An Advocation of Government
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
- Status
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Eh, some wingnuts think the UK is going to be under sharia law in a decade and the population forced to wear turbans or some such so bear that in mind here...
I've already addressed your "religious monarchy" qualm. I'm not going to address it again.
As for the First commandment, you need to read the Constitution I provided again. Look for the word "Israel."
The Koran (and therefore, Islam) does not allow for religious freedom, therefore, comparing it to this is comparing apples to bananas. Try again.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Niether does Christianity.. by way of said commandment.
The reason it doesn't is by a system of democratic governance. A monarchy i.e. king has no such check on his authority (no pun intended).
See where I'm going here?
Last edited by a moderator:
The rule only applies to Israel and Christians (not that we are to be under the Law). It does not apply to those who are not.
I'm starting to think you didn't actually read the Constitution I provided. Please do so, again, if applicable.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Christianity becomes the nation's religion. Your arguments are straw men.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
You're missing the point. Such a ruler as King could renounce the constitution in whole or part by mere fiat.
What's to stop him from doing so?
You're missing my point, which is that a King would be accountable to God and God alone.
"To whom much is given, much will be required." Meaning that if a King were to lead this country astray by doing what you said, He would be held accountable for doing so, and the penalty from God would be much higher.
Tell me, Quip, why does a Constitutional Monarchy bother you so much?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
drbrumley
Well-known member
Not trying to be argumentative but, He ALREADY IS!!!!!
That moves to my point quite well. What's to say a king's kingdom demands religious exclusivity by way of divine accountability?
The ideal of a Christian variation on Sharia law doesn't appeal much to me.
Once again, you make it obvious you did not read the actual Constitution. Please do so. I will not reply to this point until you do.
You don't know the differences between Christianity and Islam very well, then. You should read up before commenting any further, as they are very different.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I'll take ten chances of getting a thing right over one chance. And that's one inherent weakness of any individual being the seat of power. As to a Constitutional monarchy, without the particulars of the Constitution who can judge it?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
aCW.
Indeed I have. The ending dedication seems to indicate my concerns
There's no provision in the Constitution to freely worship a God of your choosing
It plainly states your right to simply worship.
No amending necessary for the king to demand Christian adherence.
Why does that not cover it? Do you think laws/legal documents should be long and complicated? Or should they be easy for, say, a child to read and understand it?
The document does not specify who, whom, or what you have the right to worship, because it is simply not necessary to define such. If it were to do so, it would have to become more complicated, meaning a child could potentially not be able to understand it.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Aren't you the same guy who explicitly stated that nobody is entitled to an education among other things? How would someone, including a child know how to understand such a thing without one?
- Status