Because Government Is Their God

The Democrats removed “God” from their platform. , the Republican party went from two mentions to twelve from 2008 to 2012, and the Democrats went from one mention to zero, completely wiping God’s name from their platform.

Why?

Because government is their god.

When a political party promises there will be no hardship, no punishment, no responsibility, and no accountability to be placed upon the individual as long as he turns his life over to their care, they are attempting to replace that individual’s trust in God with trust in them.

Sandra Fluke’s demanding appearance in front of an interested Democrat panel of legislators is one example.  Her plea for taxpayer subsidy of contraceptives in direct challenge to Catholic universities’ faith-based objection, showed this disconnect and disrespect of moral objection.  She looked to government to provide her needs as she saw fit, instead of empowering women to see to their own needs.

The modern Democratic Party fights for government’s power rather than God’s because God’s judgement places expectations upon them, whereas government can, if they get their way, absolve their indiscretion without judgement, without personal responsibility.

President Obama tells us that without government’s infrastructure projects, roads, bridges, internet and so on, we can’t build a business and make our lives better.  In fact, he asserts that it cannot be done without the partnership of government.  In this, he tells us that we have no worth, no labor worth using, and no property worth keeping without government.  And to that end, when a small business is born, government slaps a hefty tax on it to ensure that it will partner with government.

If we, as citizens of a nation under God, are to comport ourselves in a manner to coexist in a civil society, we take on the personal responsibilities necessary to that end.  In that way, we stay within the law of God and of Nature.  But if we cast off God’s expectations of us, with the blessings of government, there is no longer any lines of right and wrong.

That is why, when the modern Democratic party says we are all citizens of our government, and are drawn to serve one another, any argument against the laws of current government, is met with incredulity and offense from those who would replace the laws of God with the laws of temporary men and women in power.

God says it is right to be charitable to the poor.  The last shall be first, and the first, last.  God does not say it is right for a government to take from one and give to another because he also says thou shall not steal.

God gives us a moral and righteous compass in which we all should try to live, but when government provides the compass, it’s purpose is to provide equality and force those with much to give to those with little.  God’s love is then diminished as unfair, whereas government’s is exalted to cure unfairness.

When the framers of this nation said that our rights come from God and Nature’s God, it causes a mental rift in the minds of the modern Democrat party.  After all, what is nature, and what is natural?  Is it natural for a man and a woman to want to marry?  If so, then is it unnatural for a man to marry a man?  And if that moral absolute is God’s law, then government is needed to change it.  Is it natural for a man to be physically stronger than a woman?  If so, a woman has no power, ultimately, and it is necessary for government to take away his other attributes and rights to cure that disparity.

God is repressive in the minds of the modern Democrat party, and government is progressive.  But progress in the ways of diminishing human nature and humanity itself.

God says we are to love ourselves because He is within us.  He gives us a mind and a soul and His commandments and examples throughout the Bible of what is good and righteous in His eyes and what is not.

Government can override those laws considered too harsh, but when it does so, we lose our trust in ourselves and therefore, in God.

When we lose ourselves and our ability to govern ourselves, government steps in and takes over, controlling every aspect of our lives as if we were mere children of Father Government.  But when we believe in God, we are strengthened and empowered to do right by man and God and in turn, are in control of our lives, which is something not permissible in a nation ruled by man.

After all, if you, as an individual are allowed to reach your full potential, your dreams fulfilled by your own effort, you are then suspected by government of not playing fair, because there are still people under government’s thumb who do not and cannot reach their full potential.

And that is the problem with a massive, powerful government.  In the end, no one reaches their full potential, because government busies itself with affecting your potential, and changing the spirit of the law to fit it’s logic-of-the-moment.

Government is needed in society to provide order, keep the peace, and protection from attack.  But when government exceeds it’s boundaries, every one of those responsibilities is compromised.  Government cannot provide any of those things when it becomes so obese it cannot function.

When the Constitution was adopted, it laid out what government can do, and what it cannot do.  Obama said himself, that his attitude toward the Constitution is such that he complained it does not spell out what government ‘should’ do on behalf of the people.

A representative of government is a representative of the people, not an organizer of society.  Society was organized by the founding documents, which was also organized by the laws of nature and of nature’s God.  We do not bow to men, we bow to God.

The modern Democratic party seeks to rid itself of God’s law and our Constitution, based on God’s law, because if God’s law is observed by each of us, they cannot control us.

And that prospect gives them no power.

Please follow and like:
Share
  • task

    Thank you Jen,

    Government often does the work of the devil in the name of the Church and the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Al Smith originally stated this.

    All statist governments look to substitute themselves to represent the mores and values that originally came to all of as a consequence of relegion and yet they consider themselves secular when in fact they represent the most constraining of all religions. They give you no choice. Just because God is taken out of the equation and government or a golden calf is substituted does not exclude the concept that originally inspired the Founders to include the "Establishment Clause" as part of the First Amendment. Government, without mentioning God, has now become a theocracy. Charity has no business as part of government; it is part of an individual's moral code and should be given no other legal significance. A charitable people do not need more and recognized early on that the consequences of legal empowerment would eventually always lead to a government authorized theocratic despotism; and is even worse when it advances what it actually pretends to help.

    • USMC Retired Prof

      Dear Sir or Madame, from an academic standpoint, the First Amendment cannot be attibuted to the Founders. What we call the Bill of Rights were actually compromises for ratification of the new government by the states, namely New York and Virginia, because the new government would not have survived without them. From hundreds of proposed amendments, the states ratified 10 of the 12 which passed both House and Senate. Most who signed the Constitution believed a Bill of Rights to be unnecessary.

      • USMC Retired Prof

        I am not sure of your definition of "charity," but many scholars would argue that "charity" is a foundation or activity to promote the public good or an institution to help the needy. In that respect, the Preamble to the Constitution and the document itself are charities. Without these charities and others enacted later, the franchise right would still be limited to white male Protestant property owners of recognizable substance and permanance within their community. Even then, your vote on the Federal level would not be secret and only for a Member of the House as the "common" citizen did not possess the ability to determine the qualifications needed for a Member of the US Senate or Chief Executive. For those who argue the rights bestowed by God are the rights actually enjoyed, one should consider the possibilities within the US in 1789 and still today compared to other states because of protections by government from "hostiles" and from the government itself through checks and balances in the distribution of powers.

        • task

          Many scholars need only look at original intent to understand what you also may not comprehend. Do what you want privately. Conservatives will not attempt to stop anyone from doing so.

          “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

          "I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
– Thomas Jefferson, "Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank" [February 15, 1791]

          "We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."
– James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489

          "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." –James Madison

          "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."– James Madison 1794

          "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
– John Adams

          "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
– Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854

        • Jen Kuznicki

          "is a foundation or activity to promote the public good or an institution to help the needy"

          LOL!

          Just googled that, and laughed because it is taken verbatim from the online free dictionary.

          Zakaria, is that you?

          LMAO!

      • task

        Many who passed the Constitution did believe a Bill of Rights unnecessary but they wanted those Amendments and fortunately, out of the twelve, they passed ten which have become a credit to the vision of the Founders who wisely needed affirmations to double down on limiting the size and scope of the Federal government. We have relied on their unambiguous clarity throughout our history and I cannot imagine how far a judiciary would stray from original intent without them.

        You say those Amendments were required for ratification. Therefore what you are saying is that without them we would not have had the United States. That is as significant as it gets. Furthermore, without the Founders who would argue for the states. They submitted the Amendments to the States for ratification.

        What we may not have needed was the Fourteenth Amendment, because it has elements of duplicity but seemed appropriate to provide clarity to original intent post war. For that matter we may not have heeded the ninetieth Amendment as well since it affirmed a right of suffrage yet I see nothing that prevented gender inequality before its passage.

      • Jen Kuznicki

        " the First Amendment cannot be attibuted to the Founders."
        are you arguing that the founders were only the people in the constitutional convention hall? the people in the hall were representatives of their particular states. Mason argued strenuously that the Constitution should not be ratified without a bill of rights to protect the people from the federal government's power. His argument won and if, as you say, "Most who signed the Constitution believed a Bill of Rights to be unnecessary." is true, then why wouldn't they have just signed the damn thing and ignored Mason's objection?

        • task

          Jen,

          You are far too logical! LOL!

          The Constitution is a contract. You can bet that anyone arguing the opposite would never ask their lawyer to remove such protection from any of their contracts.

  • Gary Cobb

    Ditto's Jen. Well said.
    Everything that is taking place today is the results of everything that has come before it. Now they are bolder that ever before and it is all unfolding before our eyes in rapid fashion. I am amazed at the power they think they possess. With arrogance, hatred, and purpose, they are in our face. They dare us to voice opposition to what they consider now a new law of the land. Within their ranks almost the man they speak with such hubris as I have never seen before. Make no mistake about it this is not a passing fad or halfhearted ideology. This is evil incarnate with full term abortions on demand as its battle cry. It will devour everything in it's path and remake it into it's image. It is a dangerous foe as dangerous to America as any war we have ever faced. This is a civil war battle from within for the soul of our nation.
    The followers of this force are pulled in with false promises and self satisfying rewards. The followers are sadly lost souls that are simply used to expand this empire. The God fearing, good intentioned, patriotic, democrats within their ranks will break away or be discarded or chastised when the time is right. Make no mistake about it this is what is in store for use if we don't fight back. If you think I am exaggerating or some crazy that is full of hatred, I am not.
    "In God We Trust". That is the official America motto. OFFICIAL. That is "God" with a capital "G". Others, false gods appear all sizes and shapes form golden idols to false prophets to written platforms.
    Long before this democrat's platform there was and is still God's Platform, the Bible.
    It seems to me that the motto for this movement and it's followers should be "Ave imperator, morituri te salutant", or "Hail Emperor, those that are about to die salute you".

  • Gary Cobb

    If I am wrong then I will shut up, say no more and go away but, This is not a game.
    Let me start with an example. I could site a hundred more. O'Reilly will argue his point with say, Williams or Combs on women's rights to choose. The right to kill babies. At the end of the argument O'Reilly will laugh and say something like,…I still love you man, let's have lunch soon or "I know you hate what America stands for, but let's do lunch". These examples and others like it, makes my blood boil. The mountainous problems we all face today are no joke. This ain't some kind of game you play out on TV. It's not about ratings or fair and balanced. I could care less why someone thinks it's OK to abort a child. It is wrong, period; no counter point. Pundits stir up their supporters like poking a stick at a caged dog until the animal foams at the mouth only to then joke about it and walk away. Are they all so far removed from the day to day anger we truly feel? Americans are feeling true anger and frustration as the American flag and the Constitution is ripped to shreds. Just once, only once, I wish one of them would say, "get off my set you big dope"[sound familiar] and mean it. Quit patronizing these idiots. They are out to destroy this country even if they don't know it. There is no bipartisan solution to just how much or what part of this country do we destroy.
    If your complaint or argument is one which rejects right reason, Divine Providence, natural law, unalienable rights, or the Constitution then you have no argument and I don't care to have lunch with you.

    • task

      Gary,

      I think you have a better handle on what is inherently right or wrong than Bill O'Reilly who sometimes gets me as nuts as he does you. The facts are that they are killing a living organism (human baby to be blunt). If they spent a day or two with me using an ultrasound probe watching fetal hearts beat their defenses would be shattered. The only property that they recognize as off limits from government meddling is their own flesh and blood; and that they want to kill. You simply could not make something like this up but it is the holy sacrament of the left. Everything but this they seek to control.

  • Gary Cobb

    Task,
    Thank you for your comments. It means a lot to us all.
    This little beating heart is at the mercy of the woman that cradles it in her womb. Unknown to many of these tiny hearts (52,000,000 of them and counting), this warm but dark shelter was not their protector but was to become their casket. I have no way of knowing and I hesitate to say but I think God in Heaven will tolerate all of mankind's most evil transgressions but that of killing a child. I think it was St. Augustine that said some evils will be left unpunished until the final day of judgement. We must fight with all our strength to protect the unborn, but God may have the final word. I think all other sins of all mankind through all of history will receive a lesser punishment than that reserved for the mistreatment of a child both born and unborn. I can not imagine how this freedom to abort is of such monumental importance that any woman (including their enablers) would risk their souls to simply abort a nine month "inconvenience".
    We are all encouraged to be civil and to work across the isle. Well I am willing to debate and negotiate and even concede to a opposite point of view but a compromise in the name of civility is never right if it is contrary to God's will.
    I have heard recently Lanny Davis speak of Bill Clinton's contrast between right and wrong versus good and evil and he seem to say that there is no battle of good versus evil ongoing today but rather a simple argument of right or wrong. He dismisses any attempt to consider or include God's Laws in the debate. It is as if Clinton is telling God to stay out of it! I say that "good" is in a battle against "evil" as never before in history. A simple debate over right or wrong is an argument left for men to decide but a battle of good versus evil is at hand. There is no compromise to be had. There is no middle ground. Good must not give in and God is in it until the end.

  • JamesKJonesboro

    @task I believe that you did not read the initial post accurately, the poster remarked that the Constitution would not have gone into effect without the ratifications of Virginia and New York. The poster did not assert the Bill of Rights. The Bill or Rights were ratified in 1791 after the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. It was James Madison who did not allow a government even though ratified by the required percentage of states to become effective until the ratifications by Virginia and New York. As to the statement concerning “original intent” the Establishment Clause within the 1st Amendment being ratified 2 years later is a major detractor from your reasoning. With the exception of Marxist historians, the scholarly interpretation is that the Founding Fathers sought to give power to the Federal government given the failures of the Articles. In other words, they took powers from the states, gave those powers to the Federal level, and established the roles of governmental tiers while providing a system of checks and balances to prevent abuse. Sincerely, Jim K., PhD., The King’s College.

    • task

      This is such a surprise. I thought all University and College professors were Marxists.

      The very process of establishing our central government had the potential of taking powers from the states hence both Federalists and anti-Federalists, having just fought a war to escape George the Third were mindful of benefits and equally mindful of losing sovereignty. You know that the Bill of Rights was about individual and state sovereignty regarding their relationship to newly formed Federal Government. It was no easy task to insure that a power grab could not occur and those States were not about to give up their own independence including their religious independence as the worried Connecticut Baptists made apparent to Jefferson years later. It took the Fourteenth Amendment to do that and like the 17th Amendment we have suffered some nasty consequences as a result.

      In all honesty I don't think the initial poster read the intent in my post correctly. No one seems to understand that our government has overreached way beyond limited enumerated powers. This is my entire issue. And they do so in the name of compassion. The fact of the matter is that Government beats up the Expression Clause and ignores the Establishment Clause. If you don't think that charity and benevolence are far more representative of what individuals and religious institutions do based upon faith than government can do or has authority to do what can I say? It was Madison himself that stated "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government". No General Welfare clause can bypass that concept and jump out and consume the entire Constitution. It has only applicability to use the enumerated legislative powers to improve the general welfare and that goes for the Commerce Cause as well. The fact of the matter is that government is doing the work of the Church and the poster was not interested in that but, in fact, appears to undermine its relevance with his own reverence.

      I left a phD program in chemistry to become a veterinarian. Did it in record time. Should have gotten both but was not about to reapply to a veterinary college and did not need the pHD program after the DVM degree.

    • task

      What really needs to be discussed is the biological proof of our unalienable rights that far precedes any Constitution and that argument many Supreme Justices have expressed when they have remarked that individual rights existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, "it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. . . . It is found wherever civilization exists". And chief among our individual rights is the right to pursue property, own property and use property; that right cannot be collective without being coercive. There is no such thing as coercive altruism without violating intrinsic, unalienable, individual, human birth rights.