Ronald Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly And The NRA More Important Than Thomas Jefferson?

The ongoing "textbook wars" and the battle for the precept of Separation of Church and State in Texas and elsewhere rages on. A commentator on the blog The Moderate Voice left the following comment:

NotFullyBaked 1 day ago

Interesting that when reading the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEK) themselves, they do not seem all that radical--this coming from someone whose politics have described as "somewhere to the left of Mao. See: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/e_attachment...

To fully understand the changes, I think one would need to compare and contrast the Old TEKS with the New TEKS. But with just the New TEKS to scan, I have two comments:

1. I never knew that Ronald Reagan was such an important HISTORICAL figure, and

2. What is Celebrate Freedom Week, anyway, and why does it occupy such an important place in Texas Schools' History curriculum? (Or, did I miss the establishment of Celebrate Freedom Week as the most important event of the school year?)

Oy.

Politics Daily weighs in with the following information:

In a matter of days last week in Austin, the majority of the 15-member board, insisting they were only trying to offset liberal bias in textbooks, questioned Darwin's theory of evolution and the constitutional principle of separation of church and state; debated hip-hop and genocide in Darfur; deleted Albert Einstein and Thomas Alva Edison from textbooks; emphasized Christian teachings and fundamentalist values; adopted conservative articles of faith like American exceptionalism; promoted right-wing leaders and organizations like Phyllis Schlafly and the National Rifle Association; and refused to give adequate attention to Hispanic and African American contributions to U.S. and Texas history.

To no one's surprise, on the final round on Friday, the conservatives pulled a decisive victory, 10-5 -- a tally that broke along predictable party lines, Republicans to the right, Democrats to the left. Ethnic minority members stood on the losing side. According to published reports, no experts on the social sciences were consulted. Given the conservative cast of the board, whose members are elected, the changes it has proposed will stand when the final vote is taken in May.

Leaving the meeting, a Democratic board member, Mavis Knight, of Dallas, was fulminating, saying, she could not be a party to "perpetrating this fraud on the students of this state." It was not a pretty sight. The board will surely become, or has already become, the butt of jokes on late-night shows and "Saturday Night Live."

But this is not a local squabble or a local issue. It's not a colorful shoot 'em up in the Texas corral. It so happens that the Texas board is perhaps the most influential in the country. Its guidelines will affect not only the 4.7 million Texas public school students but will likely spread to many other states, from kindergarten to 12th grade for the next 10 years. Texas textbook standards are usually adopted by publishers because the state will buy 48 million of them every year, and many other states -- 47 by some counts -- will follow that model. In light of those figures, publishers will happily take their cue from the Lone Star State.

All in all, it has been a turbulent few weeks for public education in America.

Texas Schools Vote To Remove Thomas Jefferson

Recently the Texas Board of Education voted on a 10-5 margin to remove Thomas Jefferson from their school curriculum or at least demote him:

Widely regarded as one of the most important of all the founding fathers of the United States, Thomas Jefferson received a demotion of sorts Friday thanks to the Texas Board of Education.

The board voted to enact new teaching standards for history and social studies that will alter which material gets included in school textbooks. It decided to drop Jefferson from a world history section devoted to great political thinkers.

Critics of the Board's decision aka Texas Freedom Network note that the Board is replacing Jefferson with religious figures:

According to Texas Freedom Network, a group that opposes many of the changes put in place by the Board of Education, the original curriculum asked students to "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present."

That emphasis did not sit well with board member Cynthia Dunbar, who, during Friday's meeting, explained the rationale for changing it. "The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based," Dunbar said.

The new standard, passed at the meeting in a 10-5 vote, now reads, "Explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone."

By dropping mention of revolution, and substituting figures such as Aquinas and Calvin for Jefferson, Texas Freedom Network argues, the board had chosen to embrace religious teachings over those of Jefferson, the man who coined the phrase "separation between church and state."

One wonders if the Fundamentalist anti-Separation of Church and State activist and known Texas Board of Education member David Barton had anything to do with this decision. Barton is known for trying to reinvent American history as being solely the product of "Christian" values. On his site Barton promises to present: "America's forgotten history and heroes with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage." Barton's known historical revisionism has gone as far as calling the Separation of Church and State in America "a myth" much like other Fundamentalists do. He is on record as saying that Thomas Jefferson meant the "wall of separation" concept to be "one directional:"

On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them—he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government

Anyone who values Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State not only as Baptist distinctives but as true American values should be appalled by Barton and the Texas Board of Education's antics---not just for Texas' sake but for the sake of the whole of America as Barton's influence extends beyond Texas:

The battle in Texas may be tougher. The State Board of Education is stacked with a vocal cohort of far-right, fundamentalist activists. Fresh from a bruising battle over what to teach about evolution in science class, the board now has social studies and history right in its crosshairs.

The outcome of the battle may reverberate around the country.

“Texas is the second largest purchaser of school textbooks in the country,” Miller told Church & State. “So to avoid spending money on multiple editions, publishers often write their textbooks to meet Texas curriculum standards and then sell those textbooks in other states.”

Barton is also busy trying to slip his perspective into public schools in other ways. He is active in the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a North Carolina group that works to persuade public schools to adopt a fundamentalist-oriented Bible curriculum under the guise of teaching “about” religion. Barton serves on the organization’s advisory board, alongside several other Religious Right figures.

But Barton hasn’t stopped with phony history. He’s increasingly branching out, working to draft churches into right-wing political machines and brazenly asserting that government must be infused with “biblical” principles. Along the way, Barton has made common cause with some extreme elements of the Religious Right.

Barton’s ongoing crusade to recruit clergy into partisan politics is often under the radar. In 2004, the Republican National Committee sent him to evangelical churches around the country in what was described as a “get-out-the-vote” effort.

David Knowles and USA Today also note:

(During the Jefferson voting scandal) the (Texas Board of Education) also voted to strike the word "democratic" from references to the U.S. form of government, replacing it with the term "constitutional republic." Texas textbooks will contain references to "laws of nature and nature's God" in passages that discuss major political ideas.

The board decided to use the words "free enterprise" when describing the U.S. economic system rather than words such as "capitalism," "capitalist" and "free market," which it deemed to have a negative connotation.

Serving 4.7 million students, Texas accounts for a large percentage of the textbook market, and the new standards may influence what is taught in the rest of the country.

Other critics of the Board's decision have written open letters to them and I suggest you do the same if you value America's Religious Freedom.

Hitler And The Nazis' Use Of Romans 13 Against The Confessing Church

Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)

[1] Let every person be subject to the Hitler. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists Hitler resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For Hitler is not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of Hitler? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [6] For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. [7] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Thanks to Pastor I. Todyaso for pointing this version of Romans 13 out.

Hitler and the Nazis indeed abused the text of Romans 13 in the same way that the Afrikaner Calvinists in South Africa did. Hitler commanded blind submission and unquestioning Absolute obedience to him and Nazi policies. In this way likewise the Church and State became unseparated as such:

Hitler, the democratically elected ruler of Germany from 1933 to 1945, commanded both Catholic and Protestant Christian leaders to preach ‘unconditional subjugation’ to Hitler under the pretence of the Holy Bible - specifically, the Book of Romans, Chapter 13. When Hitler’s aim was to disarm Germany's citizenry, Christian leadership obediently mollified their congregations with Romans 13. When Hitler’s aim was to abduct dissidents in the dark quite of the night without due process - Romans 13. When the burning flesh of her lawful neighbors manufactured the air unbreathable - Romans 13. Etc.

National Socialism in Germany developed much in the same way as Afrikaner Calvinism did as Nazism was mainly a stream of Social Calvinism mixed with racism, nationalism, theocracy and separatism though there were other things mixed in that formed Nazism as well such as a syncretic mixture of Christian religion, the Occult and Paganism. Nazi Christianity was truly a corrupt and perverted version of True Christianity as it was a civil religion rather than a Christ-centered relationship focused on the righteousness of God in Christ and the obedience to Christ's command for justice for all.

It should be noted here that the Fundamentalist pastor John MacArthur teaches the literalist interpretation of Romans 13:

“Now listen to this. It doesn’t matter whether your ruler is Caesar, Herod, Pilate, Felix, Fetus, Agrippa, Stalin, Hitler, Winston Churchill, Bill Clinton, it doesn’t matter who it is, he says be subject, you teach them to be subject.” — John MacArthur.

And this was exactly the attitude in Germany at first---people were unwilling to criticize/debate the Nazi regime publicly possibly out of fear for their lives; fear for the safety of their families; fear for their future; fear on numerous levels but mainly because the Nazis weren't after them. The Nazis protected the interests of the Status Quo. Gradually within this stifling political climate a reactionary movement within the Church began to spring up known as the Confessing Church led by Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonnhoeffer and many others who followed the Reformed tradition of resisting the State began to speak out against Nazism and Hitler. They also wrote and distibuted anti-Nazi propaganda such as the Barmen Declaration and after the war, the Stuttgart Declaration Of Guilt and also, the Darmstadt Statement.

Martin Niemoller a former Hitler supporter who became another leading figure of the Confessing Church summarized his change of heart in this famous poem:

“They came first for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and by that time no one was left to speak up.”


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, Lutheran Pastor arrested by the Gestapo in 1937

Hitler tried to quell the Confessing Church's dissent by misusing the Romans 13 passage of course:

The Nazi government led by Hitler used Romans 13:1 against the resistance movements in the German church. Nazi leaders argued that since Hitler was duly elected, opposing him was opposing God's instituted authority. Faithful opposition countered by saying blind allegiance to Hitler was idolatrous and that what he proposed and lived out clearly opposed Scripture: "We must obey God rather than any human authority" (Acts 5:29)...

Romans 13:1 in its proper context says government is to uphold good (godly) behavior and punish bad (13:3). We're to honor this authority, but there are limits beyond which we will not go. This cost many in Germany their lives! - link

However to no avail because for Barth and the Confessing Church not only was Jesus the one and only True Lord for Christians/God the only True King but the Church was neither under nor over the State---but set apart for a Higher Calling which included being a critic of the Status Quo of the State. The Barmen Declaration highlights their points with these statements:

8.10 - 1. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14.6). "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. . . . I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved." (John 10:1, 9.)
8.11 Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.
8.12 We reiect the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God's revelation.

8.13 - 2. "Christ Jesus, whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption." (1 Cor. 1:30.)
8.14 As Jesus Christ is God's assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God's mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures.
8.15 We reiect the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

8.16 - 3. "Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body [is] joined and knit together." (Eph. 4:15,16.)
8.17 The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.
8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

8.19 - 4. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men excercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your srvant." (Matt. 20:25,26.)
8.20 The various offices in the Church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the excercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation.
8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

8.22 - 5. "Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:17.)
Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the Church also exists, the State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfills this task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The Church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God's commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things.
8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commision, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.
8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

8.25 - 6. "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt. 28:20.) "The word of God is not fettered." (2 Tim. 2:9.)
8.26 The Church's commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of th free grace of God to all people in Christ's stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and sacrament.
8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.
8.28 The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church declares that it sees in the acknowledgment of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable theological basis of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of Confessional Churches. It invites all who are able to accept its declaration to be mindful of these theological principles in their decisions in Church politics. It entreats all whom it concerns to return to the unity of faith, love, and hope.

I'll leave you with one more video on the Confessing Church:



Next I'll post on Romans 13 and the Religious Right...

Romans 13, Afrikaner Calvinism And The Kairos Document

If you haven't read all about my blogging woes read this first: TheoPoetic Musings: Stupid Blogger Messed Up My Post::John Calvin's View Of Romans 13 In Libertarian, Neo-Orthodox And Baptist Thought Part 1.

It's irritating because my mild cerebral palsy makes it hard enough just to type everything out though I manage---let alone the time it takes to look everything up. Typing with tremors makes my arms get tired easily so I get worn out just by the very act of typing---but here I blog I cannot do otherwise. Anyways recouping my loss I decided to go in a different direction and re-post the main ideas of my former two posts as several sections of short and brief posts as to make sure all the information gets posted this time---even if the exact wording and flow has changed this go round.

Moving on to my Post Proper:

Afrikaner Calvinism is, according to theory, a unique cultural development that combined the Calvinist religion with the political aspirations of the white Afrikaans speaking people of South Africa.

Though there were theological aspects of Afrikaner Calvinism, it was mainly a stream of Social Calvinism mixed with racism, nationalism, theocracy and separatism. The political climate in which these ideas arose was the product of an unseparated Church and State. These views led these so-called Christians to accept the unChristian position of Apartheid much like Southern Baptists in the US supported slavery.

So that's one grouping of Christians in South Africa during the time of Apartheid who had a very Theocratic understanding of Romans 13 as they literally believed that God ordained their racism---God had ordained Apartheid. On the one hand you had the Afrikaner Calvinists who used Calvinism to their own glory and as a means to their own ends contrary to Calvin's views. Let it be noted now that Calvinism as one movement in the whole of Christian tradition in it's truest sense is about glorifying God and following Christ not humanity as is the whole of Christianity. So if Christ God's Word in the Scriptures is attested to being God's Love for us---how can God ordain nationalistic racism? Is hatred and theo-political divisionism truly of God? Can a State built on separatism and racism let alone any government be Christian in any sense of the word?

On the other hand you had a very different grouping of Christians---a group of predominantly black South African theologians of different traditions within the whole of Christian tradition who came together to answer these questions. Utilizing the Reformed tradition of resisting the State and a different understanding of Romans 13---their answer is summarized in The Kairos Document:

The Kairos Document (KD) is a theological statement issued in 1985 by a group of black South African theologians based predominantly in the black townships of Soweto, South Africa. The statement challenged the churches' response to what the authors saw as the vicious policies of the Apartheid state under the State of Emergency declared on 21 July 1985. The KD evoked strong reactions and furious debates not only in South Africa, but world-wide.

The KD is a prime example of contextual theology and liberation theology in South Africa, and has served as an example for attempted, similarly critical writing at decisive moments in several other countries and contexts (Latin America, Europe, Zimbabwe, India, etc.).

One of the main points of The Kairos Document relates directly to Romans 13 as summarized here:

Chapter Two: Critique of State Theology
'State theology' is defined as, "the theological justification of the status quo with its racism, capitalism and totalitarianism... It does [this] by misusing theological concepts and biblical texts for its own political purposes" (p. 3). The government, as well as parts of the church, are accused of using state theology. Four examples are discussed.

[edit] Romans 13:1-7
"'State Theology' assumes that in this text Paul is presenting us with the absolute and definitive Christian doctrine about the State ... and absolute and universal principle ... The falseness of this assumption has been pointed out by many biblical scholars" (p. 4). Reference is made to Käsemann's Commentary on Romans, as well as Cullmann's The State in the New Testament.

The KD authors insist that texts must be understood in their context: within a particular writing (here: Romans); within the Bible as a whole; and within the particular historical context (here: Paul and the community in Rome). Note that, "In the rest of the Bible, God does not demand obedience to oppressive rulers ... Rom 13:1-7 cannot contradict all of this" (p. 4).

The letter known as the Biblical book Romans was sent to an early Christian community in Rome that could be characterized as 'antinomian' or 'enthusiast.' Roman Christians thought that "because Jesus ... was their Lord and King," every authority should be obeyed. Paul was arguing against such an understanding; that is, he is "not addressing the issue of a just or unjust State." Attention is drawn to Rom 13:4 ("the State is there for your benefit"): "That is the kind of State that must be obeyed." The question of an unjust government is not addressed in Rom 13 but, for example, in Revelation 13 (p. 5).

The full statement is worded as such:

2.1 Romans 13:1-7

The misuse of this famous text is not confined to the present government in South Africa. Throughout the history of Christianity totalitarian regimes have tried to legitimize an attitude of blind obedience and absolute servility towards the state by quoting this text. The well-known theologian Oscar Cullman, pointed this out thirty years ago:

As soon as Christians, out of loyalty to the gospel of Jesus, offer resistance to a State's totalitarian claim, the representatives of the State or their collaborationist theological advisers are accustomed to appeal to this saying of Paul, as if Christians are here commended to endorse and thus to abet all the crimes of a totalitarian State. ( The State in the New Testament, SCM 1957 p 56.)

But what then is the meaning of Rom 13:1-7 and why is the use made of it by 'State Theology' unjustifiable from a biblical point of view?

'State Theology' assumes that in this text Paul is presenting us with the absolute and definitive Christian doctrine about the State, in other words an absolute and universal principle that is equally valid for all times and in all circumstances. The falseness of this assumption has been pointed out by numerous biblical scholars (see, for example, E Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, SCM, p 354-7; 0 Cullmann, The State in the New Testament, SCM, p 55-7).

What has been overlooked here is one of the most fundamental of all principles of biblical interpretation: every text must be interpreted in its context. To abstract a text from its context and to interpret it in the abstract is to distort the meaning of God's Word. Moreover the context here is not only the chapters and verses that precede and succeed this particular text nor is it even limited to the total context of the Bible. The context includes also the circumstances in which Paul's statement was made. Paul was writing to a particular Christian community in Rome, a community that had its own particular problems in relation to the State at that time and in those circumstances. That is part of the context of our text.

Many authors have drawn attention to the fact that in the rest of the Bible God does not demand obedience to oppressive rulers. Examples can be given ranging from Pharaoh to Pilate and through into Apostolic times. The Jews and later the Christians did not believe that their imperial overlords, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks or the Romans, had some kind of divine right to rule them and oppress them. These empires were the beasts described in the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelations. God allowed them to rule for a while but he did not approve of what they did. It was not God's will. His will was the freedom and liberation of Israel. Rom 13:1-7 cannot be contradicting all of this.

But most revealing of all is the circumstances of the Roman Christians to whom Paul was writing. They were not revolutionaries. They were not trying to overthrow the State. They were not calling for a change of government. They were, what has been called, 'antinomians' or 'enthusiasts' and their belief was that Christians, and only Christians, were exonerated from obeying any State at all, any government or political authority at all, because Jesus alone was their Lord and King. This is of course heretical and Paul is compelled to point out to these Christians that before the second coming of Christ there will always be some kind of State, some kind of secular government and that Christians are not exonerated from subjection to some kind of political authority.

Paul is simply not addressing the issue of a just or unjust State or the need to change one government for another. He is simply establishing the fact that there will be some kind of secular authority and that Christians as such are not exonerated from subjection to secular laws and authorities. He does not say anything at all about what they should do when the State becomes unjust and oppressive. That is another question.

Consequently those who try to find answers to the very different questions and problems of our time in the text of Rom 13:1-7 are doing a great disservice to Paul. The use that 'State Theology' makes of this text tells us more about the political options of 'those who construct this theology than it does about the meaning of God's Word in this text. As one biblical scholar puts it: "The primary concern is to justify the interests of the State and the text is pressed into its service without respect for the context and the intention of Paul."

If we wish to search the Bible for guidance in a situation where the State that is supposed to be "the servant of God" (Romans 13:16) betrays that calling and begins to serve Satan instead, then we can study chapter 13 of the Book of Revelations. Here the Roman State becomes the servant of the dragon (the devil) and takes on the appearance of a horrible beast. Its days are numbered because God will not permit his unfaithful servant to reign forever.

Next I'll post on Romans 13, Hitler, the Nazis and the Confessing Church...

Stupid Blogger Messed Up My Post::John Calvin's View Of Romans 13 In Libertarian, Neo-Orthodox And Baptist Thought Part 1

Well stupid Blogger just had to mess up and waste the 3 hrs. or more of typing that I just undertook. My Dashboard clearly shows that part 1 of my 2 part post was posted to my blog:

John Calvin's View Of Romans 13 In Libertarian, Neo-Orthodox And Baptist Thought Part 1
posted by TheoPoet at TheoPoetic Musings - 13 minutes ago
Recently in my study of Romans 13 (since we talked about that verse this past Sunday) I came across this interesting article---here's an excerpt: The Calvinist Connection By Dave Kopel Liberty magazine ...

and I definitely saved my post several times but somehow Blogger decided to erase my post so since I can't remember all I posted in part 1, I went ahead and erased part 2 as I don't feel like typing everything again---besides I can't remember all that I typed in part 1. Looking up all my links would take time as well so sparing you two long posts---here is just the main part of Part 1:

The Calvinist Connection
By Dave Kopel

Liberty magazine

October 2008, pp. 27-31



Many modern libertarians assume that religion and liberty are necessarily in opposition. Many modern people in general assume that religion and revolution are opposed. At times, of course, they are, but the history of the American Revolution indicates that more care is required in making this kind of judgment.

In the American colonies, the hotbed of revolution was New England, where the people were mainly Congregationalists—descendants of the Calvinist English Puritans. The Presbyterians, a Calvinist sect which originated in Scotland, were spread all of the colonies, and the network of Presbyterian ministers provided links among them. The Congregationalist and Presbyterian ministers played an indispensible role in inciting the American Revolution.

To understand why they were so comfortable with revolution, it helps to look at the origins of Calvinist resistance theory, from its tentative beginnings with Calvin himself, to its full development a few decades later.

Born in 1509, John Calvin was a small child in France when the Reformation began. By 1541, he had been invited to take permanent refuge in Geneva, which provided a safe haven for the rest of his life. Geneva was a walled city, and constantly threatened by the Catholic Duke of Savoy and others. Pacifism was never a realistic option for Calvin, or any of the Swiss Protestants.

Calvin always believed that governments should be chosen by the people. He described the Hebrews as extremely foolish for jettisoning their free government and replacing it with a hereditary monarchy. He also came to believe that kings and princes were bound to their people by covenant, such as those that one sees in the Old Testament.

In Calvin’s view, which was based on Romans 13, the governmental duties of "inferior magistrates" (government officials, such as mayor or governors, in an intermediate level between the king and the people) required them to protect the people against oppression from above. Calvinism readily adopted the Lutheran theory of resistance by such magistrates.

In a commentary on the Book of Daniel, Calvin observed that contemporary monarchs pretend to reign “by the grace of God,” but the pretense was “a mere cheat” so that they could “reign without control.” He believed that “Earthly princes depose themselves while they rise up against God,” so “it behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them.”

Issues With Religion From The News

"Apocalyptic" Visions cause a man to abuse his family:

PATERSON, N.J. (March 11) -- A New Jersey man with apocalyptic visions is accused of years of terrorizing his family, raping his five daughters and impregnating three, beating his children with wooden boards and even moving at one point to avoid child welfare investigators.

(Read on: Here).

This is the problem with unquestioned and blind faith though these parents exercised their religious freedom---it still makes one wonder how far one must take their religious beliefs at the expense of others' safety:

OREGON CITY, Ore. (March 8) -- The judge who sentenced an Oregon couple to prison Monday for the death of their son says members of their church must quit relying on faith healing when their children's lives are at stake.

(Read on: Here).

High School Prom canceled because of lesbian couple:

JACKSON, Miss. (March 11) -- A northern Mississippi school district will not be hosting a high school prom this spring after a lesbian student asked to attend with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.

(Read on: Here).

Pope Silent on Uganda's 'Kill-the-Gays' Bill:

Pope Benedict XVI met with the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Uganda at the Vatican last Friday and delivered a speech summing up what he saw as the main tasks of the church in the East African nation -- but made no mention of the draconian anti-homosexuality bill that has prompted an international outcry.

(Read on: Here).

Faith-Based Program Falls Short:

(March 11) -- Why does President Barack Obama support a policy that lets a Baptist homeless shelter take tax dollars and then refuse to hire Jews, Hindus or nonbelievers to change the sheets or ladle out the morning oatmeal? Particularly when it violates a clear campaign promise.

(Read on: Here).

Catholic preschool rejects lesbian couple's child:

Boulder's GLBT community is rallying around a lesbian couple told by a Catholic school that they can't re-enroll their preschooler next year because of their relationship.

(Read more: GLBT community rallies around lesbian couple rejected from Sacred Heart of Jesus preschool in Boulder - Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_14522872#ixzz0htsSYOJb).

Baptist pastor repents of distributing an ignorant, arrogant, bigoted and unscholarly Anti-Catholic tract:

A Baptist pastor in Tennessee says he now regrets that his church distributed an anti-Catholic leaflet that a local Catholic priest decried as “hate material."

Pastor Jonathan Hatcher, who leads Conner Heights Baptist Church in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., has removed the inflammatory leaflet, “The Death Cookie,” from his congregation. He says he will no longer distribute it.

(Read on: Here).

When Does Debating Theology Become Wrong?

Arminian Today asks: "When Does Debating Theology Become Wrong?"

I believe his answer to this question is great and worth a look:

So when does debating theology become wrong or sinful?
1) When I lose my zeal for Jesus and become zealous for my theological positions.
2) When I forsake evangelism for debating other believers.
3) When I isolate myself from all others because I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong (Proverbs 18:1 NKJV).
4) When I begin to view the Bible as a textbook to be studied instead of God's inspired Word meant to transform me into His image (Romans 12:1-2).
5) When I fail to be a 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 disciple especially toward those of the household of faith.
6) When I would rather read a theologian above praying and seeking God's face.
7) When the Gospel becomes synonymous with my theological positions or with my favorite Bible teacher.
8) When I begin to filtrate what I see or read by the words of a preacher or Bible teacher instead of with Scripture itself.
9) When I know more quotes by a theologian or by a book I've read than from the Bible itself.
10) When 150,000 people die each day and that doesn't break my heart because I am too busy studying my theological positions.
11) When I treat people in the world with more respect than with my own fellow disciples even with whom I disagree.