America, Behold thy gods!
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by Craig
to Jacob
I'd love to see more of your stuff on this.
Here is a blog that I use mainly to post reports/essays on. Should have more on it in a week.
http://patrickhenrypatriot.blogspot.com/
I live 1 mile from the original spot the Mecklenberg Declaration was drafted. It is always a little sad to me when I drive by it. It's a little stone monument in a small grove-like area with a few picnic benches. Right next door is someones house.
The America we all know in love is dead my friends.
It has taken me a few years to come to grips with it. We are simply riding the coat-tails of our forefathers. Inevitably sinking into oblivion.
God alone may provide new life to this dead country.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Jacob, you truly are... "brilliant." Your blind adherence to your fanciful dogma is astounding.
"Eminent domain is theft by armed force." That is your interpretation. I - and millions others - happen to think that sometimes, no matter how rarely, eminent domain is good.
Thanks for answering Phil's question in such a way that you prove his point...
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No problem. Any time.
No question that eminent domain is sometimes "good"-- for the majority that is, not necessarily for the landowner. And our laws have defined it to not be theft as long as there is "just compensation". The common law and tradition have recognized eminent domain for a long time. The question is, however, is it scriptural? I note that David as king bought the threshing floor even when it was offered to him as a gift.
So I tend to think that in our post-Kelo world, eminent domain is more like a Godfather business deal: "make him an offer he can't refuse."
Vic
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
By what standard do you define "just compensation?" Suppose this dear old grandma in her eighties is living in her family home that has belonged to the family for about 10 generations. She has no desire for wealth, only to live out her days in peace and quiet on her family estate. Exactly how do you give her "just compensation?"
Ironically, God destroyed Ahab for precisely that.
Brilliant!
[Edited on 1--25-06 by Draught Horse]
I put "just compensation" in quotes because I meant to imply it was a tautology. It is "just" because a jury said so.
But the evidence allowed for determining that amount does not include grandma's sentiments. Rather, it is what a hypothetical buyer would accept and a hypothetical seller would pay (called sometimes the "reasonable person").
So, if Grandma doesn't want to sell, she is essentially presumed to be unreasonable. That's how we define "just" in our day.
BTW, after I posted I thought about Ahab and Jezebel and the little vineyard. Good example.
(I can't write worth a hypothetical bean this morning. Sorry for all the edits.)
[Edited on 1-25-2006 by victorbravo]
Does Grandma like electricity? Eminent domain.
Does grandma like heat? Eminent domain.
Does Grandma like fresh food? Eminent domain.
Does Grandma like driving, or having people visit her using a highway? Eminent domain.
Does she like to buy things? They likely come over rail or by truck over routes purchased through eminent domain.
Does she like not speaking Russian or German? She is defended by military bases purchased through eminent domain.
America is the only State in the known history of the world to actually pay for land it takes. To not have eminent domain makes the individual the emperor over everyone. It gives Grandma the power to say, the entire city of Jackson can't have power unless the government pays me {insert Dr. Evil voice} ONE BILLION DOLLARS for my shack and little plot of land that just happens to be the route that the electric lines must go.
Jacob, with respect, you obviously either do not understand eminent domain, or you have such a hyper-individualized view of the world that it makes no sense (either Biblically or practically).
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I guess we don't need any roads either.....
Does that violate a command to have roads?
Does that violate a command to have roads?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by puritansailor
I guess we don't need any roads either.....
Does that violate a command to have roads?
I actually have mixed views on that. Depends on how you define "road." Defined as "route" or as "road."....I know. sounds crazy but...oh well, wrong thread anyway.
Anyway, I accomplished my purpose for this thread. I quoted (either here or elsewhere) Reformers, Puritans, and Southern Presbyterians on the limits of civil obedience. I applied God's sovereignty to the realm of politics. And I got people mad. Fortunately, a lot of people here saw that what we call liberty, our forefathers called bondage (I think Thornwell said that).
Y'all can make fun of me all you want. I really don't care. A lot of people here, while not being vocal on this thread, have told me in private that they like what they saw. However, Molech is drinking the blood of our children and the Church refuses to use her prophetic voice to call it into account. Even though I am postmillennial, I have a rather grisly view of the next 15 years. The Church is like the 200 pound weakling that is getting kicked in the teeth by the 90 pound bully. A few people have decided that enough is enough. Now, I ain't in to no people-pleasing, but it was nice to know that someone is taking me seriously. I have no desire to get the majority here around to my view point, but a few people have told me that they are reading Heiland and Confederate Gold. Mission Accomplished. I need to write little esle.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Doc Holliday said the same thing to Johnnie Ringo. Sorry, couldn't resist. I am really not that wacko. I have thought through MANY of my beliefs (with the understanding that I have a long ways to go) and defended them in the face of vicious secularism at home and college.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Jacob, I'm not trying to make fun of you. You have some good ideas and much good to say to a complacent church. I just think you need to think things through a little more. There are other ways to motivate people to action than calling them a bunch of idol worshippers (not that it isn't necessary now and then). We can talk about that later though.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I know you're not, Patrick. I think very highly of you and glad you put up with me teasing you in class
. I am trying to think these things through. That is why when someone comes up to me asking me political questions, have read the historical backgrond of our country, works from Calvin and Knox, and say, "Jacob, do we rebel? DO we fight now?" I would answer, loudly, NO. However, my "no" should not be seen as a pacifistic no, as the time will come when the sword, to quote Presbyterian Samuel Davies, becomes consecrated to God. Again, I will refer men to the essay on this written by non-theonomist John Jefferson Davis. It is the best *short* work on the subject.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by puritansailor
I guess we don't need any roads either.....
Does that violate a command to have roads?
I actually have mixed views on that. Depends on how you define "road." Defined as "route" or as "road."....I know. sounds crazy but...oh well, wrong thread anyway.
Anyway, I accomplished my purpose for this thread. I quoted (either here or elsewhere) Reformers, Puritans, and Southern Presbyterians on the limits of civil obedience. I applied God's sovereignty to the realm of politics. And I got people mad. Fortunately, a lot of people here saw that what we call liberty, our forefathers called bondage (I think Thornwell said that).
Y'all can make fun of me all you want. I really don't care. A lot of people here, while not being vocal on this thread, have told me in private that they like what they saw. However, Molech is drinking the blood of our children and the Church refuses to use her prophetic voice to call it into account. Even though I am postmillennial, I have a rather grisly view of the next 15 years. The Church is like the 200 pound weakling that is getting kicked in the teeth by the 90 pound bully. A few people have decided that enough is enough. Now, I ain't in to no people-pleasing, but it was nice to know that someone is taking me seriously. I have no desire to get the majority here around to my view point, but a few people have told me that they are reading Heiland and Confederate Gold. Mission Accomplished. I need to write little esle.
This is not about making fun.
There is a HUGE distinction between abortion on demand and eminent domain. Notice that I never criticized your points about abortion. But when you put eminent domain in the same class you do a disservice to (and demean the importance of) resistance against abortion.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
You show youthful zeal, my friend. And you're fired up. But there have been many people down the path you're on; it is well trodden. But you'll only know that when you look back. And there's so much that you don't see on either side of you. You need to focus, to be sure. Just don't shut out those who have been there, walking the same path, with the same ideals, probably a different program, and with the same aims. I don't want to quash those aims; the program didn't and won't work; and I still have those ideals. I have to live with that, because its the truth. But I'm not defeated. In fact, it was never mine to win. It was mine just to be faithful.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I know. I have read Gary North. I know what NOT to do.
Just to put many fears to rest, I actually sold my rifle (I needed money and am not going to hunt in the near future). So, no immediate action for me. I am reflecting on these issues so that when someone asks me a Christian persepctive on law and civil government, I can give him an answer that won't get himself killed.Fred,
My apologies if I put eminent domain in the same category as abortion. I still disagree with it, but not onthe same level for obvious reasons. I probably did do that in the midst of typing but wasnt aware of it. Thank you for pointing that out.
No problem. My point was not that you were being offensive, but that I want your good message to be heard.
If it is one thing that I have learned over the years - maybe John agrees as well - is that it is far too easy to drown out a gallon of your own wisdom with a teaspoon of foolishness.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Point taken. Fair enough.
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
Because the scripture is silent as to the government providing, welfare, rehabilitation, schools and health insurance in no way means the scripture condemns a government getting involved in such activities. Your argument is based on silence.
Let us take education as an example. Knowledge has increased so profusely, that it is highly impossible to find parents who can solidify in their children the requisite education for their future vocation. From specialities from Biology, Zoology, Anatomy; Immunology, etc. Math in itself is another boogey man. How many parents are qualified to teach calculus? How about engineering of various kinds, chemical, biochemical, eletronic, electrical, civil, mechanical etc.
For a government to step out of Education in light of the rapid increase of knowledge would be grossly irresponsible albeit sinful, for the fact that they willingly deprive their citizens of knowledge. This deprivation thus result in ignorance. This severely contradicts the facts of the Bible, that it is God who gave knowledge and wisdom.
In the Bible we find many cases of the Government being involved in education i.e Moses, Daniel, Isaiah were all educated by the Governments of their time.
Does this mandate a fully funded government program? Probably not, but it sure doesn't mandate not having a fully funded government program, after all, a government needs educated people to carry out its duties whether in matters of Civil, Legislative, Military etc. And all these duties must be funded by tax collections.
I also agree that abortion is much more of a moral outrage than eminent domain, but similar things are happening in both. Definitions and principles follow the downgrade.
In abortion, life was redefined. Even after Roe v. Wade, the sand has shifted. If you have ever read Roe, you probably noticed that the decision (as bad as its reasoning was) actually allowed for state regulation of abortion in later trimesters of pregnancy. The court said that the state's interest increase as the pregnancy progressed. So what has happened to every attempt to so regulate it (like partial-birth, which usually is near the end of gestation)? It has been defeated because the right to "choose" has become all but absolute.
Similarly, in eminent domain, the original principal was that (1) the taking of private property had to be (2) for a public purpose and (3) had to be justly compensated. The first two prongs of that principal have badly eroded. "Taking" for the most part now means literally dispossessing one of the property. It does not generally apply to a governmental action that renders the property less (sometimes much less) valuable. And "public purpose" used to have a pretty narrow definition. The government had to actually own the property and put it to a public purpose that did not, in its intent, benefit any particular person. But now a public purpose is virtually anything that a local, state, or federal branch of government says it is. As far as the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned now, a municipality may properly condemn private property and sell it to another private individual for a profit and to increase tax base. That's a long way from dikes, canals, and roads.
So, I think there are plenty of battles to be fought in all directions.
Vic
In abortion, life was redefined. Even after Roe v. Wade, the sand has shifted. If you have ever read Roe, you probably noticed that the decision (as bad as its reasoning was) actually allowed for state regulation of abortion in later trimesters of pregnancy. The court said that the state's interest increase as the pregnancy progressed. So what has happened to every attempt to so regulate it (like partial-birth, which usually is near the end of gestation)? It has been defeated because the right to "choose" has become all but absolute.
Similarly, in eminent domain, the original principal was that (1) the taking of private property had to be (2) for a public purpose and (3) had to be justly compensated. The first two prongs of that principal have badly eroded. "Taking" for the most part now means literally dispossessing one of the property. It does not generally apply to a governmental action that renders the property less (sometimes much less) valuable. And "public purpose" used to have a pretty narrow definition. The government had to actually own the property and put it to a public purpose that did not, in its intent, benefit any particular person. But now a public purpose is virtually anything that a local, state, or federal branch of government says it is. As far as the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned now, a municipality may properly condemn private property and sell it to another private individual for a profit and to increase tax base. That's a long way from dikes, canals, and roads.
So, I think there are plenty of battles to be fought in all directions.
Vic
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Along those lines...
In the above posts there were 2 different categorizations going on. One grouped abortion and eminient domain together the other grouped them separately. As a matter of fact the OT judicials show the same categorization in regards to penology. Capital Punishment for murder and restitution for stealing. Do we group them together penologically or as both under breaking God's law? What happens is that we reformed people are agreed to murder = capital punishment"¦we are far less agreed on lesser crimes and the punishments fitted to them. We have to argue for all of them and humbly do what Bahnsen did that if there is unsureness to the application of the law against theft regarding the state then it is our sinful negligence of Scripture in that portion rather than saying well I guess the State can buy up all land it sees fit. The reductio would be that if emininent domain is ok as long as the state gives compensation, what stops the state from buying all property and printing more money to give to the people? Oh, I´m sorry "“ they´ve already done that with property taxes!!! Fail to pay them and see who owns the land then!!!
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Correct, David offered payment, but it wasn´t out of some principle contrary to what we would call "œimminent domain" rather, it was because of a principle of worship: David would not burn offerings that cost him nothing. Don´t believe me? Read the account. Again, this has nothing to do with the modern practice of imminent domain and everything about how we should approach worship. The civil government, in America anyway, pays for the land it "œtakes."
About the "œdear old grandma" scenario: please don´t romanticize it. It would be a travesty to allow the will of one person to override the good of the many. What is just compensation? Why, I´d do LESS than our generous government does: I´d give not one penny more than market value.
Regarding Ahab and Naboth´s vineyard"¦ hmmm"¦ I hope your understanding of Bible facts is not characteristic of what RTS Jackson puts out. And as offensive as that may be, I mean that. Absolutely inexcusable for a master´s level student at such a reputable school. A couple of things: Naboth had divine right to that land (part of that whole Old Covenant "œinheritance in the land" type thingy that was going on"¦ remember?) whereas you do not have divine right to your land. Ahab was NOT condemned for enforcing "œeminent domain" in anyway analogous to how we do it: He (actually his wife) went out and essentially murdered the guy and then took his land. This is in no way shape or form like what we do in our country.
[Edited on 1-25-2006 by SolaScriptura]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I was critiquing the presuppositions of statism inherent in modern governments. During the 1830s the government began to...never mind. This would rehash the public school debate and while I can defend my case, I would have to defend about nine other fronts as well. Bottom line: since the State views man as basically good it is faced with a dilemma when man does wrong. Since man is not sinful and thus the problem could not be found in man, it is found in his environment. We must change his enviroment (the prison system) and we must change him so that he can adapt to our enviroment (government education).
I guess a case could be made that men could do this without statist presuppositions. I am not denying that; I just haven't seen it.
Ben: I wasn't offended. To be honest, I ignored it and am not taking it seriously. I hope that wasn't offensive, either.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Nope, no offense taken. It just clarifies that you're bound and determined to have your positions shape the meaning of Scripture than vice versa.
Its good to know where you stand.
[Edited on 1-25-2006 by SolaScriptura]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Nope, no offense taken. It just clarifies that you're bound and determined to have your positions shape the meaning of Scripture than vice versa.
Its good to know where you stand.
[Edited on 1-25-2006 by SolaScriptura]
I was ignoring the way you said it. Had you presented it differently I would have taken heed (actually, I did but didn't go further because I have different views on the "Israel only" argument, but didn't want to start another thread).
- Status
