The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

[ordos45]

Or as I like to call it "Welcome to the Holy Evangelical Christian Republic of America".

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/03/12/120.html

Washington are pushing a law through Congress that would "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government" in the United States. What's more, it would forbid all legal challenges to government officials who use the power of the state to enforce their own view of "God's sovereign authority." Any judge who dared even hear such a challenge could be removed from office.

Their openly expressed aim is to establish "biblical rule" over every aspect of society -- placing "the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere under Christ the King." Or as Attorney General John Ashcroft -- the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- has often proclaimed: "America has no king but Jesus!"

The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" is no joke; it was introduced last month by some of the Bush Regime's most powerful Congressional sycophants. If enacted, it will effectively transform the American republic into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" -- as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or president -- can override the rule of law.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.html

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.

To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.

I may be Christian, but I would rather not live in a Theocracy.  I truly hope that H.R. 3799 does not succeed.

[nemafakei]

Hm. Is God defined anywhere in the US constitution? If not, I'd just like to see how happy they'd be about Muslims taking the liberties they suggest.

[Acriku]

It doesn't mention God at all in the Constitution except using a dating convention. This is a joke really. I highly doubt they'd get through any method, formal or informal, to amend the Constitution. But, they'll still try, and again, and again.

[Wolf]

Yes, I think that most American politicians find such a prospect as being absolutely ridiculous.

[Caid Ivik]

Wasn't PRP a place for serious news?  ::)

[Edric O]

Yes, before Emprworm came back...

At any rate, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that these theocratic lunatics are no more "christian" than the Inquisition. They are, in fact, your average band of conservative cronies trying to find a divine justification for giving their employers absolute power. They try to put the "biblical" stamp on the most un-biblical and un-christian statements, like: "wealth is a mark of God's favor"

I guess they never bothered to read the book they claim to defend:

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

- Matthew 19:24

[emprworm]

Yes, before Emprworm came back...

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

- Matthew 19:24

will somebody...ANYBODY please tell me what the next 2 verses say IMMEDIATELY after that one?

[Edric O]

Gladly:

When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"

And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

So rich people are not all condemned to hell, which is only sensible. But they are certainly not recipients of divine grace, either. In fact, just 3 verses above those, Jesus tells a rich man what God wishes him to do:

And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"

And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;

HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

[emprworm]

was that a command to the rich man, or a command to all humanity?

[Edric O]

By that logic, you can ignore any Bible passage that doesn't fit your capitalist ideology, under the excuse that Jesus was only giving personal advice to the man he was talking with at the time.

In fact, this is what many conservative "Christians" actually do: They say that you are saved by faith alone, so it doesn't really matter what Jesus said. The whole Bible can be thrown out the window, and Jesus's obvious support for socialist/communist ideas can be ignored. All you have to do is to believe in Him, and it doesn't matter what a greedy, selfish, profiteering pig you are! ::)

Since capitalism and Christianity contradict each other, the conservatives are forced to use those lame excuses in order to feel good about themselves.

[emprworm]

uhhh whatever Edric.  I dont ignore anything.  I just point out that Jesus talked to more than 1 rich man.  And his commands to them were not the same.

though yours are.

I dont read "Edric's Socialist New Testament"

I just read the "New Testament"

[Wolf]

Edric, it seems that Jesus was one of the first communists, in addition to being a great religious figure in the eyes of history. Look at the commandments you quoted from the Bible; are they not, essentially, the pillars of communist society? To love all as we would love ourselves. Indeed, I wonder how human beings deviated from these teachings, if the result was to be a communist utopia rather than a capitalist crucible. Furthermore, I especially find it sad that what history remembers as the great "communist" nation, the USSR, was one to attempt to eliminate Christianity. Further tarnishing the image the ideal of communism has in the eyes of the world.

[emprworm]

Edric, it seems that Jesus was one of the first communists, in addition to being a great religious figure in the eyes of history. Look at the commandments you quoted from the Bible; are they not, essentially, the pillars of communist society? To love all as we would love ourselves. Indeed, I wonder how human beings deviated from these teachings, if the result was to be a communist utopia rather than a capitalist crucible. Furthermore, I especially find it sad that what history remembers as the great "communist" nation, the USSR, was one to attempt to eliminate Christianity. Further tarnishing the image the ideal of communism has in the eyes of the world.

Wolfwiz, your statement is false.

[TMA_1]

early christians were sociallist in nature out of the need, they were a poor community and needed to depend on the brotherly love of that community. Socialism helped with this, as it was a band of brothers and sisters helping one another.

Edric is right, a rich man hasmuch more difficult a time to accept the truth of christ, as the World is the most dangerous of all temptations. Satan is nothing compared to the temptations that the World and Ourselves create. America has never been a theocracy, it was founded on secularist ideals and beliefs, only a very small minority of the founding fathers were "christian". Most like Jefferson thought christ to be a "good teacher" but nothing more. In fact he rewrote the bible of sorts, and destroyed most of the doctern in the bible.lol

This kind of crap does not help america. If america should go through a revival, it should be one of free will, where the hearts and minds of americans are won from individual to individual. This kind of stuff destroyes free will, which is the second greatest gift God gave to us (first being christ).

This kind of thing is just a backlash against secularism, and only fuels the fire for anti christian sentiments. makes me sick.

[emprworm]

early christians were sociallist in nature out of the need, they were a poor community and needed to depend on the brotherly love of that community. Socialism helped with this, as it was a band of brothers and sisters helping one another.

I wont put a label on them as 'socialists' or 'capitalists', but I do know that early Christians gave freely.  THe concept of forcible redistribution of wealth is completely opposed to Christianity, and not what the church practiced.  That is what pharisees practiced.  If you didn't give it of your own free will and of your heart....the church didn't even want it.

Marxism doesn't care about what your 'heart' says....it only looks at wealth for wealth's sake, and redistributes it, regardless of your will.  Marxism  takes wealth whether you will it to or not.  The antithesis of Christian giving.

[Wolf]

What if all members of the communist society were willing participants?

[emprworm]

if all members were willing participants, and there was not a rule in place that said "you MUST give" so that at any time, any participant could refuse to give, and could choose to get wealthy, and choose to raise the prices on their goods and services without approval from everyone else...then that is fine.

but that is not communism.

[Anathema]

I'm not particulary orientated on this, but isn't it impossible to accumulate wealth in socialism, because all production ends up in a single pool from wich everybody takes what he needs? Screw that, it's off topic anyway.

The state should be secular. Allowing religion to exercise influence over the state also means that in return the state will exert influence over religion. Besides, history proves that only secular societies work- in the islamic world, Turkey is the only country wich adopted a true secular stance and they're the only democracy in it.

[Wolf]

Isn't Egypt a more secular mostly-Islamic nation? But, yeah, that's beside the point, I think you're right again there, Anathema, especially about allowing the state to exert influence over religion. I think many of the problems that modern-day Christianity faces come from undue political influence being exerted over it when the church and the state were one. The Protestant half of Christianity, in fact, came into being because of these political influences, and sought refuge from them, which began, I believe, the initial colonization of North America by Europeans.

[Edric O]

if all members were willing participants, and there was not a rule in place that said "you MUST give" so that at any time, any participant could refuse to give, and could choose to get wealthy, and choose to raise the prices on their goods and services without approval from everyone else...then that is fine.

There are no prices in communism. There is no money, and there is no private wealth. You don't make your own wealth and then give it away. Rather, all participants make their wealth together, and that wealth is their common property.

Therefore, the system cannot revert back to capitalism. But a man who wants to live in capitalism is always free to leave.

but that is not communism.  in communism, there is no choice.  There is no ability for someone to say "I change my mind.  I want to keep my wealth."

No there isn't, because there is no way to distinguish "your" wealth from the wealth of everyone else. In fact, there in no such thing as "your" wealth.

However, you are always free to say "I change my mind.  I want to go live in that capitalist society over there."

The state says my lemonade must cost 10 cents. I want to charge 25 cents for my lemonade, because my lemons are a higher quality, and my recipe is a better recipe.

First of all, there is no state. Second of all, there is no money!

So, in a word, this example of yours is bullshit.

[Edric O]

First of all, let me point out that a rabid ultra-conservative like Emprworm is not exactly the world's greatest authority on marxism, or socialism and communism...

In fact, I'll even wager that Emprworm cannot give you a straight definition of those words.

Emprworm, define the terms "marxism", "socialism" and "communism".

The reason why I am asking you to do this is because you don't really have a single damn clue what you're talking about, and I intend to expose your idiocy for all to see.

Now, let's get on with disecting your mad ramblings...

Wolfwiz, your statement is false.  You are an intelligent guy.  Jesus said that unless you give willingly and from your heart he doesn't want you to give at all!

Yes, and that's EXACTLY what happens in communism. There is no private property, and there is also no state. People share their posessions willingly. Some will do it out of altruism, as Jesus preached, but most people will do it for their own benefit: Since the communist system benefits all, it is in their own interest to make it work.

Socialism is all about forcible distribution of property.  This is the precise anti-thesis of what Jesus talked about Giving.

The antithesis of giving is not giving. In other words, capitalism.

And yes, in order to establish socialism, there must be a forcible redistribution of property. When a thief steals something from you, are you not justified in forcibly taking it back from him? Is it not right to force slave owners to release their slaves?

The abolition of slavery was a forcible redistribution of property. Does that make it bad?

Socialists only plan to redistribute property ONCE. In the beginning, we want to confiscate the wealth of the rich who lived off other people's work and give it to those who actually worked for it. This is akin to stealing your bag back from a thief.

After socialism is established, there will be no need for any further redistribution of property, since capitalist exploitation will be made impossible. The gap between rich and poor will be naturally kept low, and even the poorest human beings will be guaranteed the right to food, drinking water, housing, free education and health care.

The church did NOT institutde mandates to redistribute people's wealth.  It collected the gifts that were freely given and redistributed them.

the difference here is so huge, so fundamental, that it cannot be overstated.

Yes, it's the difference between a RELIGION and a SOCIAL SYSTEM.

The Church did not institute mandates for the redistribution of wealth. The Church also didn't force slave owners to release their slaves - but slave owners who converted to Christianity voluntarily released their slaves.

Karl Marx said point blank that the first step in communism is the "abolishment of private property".

No, that's the LAST step in the path to communism. We have a long way to go before we can abolish all private property. The first step is to abolish private property over the means of production - in other words, to nationalize the economy and put it under the democratic control of the people (thus establishing economic democracy).

This is not subject to the will of man, but the will of the state.

Actually, it's quite the other way around. In socialism, the state should have no will of its own - it should be a tool of the people, whose purpose is to serve the people's interests (thus the will of man above the will of the state). In communism, the state doesn't even exist.

Christianity does NOT want laws forcing you to 'give'.

Christianity does not want ANY laws. It's a religion, not a political ideology!

Socialists focus on wealth.

God focuses on the heart.

Socialists believe in the separation of church and state. Of course we focus on wealth - that's what an economic system is all about! The production and distribution of wealth!

Is your capitalism a religion, Emprworm? If not, then how can it focus on God?

You heard it right!  Pharisees were giving ACCORDING TO THE COMMUNAL LAW and it was worthless to God.  All that gold and wealth....worthless.

Worthless to God, and worthless from a spiritual point of view. But certainly NOT worthless to the poor children who owed their lives to the money they received by law!

God does not care about mans wealth.  It is not an issue.  He cares about souls.

Of course. That's why Christianity is a RELIGION, not a SOCIAL SYSTEM...

But it's a religion that goes well with a certain social system - namely communism.

And if you own nothing, then you cannot give anything.

Fallacy. This is like saying:

a) freeing slaves is good

b) you cannot free slaves unless you have slaves

therefore c) slavery is good

It's a fallacy because the evil done by having slaves is greater than the good done by freeing them. Similarly, the evil done by having an unjust system is greater than the good done by having people voluntarily give up their wealth to make the system a little more just.

In a communist system, that man would have no choice, his wealth would be stripped.

In a communist system, he would have the choice to leave and go establish his own capitalist society if he wants. Just as long as everyone in that capitalist society is also free to leave and go join the communist one.

Some capitalist societies will undoubtebly be created in the beggining, but there will be a steady flow of impoverished workers leaving them to join the communist system, so eventually the only ones left in capitalism will be the rich upper class, with no one to work for them any more. No capitalist enclave can last very long when its workers have a prosperous communist system to run away to.

Marx Communism states that all property belongs to the state.

See, this is when you make a total fool of yourself.

Marxist Communism states that property technically does not belong to anyone, least of all the state. "Property" is an artificial notion invented in order to enforce a certain system of production and distribution. "Property" is an illegitimate notion. Property is theft because any property relation always begins with theft.

Or, to put it another way, all property belongs to everyone. All property should be owned and used in common, whenever possible.

The state is necessary as a tool of the people during socialism. As the people learn to govern themselves (and socialism fades into communism), the state becomes obsolete and it is abolished.

[Edric O]

And by the way, it is a fallacy to say that God does not want to force people to be good, so we should let them do all the evil they want. By that logic, we should legalize murder - hey, God doesn't want to FORCE you not to kill! ::)

[emprworm]

So, in a word, this example of yours is bullshit.

rofl!

[emprworm]

And by the way, it is a fallacy to say that God does not want to force people to be good, so we should let them do all the evil they want. By that logic, we should legalize murder - hey, God doesn't want to FORCE you not to kill! ::)

God lets people choose whom they wish to serve.  God does not usually force people to live by his light.  that is quite obvious just looking at the world.

[Edric O]

Even Jesus told his disciples to pay tribute to ceasar, seperating commerce from spiritual life.

Yes, He told them to pay their taxes (once again contradicting the conservatives, or at least the most rabid ones). He did not tell them to become businessmen and get filthy rich. Quite the opposite: He told them to give all their money to the poor. He told them that wealth separates people from God. He told them to live spartan lifestyles and always be generous and altruistic.

Commerce was not condemned by Christ.  (only when it was practiced IN the church...integration of commerce is BAD...more arguments for capitalism)  For there to be commerce, there must be money, as you can go all the way back to the first book of the Bible and see it.

Sure there was money. There was also murder, rape, and every other imaginable kind of sin.

Except in the Garden of Eden, that is. And I also don't remember any money in the Garden of Eden.

And as for your nonsense that anyone would be 'free' to leave at anytime....where would they go?  DOnt you want your system to permeate the entire world?

First of all, that is utter hypocrisy - because you want your system to permeate the entire world too.

Second of all, keep in mind that there is no privately owned land in communism. Some of the land will be the collective property of various communes, some of it will be set aside for natural parks and reservations, but the rest will be public domain. Any large enough group can establish their own society, governed according to their own principles, anywhere on this land. A group of capitalists could get together and establish a capitalist society.

what if people in your system were sick, and needed state of the art medical equipment for a high risk surgery, that could only be provided in by that "other" capitalist system.  how would you pay for it?  You dont think that "other" capitalist system is just going to give the equipment away do you?

Loaded question. You assume the capitalist system has better equipment, which is highly unlikely, due to the fact that they will constantly be losing workers (their poorest workers will constantly be leaving towards the communist system, until there are none left).

But for the sake of the argument, if the capitalists have something the communists want, the communists will simply trade for it.