This is not just a Constitution Party issue
but a question everyone needs to answer
A question, and sometimes accusation, that we in the Constitution Party are often confronted with is whether the party wants to establish a theocracy. The answer to the question depends on whose definition of “theocracy” you’re using.
The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία meaning, “the rule of God.” So, if you’re asking whether the Constitution Party wants our nation to be subject to the rule of God, then the answer is “yes.” As in the pledge of allegiance, we want to be one nation “under God,” not a nation out from under God, or a nation in rebellion against God, but a nation in submission under the Creator and His revealed will for the governing of the civil societies of His creation, which will includes the restraining of evil, preservation of the moral order, justice, and the protection of individual, God-given rights.
However, when people accuse the Constitution Party of wanting to establish a theocracy, most of the time they are talking about the idea of the organized church directly running the institutions of civil government, or government passing laws that require specific religious practice or observance. If this is your definition of a theocracy, then the Constitution Party strongly opposes it.
Nations will either acknowledge the Creator God of the Bible and conform their governing policies to His revealed will, or, they will deny God and rebel against His will for the governing of their society. Government will either recognize that God has endowed men with certain rights and that civil government exists to protect those rights, or government will think itself to be God and to be the granter of men’s rights, in which case, government will soon become the violator of its citizens’ God-given rights. Government will either establish laws that protect the moral fabric of society, or it will adopt policies that open the door to the unraveling of the social order.
In this regard, the Constitution Party most certainly does acknowledge the Creator God of the Bible and further acknowledges His rightful authority to prescribe the proper role of civil government and the just standards for the governance of the civil society.
Some people oppose the idea of civil government prescribing any moral code at all. However, every government must govern according to some moral code. To say that murder, robbery, or anything else is wrong is a moral judgment. The only way not to impose a moral code would be to choose anarchy and the law of the jungle.
If you don’t want anarchy, then you do want government; and you do want that government to govern by a moral code, so it’s just a question of which code? Will it be the moral code of a single dictator that lops off heads at will? Or will it be the moral code of pure democracy that lops off heads at the whim of the masses? Might it be the code of Islam and Sharia law that lops off the heads of some and makes slaves of others? Or how about the moral code of secular humanism and socialism rooted in evolutionary belief? Today that system calls any views critical of Jews forbidden hate speech, but about 80 years ago it allowed for the Nazi genocide of Jews because that code has no fixed standard and is constantly subject to change.
There are many moral codes out there, but, as for me and the Constitution Party, we choose the moral code of Biblical Christianity which protects both the God-given rights of individuals and the moral fabric of society with a fixed and dependable standard. If you’re wondering how that translates into political policy, please read the Constitution Party platform here.
While the Constitution Party does not want the Pope, the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other religious entity running the country and making its laws, we do seek the election to all public offices of citizen legislators who understand – and abide by! – the principles and precepts prescribed by a just and loving Creator who desires moral and lawful institutions of civil government that will secure for the people and their posterity, “The Blessings of Liberty.”
The above are my personal views as a Constitution Party member and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Constitution Party.
8 thoughts on “Does the Constitution Party Want to Establish a Theocracy?”
Excellent post, sir. Will we ever see government here in America in which the leadership understands that they are personally accountable to God? That is the real question. It seems to me that it’s incompatible with democracy (a republic being one form), and that when civilization allowed the sin of pride to take over and dump monarchy in favor of popular government, we missed our last chance at it. If I were alive in the 1770’s and knew then what I know now, I would find myself on the side of the loyalists. Not a popular position today, is it?
Well, I suppose I would echo Benjamin Franklin when he was asked what form of government the Constitutional Convention had chosen, “A republic, if you can keep it.” In a republic where we elect our leaders, the republic’s continued submission to God is only as sure as the integrity of the people and their devotion to electing leaders who are sufficiently submitted to the rule of God.
i agree Robert.
but our Constitution was also created for A MORAL PEOPLE.
and we have SURELY FALLEN FAR FROM THAT, ESPECIALLY IN GOVT.
Pastor Ted Weiland:
A theocracy is precisely what the Constitution established.
There are no vacuums when it comes to legislated morality or, more often than not, immorality. Since all legislation is moral/immoral in nature, all legislation represents someone’s religion–be it even, and usually it is, secular humanism. There are,therefore, also no vacuums when it comes religious-influenced government. Thus, all governments are theocratic.
With this in mind, what kind of theocracy did the constitutional framers produce?
When one understands that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are theocratic, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.
Question: Were the governments in the Old Testament under the god Baal (or any other false god named in the Old Testament) theocracies?
Answer: Of course, they were.
Question: Was Baal (or any other god named in the Bible) real or were they merely ancient forms of We the People?
Answer: Merely ancient forms of We the People
Thus, We the Peopleism is just a contemporary form of Baalism,* man doing what is right in his own eyes, per Judges 21:25.
“…There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.
“People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?…”
For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.
Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.
*See also our blog article “Could YOU Be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/could-you-be-a-disciple-of-baal-and-not-know-it/.
Well, now your challenging me to read and ponder even more issues. You’re as bad as my dear brother and mentor, John Beal, who kept confronting me with questions that I couldn’t answer, so it forced me to learn 😉
I’m not going to voice agreement with all of your views just yet, but they certainly do get us back to the heart of the matter, the fact that whatever structural form of government we might have, God must be recognized as being at the head of it with government existing only for the purpose of discovering the correct application of His will to each of the affairs of the civil society.
Chapter 3 on your website (no, I didn’t take time to read all of it) prompted me to read the Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven, which I already knew a brother of one of my ancestors was a signer of, but I hadn’t read it before. It’s clear they considered themselves to be a community of Christians seeking to live together as such. Therefore, agreeing to be governed by the Bible in their civil life was as natural as a local church these days agreeing to govern their church activities by the Bible – not that they all do though. They were really just “the church” (the body of Christ) figuring out how to live together in a community according to God’s will. Unfortunately, America today is far from a community of Christians.
One of the questions that I’ve had, and which a friend brought up and began to address in his book “Let Earth Receive Her King,” is what to do with unbelievers, or for that matter, believers who may not hold exactly to what the majority consider to be orthodoxy? Clearly, God is still allowing unbelievers to remain on His planet, at least for now, graciously giving mankind every last chance to repent and become citizens of His kingdom. Nevertheless, God honoring government – and laws – clearly benefit the wellbeing of the whole of society, even the unbelievers.
There’s certainly room for a healthy discussion as to exactly what Godly government would look like. We may be a ways from achieving it, but we need to have a vision of the target that we should be shooting at.
lol what a bunch of historically-revisionist meaningless nonsense. Yeah, the Constitution established a theocracy even though the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibits a state religion or the federal government favoring a religion – expressly, explicitly prohibiting theocracy and theocratic ideals.
Robert W. Peck: “There are many moral codes out there, but, as for me and the Constitution Party, we choose the moral code of Biblical Christianity which protects both the God-given rights of individuals and the moral fabric of society with a fixed and dependable standard.”
That’s fine in theory, but the constitutions themselves are designed to be in direct opposition to true Biblical Christianity as they all provide for the legislative process to change The Almighty’s mandate to not add or subtract from His Perfect Moral Law.
I posted the following a while ago on another site regarding the lie of God’s Law being done away with. It bears repeating here as one example (of many) where the constitution allows the “god” “We The People” to do just that. This is regarding His Economic Laws:
Silver Doctors’ “Golden Nuggets of Truth” Part 1 – Law Not Done Away With:
Is this article written by “Doc” ? This is excellent and I praise The Almighty for your excellent piece.
I’ve been following this site and the weekly rap-ups for quite some time, but this is the article that prompted me to log in and post a comment.
While this is one of the most important subjects concerning this nation’s demise, it seems as though most of the commenters on this site (authors of the articles as well) want very little to do with the subject matter contained in this post and are mainly concerned with, e.g., “stacking and packing” and the like, not realizing that The Kingdom of The Great I Am that “became flesh and dwelt among us”, His Laws, Statutes and Judgments, have very little to do with what is considered “religion” today, but everything to do with government, economics, justice, etc., here on earth, as well as judgment, e.g., “We will either be ruled by God or by tyrants”.
As an example of His economic mandate of the medium of exchange to be used by His people, here’s a comment I posted elsewhere on the subject of His mandate of using gold and primarily silver as money, as well as the constitution being the problem, NOT the solution (it’s lengthy as it’s an attempt to give a five minute answer to a three hour question):
Good Article About Constitution Not Working, But Let’s Get To The Root:
Very good article, but let’s take it a little further and get to the real root of the problem. There are many items in your article that I could address to show the root of the problem, but I’ll limit it to address this one:
“The “Fed” Trap Door
“The Federal Reserve Act, legally passed by Congress, simply erased any hint of the necessity to observe the suggestion that money be tied in any way to gold and silver.
“Once the Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress, our “money” began a fairly rapid transformation into a debt based currency, which I previously covered.”
It really began about 125 or so years prior when we made “We The People” our “god”.
Root of The Economic Problem Side Is Same As The Rest: “god” We The People:
The root of banking and economic part of this is the same as all the other parts of “Our present state of ruin”. Here’s the economic side:
“You shall not steal.” Ex. 20: 15. This Commandment from The Great I Am, is the foundation of all property rights.
The pertinent statute under this Commandment regarding this subject is: “You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a large and a small.” Deut. 25: 13, Lev. 19: 35-37. “Bag” is what one carries money in.
He commanded gold & silver as the medium of exchange to use, primarily silver (e.g., Gen. 23: 14-16; Matt. 26: 15), NOT something MERELY BACKED by silver (or gold).
He also commanded a fixed fineness & weight, i.e., the shekel of the sanctuary. That’s what we’re to keep all our valuations and do accounting in. Lev. 27: 25.
Unjust weights & measures are an abomination to Yahweh, while just weights & measures are His delight. Prov. 11: 1.
Moreover, we are not to lend upon usury (ANY % interest) to our racial kin. Deut. 23: 19-20.
More citations to God’s Economic Laws can be given, but this should suffice for now.
Root of the overall problem:
Enter The Constitution:
This power to decide what is to be “money” and determine it’s value, as well as the standard of it’s weight & measure was usurped by the god “We The People” via the constitution’s grant of this power to congress:
“The Congress Shall Have Power To … coin Money, regulate the Value thereof … and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Art. 1: Sec. 8 (Also note the power ” … To borrow Money on the credit of the United States …” was granted there as well. NO mention of at No interest, I might add).
The door was opened and the process began when we decided “We The People” should be god (sovereign) and decide what is to be the supreme law of the land, instead of obeying The Great I Am.
Contrary to many constitutionalist’s belief, it didn’t START 100 years ago with The Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment. These were MID RANGE of the process.
Eventually, we wound up with The Federal Reserve Act, which gave the power to issue the currency and control credit (5th. Plank of “The Communist Manifesto”).
“Give me the power to issue the currency and control the credit of any nation and I care not who makes it’s laws.” Nathan Rothschild.
We now have a wicked and thieving monetary system of irredeemable Federal Reserve Notes (which are Promissory Notes and NOT payment, but “a mere discharge in equity.” Min. Supreme Court; citation omitted), checks, credit & debit cards, direct deposit, etc., AND NONE OF YOU OWN ANYTHING ‘CAUSE YOU NEVER “PAID” for it!
ESPECIALLY so called “Private Property”. IT’S NOT YOURS! You only have an “Equitable Interest” in it! You know, like: “How much equity do you have in this property”. Get it???
Moreover, we’re all being robbed of the purchasing power of the fiat currency in circulation on a regular basis via the hidden tax called “inflation”, which is an inflation of the “money” supply !
They even have the vast majority of this nation believing irredeemable Federal Reserve Notes to be, and calling them: “dollars” (just like they have the vast majority believing an “alternate life style” is, and calls this sexual perversion: “gay” !) A dollar us a unit of measure, not a thing.
The legislative process provided by the various federal and state constitutions was the vehicle used by the enemy to corrupt over time (via gradual increments) and finally take over.
This nation wanted to determine what was “good and evil” instead of enforcing His Perfect Moral Laws.
Malim in se (evil in and of itself as defined by The Great I Am, the ONLY lawgiver) vs. malim prohibitum (evil because someone determines or legislates it to be evil).
The result ? Look around. His Judgments are what you see. As this article well exhibits.
The only way to save this nation is to turn back to Him, His Perfect Moral Laws, Statutes and Judgments, i.e., His Kingdom/Will On Earth. Seek Him while He may yet be found.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, And I will give you rest. Take My yoke (i.e., His Law 1 John 5: 2 & 3, as well as His tithe [tax] system) upon you , and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and ‘YOU SHALL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.’ (Jer. 6: 16). My yoke is easy, and My load is light.” Matt. 11: 28 – 30.
He told us that if His people ” … shall humble themselves (e.g., quit thinking we’re the sovereign, take our proper place and quit usurping His), and pray, and seek my face (e.g., He’s to be the ONLY law giver), and turn from their wicked ways (e.g., enforce His Laws, Statutes and Judgments – NOT ours); THEN will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
Look around you, the Judgments are happening before your eyes !
Eustace Mullins on Babylonian Debt Money System From Silver Doctors:
I recognize that this is an old conversation but hope we can revive it.
I think a lot of the above is acurate. In the context that one person does not need to be wrong so another can be right. Two contradictory positions can be both equaly acurate.
I Think my position can also be corect without having to discredit what others have posted.
We have all herd the saying that Power corupts and absolute power corupts absolutely. I think that most would agree that coruption is the work of Satan. So a powerful theocracy therefore is the playground of Satan. When any source of power exists Satan will place temptation at the feet of the powerful. Throughout all of history Theocracies have become destructively corupt. The Founding Fathers knew this because they were students of Clasical Education. I think Thomas Jefferson exhibited this understanding very clearly when he created what is known as the Jefferson Bible. He literaly used a sharp knife to cut away all pasages of a Bible that were not directly atributed to the words or actions of Jesus Christ. The result was a very small pamphlet that can be sumarized as do unto others as you wish to be done to you. Jefferson believed in God but he did not believe in mortal mans ability to interpret the intentions of God. I interpret Jeffersons lesson to us as follows. Satan will corupt any theocratic government and use the scripture to subjugate the people rather than using scripture to free them. So how can we see this play out in two paralel events. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of independance without relying on scripture. He was a student of the Enlightenment rather than a student of the Bible. He came to our Natural rights as expresed in the Declaration through modern intelectualism rather than ancient scriptures. At the same moments in time other men were justifying continuance of slavery by quoting Exodus 21.
OK on to James Madison. Madison was briliant. But he had epilepsy, (did you know that, not many do). As an epileptic genious Madison was given a formative circumstance. Did God give Madison this formative experience as a devine intervention? Who knows I sure don’t. Anyways all sects of Christianity at the time believed that epileptic seizures were demonic posesion. As a little boy Madison was isolated from the other boys by his desire to hide his “demonic posesion” As a pree teen he began to study ancient civilizations. By the time he graduated from Princeton he was a world class political theorist. Think about that for a moment the archatect of the Constitution was aflicted with a medical condition that Christianity atributed to Satanic posetion. How could that not influence him? Did God give us the gift of Madisons epilepsy to save us from Satans coruption of a potential theocracy? I don’t know the answer to that.
So what did Madison introduce as we all now know as the Virginia Plan at the Constitutional Convention? To answer this one must be aware of Madison as a political theorist rather than as a Founding father. Madison had been exposed to standardized theory on Republics. The standardized theory held at that time was that a Republic could only exist on a very small scale and with a nore or less homgenous economic drive in the population. [Example a republic between several islands all dependant on fishing economies.] Madison turned this long and widely held principle upside down. He proposed that A republic could only exist over a vast land mass with almost infinate diversity of interest. It comes down to statistics. The fewer factions in a Republic the easier it is for one faction to subjugate the other factions. Once subjugation has happened it is no linger a Republic but a Totalitarian regime. On the oposite end of the spectrum infinite diversity makes it much much harder for one faction to subjugate all of the other factions. As such the large and diverse Rpublic is sustainable wheras the small limited diversity Republic will fail.
So in light of the comments above and with Madisons theory on the survival of Republics in mind. The United States Constitution can best be summed up as a tool for establishing a more perfect union between a wide variety of theocracies. If your religion is money, the Constitution is a tool to create a more perfect union between you and those who are religous about the rights of the labor class. That is just one of thousands of posable examples. Therefore the Constitution Party should be less concerned with morality but rather focuss on the Constitution as a functional tool. Various factions will determine their own moralities. The constitution was created such that “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, [Between factions with diferent visions ofmorality], establish justice, [With what constitutes justice having been deliberated by representatives of the various factions], insure domestic tranquility, [With no one faction creating such a disruption in the lives of other factions such as to be disruptive], provide for the common defense, [At time all factions will face common dangers]. promote the general welfare, [such that all factions are in general content if not thriled with the state of governance they are subjected to], and secure the blesings of liberty to ourselves. [Ourselves being plural therefore no one faction can secure their liberty at the expense on another factions liberty.]
Unfortunately I find the Constituton Party to be blind to the function of the Constitution a s a tool but rather they see it as a morality guide in some way. But after many years as an ametuer Constitutional Scholar and Historian I find the Constitution party to be counterproductive. Weather by desghn or by acident the Party is excluding people and forming a base arround morality. A morality chosen by the founders of the party. This is contrary to the true nature of the Constitution. The Constitution is indiferent to ideology. It chooses no side and establishes no winers or loosers based on founsding principles. It functions in acordance with Madisons theory on the survival of Republics. Therefore the Party should diversify rahter than narow ist’s base. But that is not happening due to one morality being the morality adopted by the party. All persons not acepting the partys chosen morality are excluded. This is literaly contrary to the desighn function of the Constitution.