[joanna1]

The problem is you are referring to fine political debate without a grasp of the basic concepts... Getting into philosophy before getting around the basic mecanisms.

Although the deep meaning of the word democracy can be debated in some higher spheres, on this thread the word is obviously being used to differenciate between a variety of basic political models, with the USA featuring prominently as a perfect example of democracy according to all the internationaly recognised conceptions of the word on the geopolitical scene.

The article you are quoting is interesting intellectualy - the kind that attempts to challenge a undisputable fact just for the fun a brainstorming. It plays on the origins of the word, and with historical references and contexts.

On the political level, the USA is undisputably a democracy. Philosophicaly, it can be argued differently, for the fun of it. However, your original argument that the lack of presence of the word in the constitution was any kind of indication with regards to its democratic status is entirely flawed, since once again a state is democratic in nature, not by name or by organisation.

 

[joanna1]

That is an incorrect use of the word democracy. It is not a method of election, but a type of government.

"A democracy is a country in which power is held by elected representatives" From the cambridge dictionary. In fairness there are other implications, but that's the basis of the basis.

"the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves " There that's a complete definition. Democracy does not refer to a style of government, but is determined by it's election process: either representatives or the people themselves (which is a sub-category of democracy, technicaly now called direct democracy) The only characteritic of the government is that it's based on the idea that people are free and equal.

 

[MezzaMorta]

Gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals do not care about the law, so what makes us think they are going to respect gun laws.

Taking away the means to self defenec is takeing away the right. Everyone should own a firearm to protect themselves, their family and their property. because when a criminal breaks into yoru house armed the police are not going to be able to get there before he murders you or your family.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

That is an incorrect use of the word democracy. It is not a method of election, but a type of government.

The word democracy is thrown around so much as to be utterly meaningless.

 

[Vigilante]

Joanna1 and Suomipoika, thanks for being polite and cordial. It's too bad that your attitudes are getting harder to find these days.

To reply...

My personal response to your points about government is that dictatorship rarely establishes itself through force alone and would be unlikely to coming from a democracy. It establishes itself through indoctrination. First a suttle restriction of the freedom of the press, progressively transformed into propaganda, a lowering in the level of general education the people receive, ect... so everybody is willing to listen to the new leader.

My points about government weren't in reference to how dictatorships are established. Obviously, they can be (and have been) established in myriad ways. My points about government were in reference to what it should allow its citizens to have at their disposal in order to deal with a dictator should the need arise.

Some might argue the process is already well under way, yet noone has made use of their weapons to hold the government accountable for its words...

Evidence that people have not yet acted a certain way is not evidence that they won't act that way sometime in the future, providing conditions change. Everyone--and I mean everyone--has a breaking point. There are many so-called justifications for armed revolt depending on who you ask. "No one" includes a lot of different kinds of people. My post only covered what I believe is the Christian justification, which is very, very limited.

But to tell you the truth, though there are certainly tons of people who are uncomfortable with where the US is right now (myself included), I doubt there are too many who are drawing up plans to rebel violently. I like the idea of peaceful change, and wholeheartedly support the Free State Project.

and I'm scared that it's a phenomenon spreading beyond the USA. The new French president has elements of his educational policy (reducing the study of history, sciences at primary school level to focus on maths and reading) which I believe to be potentially dangerous, and he has also been involved in pressurizing the press.

So am I. Many once-great countries are being squeezed out of the very things that made them great. My greatest concerns revolve around currency devaluation via fractional-reserve banking policies, as well as the bank's manipulation of the interest rate and its effects on investment. These are far more dangerous than the average person knows.

Thank you for an extensive reply, Viligante. A few comments..

1) First. To be honest, I find reading Romans 13 a little confusing. Because, if you want to take it literally, what it really literally says about the powers-that-be is that all of them are ordained by God and hence they all should be obeyed as if obeying God himself. "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God". All of them would also include the rules of evil dictators in world history, I don't think I need to list the names. It aslo includes the British rule in the times of the American revolution. It also includes any possible imagenary tyrant against whom you, the American people are keeping your ammo dry. And remember also, under whose earthly rule was Paul when writing the Epistle to Romans? Under the Roman Emperor, naturally. (Also, "give the emperor what is the emperors..") And the Roman empire ended up persecuting and executing Christians like we all know. And the martyrs were willing to die for their faith, in fact some of them even sought for such chances to 'give a strong witness'. And God's spirit lead the Church on. But now wait a minute. If the rule of emperor Nero was 'ordained by God', then why not also the rules of Hitler, Stalin & posse? ("For there is no power but of God..") And were they, too, only "executing God's wrath upon them that do evil"?

I think I must give up that kind of literal reading of that passage..

I think so too. If not, we're faced with a contradiction. The easiest way to illustrate this is to flip my previous argument around. Instead of the government requiring us not to do the things that God has required of us, consider if the government required that we do things that God has prohibited.

A few extreme examples of this idea make it clear. What if the government required that we murder or harass certain kinds of people? Required that all healthy males who were unable to peacefully find a mate by a certain age rape a woman to have his children? Required children to lie to their parents so that they might determine if they were enemies of the state?

To say that the requirements of those God has put into power become the de facto requirements of God Himself is to say that God has allowed the possibility of requiring us to simultaneously commit and not to commit certain acts. This is the contradiction. As God does not contradict Himself, we must either discard this interpretation or else change our very conception of who God is (i.e., a nonsensical god).

I believe the answer is to obey state authority only insofar as it does not require us to disobey divine authority. We obey divine authority whatever the cost. The Judge who created the cosmos towers above the judge who wears the white wig.

One irony that I see about 'exploiting' Romans 13 could be typified by this example: I listened to a firey sermon about the capital punishment given by James MacDonald. He was very emphatically drumming into his listeners' heads the passages of Romans 13, "THE BIBLE... SAYS... THIS!!", referring to the powers-that-be and them 'wielding a sword'. He was trying to entrench into his listeners' minds that "this is a simple passage, just read it as it's written". But anyone who really thinks Romans 13 is a very simple passage, raise your hands. I, for one, think that with closer examination it really appears to be a very complex one.

So many verses are like that. I don't think MacDonald's view is helpful here. I read a great line a few months back that I'll try to paraphrase: "We get most of our breakthroughs not by new answers to old questions, but by new questions." I'd imagine that MacDonald believes he's found the best answer to the question he thinks is relevant. But what of the questions to come? If we can't be sure that answers to new questions won't refute old ideas (and we can't), it is dangerous to be so indignant with our detractors.

To bring it close to home, my idea of the limits of state authority come from what I believe is the best answer to an old question. But who knows if new questions will prove me wrong?

I believe the best communicators bring their humility with their ideas.

 

[Blackguard_]

I believe the answer is to obey state authority only insofar as it does not require us to disobey divine authority. We obey divine authority whatever the cost. The Judge who created the cosmos towers above the judge who wears the white wig.

Well, there is Acts 5:29,
"Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!"

 

[joanna1]

My points about government weren't in reference to how dictatorships are established. Obviously, they can be (and have been) established in myriad ways. My points about government were in reference to what it should allow its citizens to have at their disposal in order to deal with a dictator should
.

Yes, I'm sorry if i wasn't clear. What I meant was that modern dictatorship involves lulling the people to sleep so they have no desire for rebellion... and I feel it's kind of happened already.

The idea of armed citizens to protect the people from a potential dictator is IMO not a bad one. However as far as I can see:
-The imbalance between the force available to the state and the people nowadays would render a rebellion ineffective
-The side-effects of wide-spread firearm availability have been so devastating the remote possibility of firearms being useful in a dictorship context no is longer a sufficient justification

 

[Suomipoika]

I think so too. If not, we're faced with a contradiction. The easiest way to illustrate this is to flip my previous argument around. Instead of the government requiring us not to do the things that God has required of us, consider if the government required that we do things that God has prohibited.

A few extreme examples of this idea make it clear. What if the government required that we murder or harass certain kinds of people? Required that all healthy males who were unable to peacefully find a mate by a certain age rape a woman to have his children? Required children to lie to their parents so that they might determine if they were enemies of the state?

To say that the requirements of those God has put into power become the de facto requirements of God Himself is to say that God has allowed the possibility of requiring us to simultaneously commit and not to commit certain acts. This is the contradiction. As God does not contradict Himself, we must either discard this interpretation or else change our very conception of who God is (i.e., a nonsensical god).

I believe the answer is to obey state authority only insofar as it does not require us to disobey divine authority. We obey divine authority whatever the cost. The Judge who created the cosmos towers above the judge who wears the white wig.

Well, there is Acts 5:29,
"Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!"

I suggest we begin by reading the context of Acts 5:29 first.

25Then someone came and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." 26At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.

27Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." 29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him." (NIV - BibleGateway.com)

The apostles were being questioned for "teaching in this (Jesus's) name", which they had been warned not to do by the high priest and his associates (this order was not yet given by the authoritiesof the Roman Empire, the 'powers-that-be'). The answer of Peter and the Apostles was that "they must obey God rather than men". In this context: obey in doing what? Obey in teaching in Jesus's name, even if this didn't please the high priest and his associates. Now, I'm not trying to say that the Apostles would have submitted to these orders not to teach in Christ's name if the orders had come from the real 'powers-that-be' (from the Emperor and not from the high priest). Later events clearly witness against that assumption. Teaching in Christ's name was the first and foremost imperative to the Christian Church and the Holy Spirit was to attend to it's continuum. A good example of the role of the Spirit can be found just before the verses cited above.

Acts 5:17-20:

17Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20"Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."

"..an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out". We are not told of the Apostles plotting an escape themselves (as a 'rebellion against evil authorities'), but rather that God himself intervened in a 'supernatural' way.

This trend continued in the 'later events' that I referred to. When the actual powers-that-be (emperor Nero etc.) jumped in and began persecuting and finally executing Christians, martyrdom was considered sort of a test of faith (although some concessions were later made that even those who had denied their faith in the face of their lives being threatened could be later welcomed back to the church - this became a subject of some serious debate in the early Church). And the Holy Spirit saw to it that the message of the Gospel spread on, and the witnesses of the martyrs surely didn't hinder this process).

So, what to me seems to be coherent reading of the New Testament here is that:

1) In Romans 13 Paul is warning Christians not to rise into 'rebellion' against the empire's rule. Preaching the Gospel, teaching in Christ's name and not recognizing the emperor as a divine being were out of question for Christians. But on the other hand, when faced with charges of doing these things (or not doing, in the case of Emperor worship) and when punished either by jail or execution, the guiding principle was to suffer and even to die for the faith (in contrast to gathering an armed civil army in order to overthrow the evil regime that persecutes them). It was seen that the Holy Spirit will lead the church, no matter what kind of obstacles they would face.

2) So, in the light of the New Testament, I think that your argument of "using the sword against the authorities taking the form of self-defence" is defeated by pointing out that there is simply no such example in the book, nor are there any kind of instructions of such action given to the Christians. Instead we have Romans 13 and the witness of the martyrs.

3) As I read it, taking both Romans 13 and the history of the Early church into consideration, the guiding line was to disobey the authorities when they denied you the things that were imperatives in the faith, but willingly suffer and even die when punished for this disobedience. And to leave the Holy Spirit some space to take care of things.

I'm going to give one more imaginary example:

Imagine that you are an American citizen making a time trip to the era of the early Church that is currently plagued with some serious persecution by the Roman empire and preparing to witness to Christ in the 'martyr way'. You walk up to the Christians saying, "Hey guys, I got some swords here. Take 'em. You have a constitutional right to arm yourselves against those evil tyrants". What do you think their response would be?

My question is: Would there have been martyrs if the early Christians had followed and acted according to their 'constitutional rights'?