This post is the fourth and final part in this series.


What Is The Nature of Christian Government?

Consider what one of the most respected scientists who ever lived said about his studies.

I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. — Isaac Newton

We do not know very much. We do not even know how we should govern ourselves. God has not given us detailed guidance. The New Testament says very little about government, and what the Old Testament says about operation of government applies principally to the Jews. So no Christian can claim to know exactly how government should work. What Christians do know is that Christ Jesus came to serve, and He said we should follow his example. Therefore, Christian government must be humble government, government that exists to serve rather dominate the People.

Since the people who founded our government respected the teachings of Jesus, they did not claim God sanctioned the government they set up. Unlike the leaders of the European powers they had just escaped, the founders did not use government to dominate each other or to run each other’s lives. On the contrary, because they had seen first hand how dangerous government power could be, they limited its power. What they sought to do instead is to create a government that protected the God endowed rights of their fellow citizens to life, liberty and property. Their restraint allowed (and forced some) individual citizens to take responsibility for their own decisions. As a result, private associations (see THE RIGHT OF FREE ASSOCIATION) prospered in America, and the People worked together in voluntary cooperation to overcome difficult challenges and problems. 

What Is The Nature Of Modern American Government?

In our time, government power has escaped the Constitutional bounds the founders placed upon it. Our government’s abuses of power now threaten the Christian faith in two ways.

  • Because politicians insist that children receive a secularized education, government-run educational institutions undermine the ability of Christian parents to properly educate their children in the Christian faith. Because we have grown up with this system, we are accustomed to it, but consider the absurdity. We pay the highest per pupil cost in the world. Nevertheless, parents cannot choose their children’s teachers or the content of their children’s education. Instead, bureaucrats from the Federal, state, and local governments (plus the School Board) tell parents how their child will be educated.  
  • Because politicians insist upon secularizing government and similarly bureaucratic corporate institutions, they threaten to push both the Christian message and Christian practices out of the public square. Why do our politicians want such a thing? Look closely at what we would have leaders create, a government that offers us security from the cradle to the grave. Instead of dedicating their lives in service to God, too many now prefer to offer up half of their earnings for the meager bit of security that a politician can offer us in this life. These do not even consider the price in liberty.

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin (from here

When we have faith in God, we turn to Him in time of need, but too many politicians want us to turn to them and their government. Instead of promoting religious freedom, these political leaders increasingly deny any need for religion, declaring that religion is a purely private matter that has no place in the public square. Such politicians seek to stifle the Christian faith, to leave us ignorant of our Christian heritage. Such would encourage atheism. Such jeopardize our ability to live as Christians and to pass our faith onto our children.

What Must We Do Restore A Government That Respects Our God Endowed Rights?

As Christians, we cannot ignore a government that interferes with our ability to function as both as good Christians and as good parents. God expects us to use every opportunity to instruct our children in the faith. God also expects us to love our neighbors. That means we must seek both to protect our neighbors rights and share with them the Word of God. Therefore, we must do our part to restore our government to its constitutional bounds. What does that mean in practice?

  • We must become familiar with our nation’s heritage. We must study and learn how our government is suppose to work. Then we must strive to elect men and women who seek, by following the example of Christ, to be first by being the servant of all (Mark 9:35). 
  • We must demand decreased government spending. Currently, government dedicates most of its spending to massive health, education, and welfare bureaucracies. Check out Look at where our money is going. Then consider how costly this spending is both to our pocketbooks and to our liberty. At one time, we considered health, education, and welfare local concerns. We resolved such problems in concert with our neighbors. We worked through churches and private charities. Now, we hand our paychecks over to politicians and turn our eyes away from the poor (Proverbs 28:27). Yet to pay for massive bureaucracies and promises that cannot and will not be kept, we have piled debt upon debt.

Because it threatens our religious liberty, as Christians we must shrink our government down to size, constraining it to do only those things only government can and must do. For the sake of our souls and generations yet to come, we must dismantle government-run health, education, and welfare programs.  

What will happen if we do not act soon? Some how, some way the Christian faith will survive, but our land will no longer have government of the People, by the People, and for the People.


This is the third post in a series.

  • Part 2 considered this question “Should We Take What The “Experts” Have To Say About Homosexuality Seriously?”
  • Here we will begin to address the moral questions, but first we will define our terms. We will ask: “What Does The Tolerance Of Homosexual Sex Involve?” 

In Part 2, we ended with the intention to explain why Christians object to homosexual sex. The short answer is that the Bible says homosexual sex is wrong. Here are references to commonly quoted passages.

  • Genesis 19:1-13 tells of Sodom and Gomorrah.
  • Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 offer straightforward statements explicitly condemning homosexuality.
  • Romans 1:24-27 explains that when we refuse to acknowledge and worship God we will commit unnatural and evil acts.
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 tells us that homosexuality is just one of many evil acts that men can commit. This passage also reminds us we can repent.

Is homosexual sex the greatest of evils? I do not know how to judge such things. The Bible just says homosexuality is bad and that it hurts the people who engage in it. Unfortunately, most Americans have become so ignorant of the Bible, they no longer appreciate its wisdom. Instead of reading the Bible, we look for excuses to just plain ignore it. So now a short answer is not good enough. Therefore, we need to back up and discuss “tolerance.”

What Does The Tolerance Of Homosexual Sex Involve? 

Because we have questions within the question, the question this post seeks to answer is actually fairly complicated. 

  • What is tolerance?
  • What are we being asked to tolerate? What is the homosexual lifestyle?
  • If we decide not to tolerate homosexual sex, how do we reject it?
  • If we decide to tolerate homosexual sex, how do we tolerate it?

What Is Tolerance?

tolerance – noun

  1. the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions
  2. a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior [syn: permissiveness] [ant: unpermissiveness]
  3. the act of tolerating something
  4. willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others [ant: intolerance
  5. a permissible difference; allowing freedom to move within limits [syn: allowance, leeway, margin]

As definition suggests, what we call tolerance these days can range from putting up with something or someone who is disagreeable to recognizing and respecting a belief or practice of “others.” Where moral questions are involved, the distinction between putting up with disagreeable behavior and active approval of that same behavior is important. Whereas one “extreme” requires forbearance, the other “extreme” involves giving approval and providing support. Hence, the modern definition of tolerance is highly ambiguous (etymology). 

Until recent times, our society practiced a policy of grudging forbearance towards homosexual sex. Because our society strongly disapproved of homosexual sex, most wanted nothing to do with either homosexuals or homosexuality. Therefore, active homosexuals felt compelled to lead secret sex lives (making it a spicy subject for the entertainment industry).  Now homosexual rights advocates, so homosexuals can come out of the closet and feel good about themselves, insist that we regard homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice, one on par with traditional marriage.

What Is The Homosexual Lifestyle?

What are homosexual rights advocates demanding that we approve? Oddly, in spite of all the publicity surrounding the subject — except perhaps when they are viewing pornography — most people give this aspect of the issue relatively little consideration. We have an intellectual understanding, but we willfully refuse to consider the logical consequences.

Homosexual sex involves a perversion. Homosexual sex is just one of many ways of corrupting the human mating practices that lead to strong, healthy, and decent children.  Nature’s God (see the Declaration of Independence) ensures the survival of the human race. Most of us will have, have, or have had the capacity to reproduce. Almost all  of us experience a strong sexual drive even when we have ceased to be fertile. Our sexual drive is so strong and so much a part of us we must be conditioned from childhood to control it. Therefore, we have taboos against rape, incest, bestiality, pederasty, nudity, sexual harassment, adultery, prostitution, fornication, pornography……, and homosexuality.

Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction, homosexual sex risks havoc with our emotions and our bodies. Because it cannot serve any reproductive purpose — is simply a ridiculous aberration from the norm — homosexual sex is in fact unnatural. That is why a “mature relationship” where two homosexuals use each other for monogamous sex is, at best, unusual.

Can sexual relationship involve more than just a way to bear children? Yes, of course. Nonetheless, sex exists for reproductive purposes. Because it allows us to participate in the creation of new life, sex is sacred. Nature’s God “ruthlessly designed” every aspect of sex to further reproduction, not frivolous pleasure. 

Sex is not a toy. There is no such thing as casual sex. Sex provides no trifling amusement. When two people have sexual relations, they become one flesh. Therefore, when we sin sexually, we sin against our own body (1 Corinthians 6:16-18).

If We Decide Not To Tolerate Homosexual Sex, How Do We Reject It?

Our society has been quite tolerant of homosexual sex for decades. With few exceptions, we do nothing to stop homosexuals from engaging in their peculiar sexual practices. We just do (or did) the following:

  • We refuse to approve in any way of homosexuality. In particular, we do not allow our government to “marry” same-sex couples.  
  • We keep homosexuals who publicly advertise their lifestyle choice away from children.
  • We do not allow homosexuals to serve openly in our military forces.

Even though there are practical reasons for all these prohibitions, homosexual rights advocates declare that these prohibitions deprived homosexuals of their “rights.”

  • Marriage is a “right.” Supposedly, any two consenting adults have the “right” to marry.
  • Access to other people’s children is a “right.” Supposedly, homosexual rights advocates have the “right” to teach children that homosexuality is an appropriate — even “gay” — lifestyle choice.
  • Service in the military is a “right.” Even though it would be disruptive to good order and discipline, homosexuals supposedly have the “right” to inflict the consequences their personal lifestyle choices on our military forces.

Hence, all we have to do reject homosexual sex is to not endorse it as a great and noble endeavor that requires our involuntary approval.

If We Decide To Tolerate Homosexual Sex, How Do We Tolerate It?

Homosexual rights advocates admit only one acceptable mode of tolerance. We must fully endorse homosexual sex as just a “good” as heterosexual sex. Pity — even a willingness to live and let live — is not good enough. We must act as though the real and physical differences between the sexes is wholly unimportant. We must accord relationships between homosexual couples the same respect we accord to relationships between heterosexual couples. We must recognize and respect each individual’s personal sexual orientation choice.

How many sexual orientation choices are there? The number seems to be increasing. Consider this acronym, LGBTQIA. Not so long ago, LGBTQIA was just LGBT. LGBTQIA now stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersexed community, and ally.

Given that similar arguments can be used to justify societal approval, what are some of the other personal sexual orientation choices that we might see added to LGBTQIA

  • Some candidates involve sexual behaviors that relate to “marriage” arrangements. 
    • Potential candidates include Polygamy, Polyandry, and Group Marriage
    • Given the enthusiasms of certain animal rights and child rights groups, in a few decades we may even see the “rights” of animals and children expressed in marriage with human adults.
  • Some candidates involve sexual behaviors that relate to unmarried associations.
    • Because some view it merely as the world’s oldest profession (and quite profitable), prostitution has gained respect. Thus, in the minds of some, the rights of prostitutes and their business managers deserve legal protection. No doubt Liberal politicians also bemoan the lost regulatory and taxation opportunities.
    • Like prostitution the Orgy also has a long history. Some folks have even conducted orgies as a religious rite. So it is probably only a matter of time before lawyers start arguing the Orgy deserves legal protection as religious right.
    • Undoubtedly, because of its already great popularity, politicians will find it in their hearts to protect plain, old fashion, “free sex” fornication. Can’t you imagine what they will say?

      Don’t fornicators need to be protected from the condemnations of those mean, prudish, sex-hating, demon-possessed, right-wing, Conservative Christians too? Why should those narrow-minded bigots be allowed to call fornication a sin? Does that not hurt people’s feelings and self-esteem? Don’t the bullying bigots make some young people feel guilty and depressed, even suicidal?

To be continued.  In the next post, we will consider the specific arguments of homosexual rights advocates.


Here is a video I found at Tertium Quids.

As I have said before, I think the Repeal Amendment is overkill (see WHY CAN’T WE JUST FOCUS ON THE SOLUTION?).

Listening to Speaker Howell, what made me particularly nervous was his discussion of a call for a Constitutional Convention (to draft a Repeal Amendment). As Speaker Howell himself noted, we have not had a Constitutional Convention since the first one. Thus, I don’t know how it would work; I am not sure anybody does.  Here is what the Constitution says.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. (from here)

Who would attend this convention? Logically, since the states called for the convention, state legislature should choose their own representatives (like they did for that first Constitutional Convention). However, the Constitution only requires Congress to call the Convention; it does not say anything else.

In an earlier era, before the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, state legislatures effectively controlled the Senate. Now we have a Senate and a President who would obviously be hostile to anything that even remotely looks like a Repeal Amendment. Moreover, given the track record of Democrats here of late, there is no telling how they might abuse a call for Constitutional Convention. At best, Howell’s call for a Repeal Amendment is a risky gambit, which probably shows as nothing else could how seriously our situation has deteriorated.

Before we seriously consider supporting a Repeal Amendment, we should consider who chooses who attends a Constitutional Convention. So far almost everybody is directing their attention to the Repeal Amendment itself, but that ignores history. Look at the last Constitutional Convention. The people who attended that convention wrote a whole new Constitution.

What history suggests is that if we get another Constitution Convention, we have no idea what will come out of it. Like as not, the convention delegates will do what they did last time, close the doors and swear each other to secrecy (See The Constitutional Convention at

Other Views

The Richmond Times-Dispatch’s Virginia Politics Blog belatedly notes Cuccinelli Supports Repeal Amendment.

At Bearing Drift, JR Hoeft link to an editorial he wrote: Should states be able to stop Congress? also features an earlier post that explains how Cuccinelli Pushes Repeal Amendment.

Crystal Clear Conservative notes Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s support in Cuccinelli Discusses his Support of the Repeal Amendment.

At Virginia Virtucon, Riley says The Repeal Amendment Isn’t The Answer. As Riley observes, the correct answer to repeal the 17th Amendment.

More Diligent Bloggers Than I (via NoOneOfAnyImport’s Blog)

(from here)

What was that lame duck Congress that considered so much legislation the Democrats did not have the nerve to consider BEFORE the election? That was a sneak attack. This attack took advantage both of the fact the Democrats still had a majority during the lame duck session and of the distractions created by the Christmas holidays. Well, the holidays are not over, and the sneak attack continues.

First up is Steve Dennis, the guardsman at America’s Watchtower.  He has important information about the EPA, which has quickly shifted from internet regulation to that pesky CO2 regulation: “The EPA has now announced that they are stepping up the effort and will be clamping down on power plants and oil refineries in an attempt to force these companies to comply with cap and trade legislation that has yet to be implemented.” Next up is Bella at C … Read More

via NoOneOfAnyImport’s Blog