IOTC: God Will Destroy….Oh, Blah Blah Blah

Jake MacAulay used to be Robin to Bradlee Dean’s Batman, but like most of Dean’s staff he bolted last year. Now he works for the Christian Reconstructionist group the Institute on the Constitution, which means he’s saying the same staggeringly stupid things, but in another place.

Now to attempt to change that which is eternal and forever fixed by the Creator is to do nothing less than make the claim that you are God. This is very wrong and very dangerous, and the Supreme Court of these United States is now considering taking this very same dangerous step.

While there are many conclusions that can be drawn as we witness this cultural degradation, one comes most immediately to my mind. When a culture discards the Word of God as the standard for what is right and what is wrong, and relegates these determinations to fallen men, the results are as predictable as they are terrible.

In the time of the founding of America, when a Biblical worldview was predominant in the American people, this connection between following the commandments and peaceable existence was clearly known, easily understood and evidentially experienced in the American culture. Undoubtedly, living prosperously by living righteously is what Jefferson meant when he used the phrase “pursuit of happiness”.

Psalm Two warns that when the judges and the rulers of the earth throw off God’s law and take it upon themselves to make their own rules for right and wrong, they will be dashed to pieces like a rod of iron striking a clay pot.

Regrettably we seem to be setting ourselves up for this very lesson. Unless our government officials start obeying God and stop “playing god,” this is a lesson we will experience fully.

Back in the “time of the founding of America”? You mean when the Constitution was written and explicitly protected the right to worship other gods? The Bible clearly prohibits doing so. It also prohibits being gay. So why is the latter an example of “throwing off God’s law and taking it upon our selves to make our own rules for right and wrong,” but not the former? This is an especially impossible question for a Christian Reconstructionist to answer because they believe that the entire Mosaic law should be enforced by the state. So why didn’t God dash us to pieces then? Or over the thousand other things that we allow people to do that are forbidden by the Bible?

There is no answer to those questions without a huge contradiction in their position. At least Gary North, also a Reconstructionist, is consistent. He slams the entire idea that America was founded on a “Biblical worldview.” In fact, he argues that there was a “conspiracy in Philadelphia” to destroy the Christian basis for government.

"Relating to your point about disenfranchisement, since voting in this election has already begun (overseas ..."

Another Hail Mary Pass Considered on ..."
"If you have counterevidence, you are free to provide it."

Trump’s Blatant Hypocrisy on Sexual Harassment
"Of course he is a hypocrite. He admitted to assault. He bragged about assault. But ..."

Trump’s Blatant Hypocrisy on Sexual Harassment
"Yes, the Meddlesome Brothers.I hear they are lately looking into becoming Media Moguls. Mucking about, ..."

Another Hail Mary Pass Considered on ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    Psalm Two warns that when the judges and the rulers of the earth throw off God’s law and take it upon themselves to make their own rules for right and wrong, they will be dashed to pieces like a rod of iron striking a clay pot.

    Yep. That’s what I expect will happen to me. When I tee-up against a god, any god, even the Big One (whichever one that is), I expect to be dashed to pieces in exactly the same way a rod of iron is dashed to pieces when it strikes a clay pot.

  • cptdoom

    Undoubtedly, living prosperously by living righteously is what Jefferson meant when he used the phrase “pursuit of happiness”.

    And by “living righteously,” he means “taking the 14-year-old enslaved half-sister of your dead wife as a concubine.”

  • dingojack

    Why worry? If the Christian god fears iron chariots, how’s he gonna get the courage to wield an iron rod?

    Dingo

  • arakasi

    There is no biblical prohition against same sex marriage. There are a couple of prohibitions against M2M sex, but sex is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for marriage. I have been to a few weddings where the “be fruitful and multiply” quote was brought up, but none where “you are now permitted and required to have hot greased monkeysex on a regular basis”

  • Pierce R. Butler

    In the time of the founding of America, when a Biblical worldview was predominant in the American people…

    Yes less than 10% of them having membership in any church.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Pierce R. Butler ‘Yes less than 10% of them having membership in any church.”

    Worse, zero percent of them belonged to the Southern Baptish Church. It’s a wonder the nation survived.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Haven’t had time to read the transcript… Did anybody pose separation of church and state as an issue in the SSM discussion before The Supreme Court? From left, right, and center, all the objections to SSM have mentioned the xian god. The objections are so explicitly based on religion that even an inebriated Rhesus monkey can see it. In a better world, the 1st Amendment would deny any objection to SSM, I’d think.

  • John Pieret

    eoraptor:

    Did anybody pose separation of church and state as an issue in the SSM discussion before The Supreme Court?

    Not in the oral arguments, which focused on the Fourteenth Amendment. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t discussed somewhere in the tens of thousands of pages of briefs.

  • eric

    @7: the SCOTUS case avoided the question of motivation entirely. It wasn’t one of the two questions the court posed back to the lawyers.

    That’s annoying but it may be better for us in the long run. A SCOTUS ruling that says anti-SSM rules are unconstitutional period is better than a SCOTUS ruling striking down several state laws because of religious purpose. The latter would leave room for the states to come back with another round of supposedly secular anti-SSM rules.

  • some bastard on the internet

    In the time of the founding of America, when a Biblical worldview was predominant in the American people, this connection between following the commandments and peaceable existence was clearly known, easily understood and evidentially experienced in the American culture.

    Emphasis mine. Has this clown opened up a history book at any point in his life?

  • eric

    @10: they mean ‘peaceable existence’ in the same way today as they meant it in 1815 or 1515: peace between people of the right sects of Christianity: forcible conversion by violent and lethal means for others.

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    @eric:

    That’s annoying but it may be better for us in the long run. A SCOTUS ruling that says anti-SSM rules are unconstitutional period is better than a SCOTUS ruling striking down several state laws because of religious purpose. The latter would leave room for the states to come back with another round of supposedly secular anti-SSM rules.

    You are, of course, correct. It may be better, and a ruling striking down state anti-SSM regulations and/or laws and/or constitutional-provisions is better than striking down only those with a religious purpose.

    However I’ve been arguing for some time that religion needs to be addressed head-on. There simply is no way to say that it’s constitutional to discriminate against queer marriages because they make the baby jesus cry and yet maintain that it’s unconstitutional to discriminate against buddhist marriages or atheist marriages or Roman Catholic whore-of-babylon marriages because **they** make the baby jesus cry.

    At some point, we have to simply shut down the bullshit that it’s okay to criminalize or otherwise outlaw making-the-baby-jesus-cry.

    We need that precedent desperately, otherwise we’ll have to tiptoe around the same arguments again and again and pretend that we’re saying that arguments “aren’t rational” is the reason such arguments fail to constitutionally justify a statute, ordinance, regulation, action, or constitutional provision. Religious arguments are simply going to be irrational, sure, but we have to spend time and effort proving that they are irrational instead of just pointing to the first amendment and noting that you can’t outlaw assisted suicide because it makes the baby jesus cry. You can’t outlaw porn because it makes the baby jesus cry. You can’t outlaw ANYTHING in the US because it makes the baby jesus cry: so fucking stop it, fFs.