Post by [?g].??Å½???? Post by Teresita Post by [?g].??Å½????
The Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and
edited by his fellow delegates, contains a theory of rights that
depends on a Supreme Being, not man, for its validity. The Declaration
states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That's ironic, since the Supreme Being told Christians not to disobey
Which king do we have?
Post by Teresita
1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's
sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto
them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the
praise of them that do well.
Of course, Israel asked for a king, and Samuel, their ghod's
"prophet" issued a warning:
1 In his old age Samuel appointed his sons judges over Israel.a
2 His firstborn was named Joel, his second son, Abijah; they judged at
Beer-sheba. 3 His sons did not follow his example, but looked to their
own gain, accepting bribes and perverting justice. 4 Therefore all the
elders of Israel assembled and went to Samuel at Ramah 5and said to him,
“Now that you are old, and your sons do not follow your example, appoint
a king over us, like all the nations, to rule us.”
6 Samuel was displeased when they said, “Give us a king to rule us.” But
he prayed to the LORD. 7 The LORD said: Listen to whatever the people say.
You are not the one they are rejecting. They are rejecting me as their king.
8 They are acting toward you just as they have acted from the day I brought
them up from Egypt to this very day, deserting me to serve other gods.
9 Now listen to them; but at the same time, give them a solemn warning
and inform them of the rights of the king who will rule them.
10 Samuel delivered the message of the LORD in full to those who were
asking him for a king. 11 He told them: “The governance of the king who
will rule you will be as follows: He will take your sons and assign them
to his chariots and horses, and they will run before his chariot. 12 He
will appoint from among them his commanders of thousands and of hundreds.
He will make them do his plowing and harvesting and produce his weapons of
war and chariotry. 13 He will use your daughters as perfumers, cooks,
and bakers. He will take your best fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and
give them to his servants.g 15 He will tithe your crops and grape harvests
to give to his officials and his servants. 16 He will take your male and
female slaves, as well as your best oxen and donkeys, and use them to do
his work. 17 He will also tithe your flocks. As for you, you will become
his slaves. 18 On that day you will cry out because of the king whom you
have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you on that day.”
19 The people, however, refused to listen to Samuel’s warning and said,
“No! There must be a king over us. 20 We too must be like all the nations,
with a king to rule us, lead us in warfare, and fight our battles.”
21 Samuel listened to all the concerns of the people and then repeated them
to the LORD. 22 The LORD said: Listen to them! Appoint a king to rule over
them. Then Samuel said to the people of Israel, “Return, each one of you,
to your own city.”
[/quote] - http://www.usccb.org/bible/1samuel/8
The saps ASKED for it.
Post by [?g].??Å½????
This merely tells people to obey the law.
After all, most laws were made for a reason.
They were made to allow orderly conduct for the citizenry.
Ordered liberty is the goal of good government in a polity
like the US. Too often the overemphasis is on order, rather
than liberty. Or liberty for some, and order for the rest.
Post by [?g].??Å½????
Laws are created retroactively based on some problem, so a new rule is
added to list penalties in case someone acts in a certain way.
That's not how a traditional society, such as the Hebrews under
the Mosaic law worked. If "the law" is handed down from a
deity, adding to it or amending it is blasphemy.
Post by [?g].??Å½????
We live under a social contract model originating in the Age of
Enlightenment, under which we surrender some freedoms to authority so
that the remainder are protected. The difficulty, obviously, lies in
determining which freedoms are relinquished and which are preserved.
As an example, I like driving on well-maintained roads and bridges,
providing the young with an education, and having the elderly, poor,
infirm, etc. provided for. These things require a government to
achieve, especially when large numbers of each are involved. So, I
pay taxes. I surrender part of my freedom in the form of money so
that I can live in a place that guarantees my freedom from bumpy roads
or failing bridges, illiterate children, and beggars.
You are framing the argument as "loss of freedom for government
benefits." The US is more Lockean than Hobbesian, setting a neutral
arbiter over individuals who have natural rights, with the state
as the impartial judge of disputes, not a dispenser of largesse.