Dumocracy rules!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
You mean like the epidemic of those crimes in Saudi Arabia? Oh, wait a minute. There is no epidemic of those crimes in Saudi Arabia. Hmmmm :think: I wonder why not?
You mean like all those poor snitches caught spying in Saudi Arabia? Oh, wait a minute. There aren't a bunch of snitches with bloody noses and broken limbs in Saudi Arabia. Hmmmm :think: I wonder why not?
Nope. None at all.
A theocracy enforces the ceremonial/religious laws as well as the social/moral laws. But a theonomy only enforces the social/moral laws.
For example, the death penalty we have for murder comes right out of the Bible. To that limited extent, America is a Biblical theonomy.
In fact, the colonies had scripture verses next to their laws on the books. I think they did this back then just for fun. Just to tweak the noses of people like Gerald.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
That you know of. You seem to be fixated on the notion that if you don't see it, it doesn't happen.
Remember, you're only in trouble if you get caught. And in Saudi, if you're royalty, you're not in trouble even then...
Have you considered moving over there? I'm sure they'd love you...
elected4ever
New member
Zakath, you don't seem to be getting the message. The 16th Amendment has nothing to do with a personal income tax. It has to do with the apportionment of taxes paid by the the state to the federal government sense that is the part of the constitution that was amended. The tax on the state income can be assessed on a state without regard to the population of the state, No mention of a personal income tax is ever made or referred too. A personal income tax therefore remains unconstitutional.
The constitution does not allow for a property tax and no state constitution can codify a tax that is not granted in the the federal constitution. The state does not have the right to charge you a property tax by the authority of the constitution so they must have a different clam on your property than a constitutional one. Can you tell me what that is?
The constitution does not allow for a property tax and no state constitution can codify a tax that is not granted in the the federal constitution. The state does not have the right to charge you a property tax by the authority of the constitution so they must have a different clam on your property than a constitutional one. Can you tell me what that is?
Last edited:
Zakath
Resident Atheist
The text of the sixteenth amendment, in its entirety:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The text says "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income", well maybe I'm just being uncessarily dense here, but I think E4E has been sniffing something mind bending to claim it doesn't have anything to do with an income tax...
I never claimed it did, did I?
Wrong again. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constititution states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Unless you can demonstrate where the federal government prohibits property taxes, I find your argument to be without basis.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
I think if you study history you'll find that mobs form anarchies not democratic republics.
History has likewise shown that governments run by single individuals tend to be more despotic than altruistic.
The democratic republic attempts to ameliorate the problem you describe by having the larger group elect a smaller group who must cooperate to produce laws and judgements. In a religiously pluralistic society, such as ours, this is a very helpful process.
Of course it may be that you do not envision your theonomy as a religiously pluralistic society... :think:
Gerald
Resident Fiend
The theonomists around here insist up and down that competing religions/philosophies/worldviews would not be supressed under such a regime, but I cannot see how it would not be the case in practice.
All it takes is a particularly zealous ruler and you have a reign of terror...
I've found that while many Reconstructionists are individually supportive of decentralized government--and while I agree with much of so-called "reformed theology"--I can't imagine a Reconstructionist America becoming anything less than a tyranny, eventually.
Reconstructionists are best toppling their intellectual opponents: dispensationalists, antinomians, and the like. But in practice, even on a personal level, they're a disaster. It is hard to imagine a more disenfranchsied, intellectually arrogant, and self-righteous group than some Reconstructionists. (Of course I'm sure the Roman Catholics could have said the same for the Reformers; just an observation.) This may explain why so many Reconstructionists have vicious and very messy--very public--falling outs. Quite frankly, if you can't even get along with your father in law, you have no business telling us how we should run a society.
Reconstructionists are best toppling their intellectual opponents: dispensationalists, antinomians, and the like. But in practice, even on a personal level, they're a disaster. It is hard to imagine a more disenfranchsied, intellectually arrogant, and self-righteous group than some Reconstructionists. (Of course I'm sure the Roman Catholics could have said the same for the Reformers; just an observation.) This may explain why so many Reconstructionists have vicious and very messy--very public--falling outs. Quite frankly, if you can't even get along with your father in law, you have no business telling us how we should run a society.
It's a cheap shot, I'll admit that. I've met Dr. North several times. He's certainly not a fanatic; his observations of early American history and the state of the American church are sharp and insightful; and in regards to eschatology he's quite good at decapitating dispensationalists.
Bottom line, I agree with him that this society clearly needs some fine tuning. It's portions of his solution--public stoning, anyone?--that I question. As he is fond of saying, you can't beat something with nothing. But it's the "something" he proposes that scares the hell out of critics of CR (and some of his own associates).
Bottom line, I agree with him that this society clearly needs some fine tuning. It's portions of his solution--public stoning, anyone?--that I question. As he is fond of saying, you can't beat something with nothing. But it's the "something" he proposes that scares the hell out of critics of CR (and some of his own associates).
Zakath
Resident Atheist
I was involved on the fringe areas of Dominionism and CR back in the 1980's and while some of their ideas were appealing to the "chosen few", it sounded more and more that the general population would be reduced to what was essentially a form of feudal serfdom.
Enyart and his fellow royalists are another variation on the theme. Except they want to drag back the "divine right" kings of Europe and put them into power here...
Enyart and his fellow royalists are another variation on the theme. Except they want to drag back the "divine right" kings of Europe and put them into power here...
- Status