Cultural Civil War

some must adorn their favorite political system with Biblical support. This is especially true when Paul wrote Romans 13 within the context of the Roman Empire. Indeed, according to Romans 13, and every other passage from both Testaments, rebellion against the governing authorities is regarded as sin.

What is sad is that those who so adorn our own gov't with Biblical authority either never knew or deny that the founding fathers believed that a particular class of people should be in control of the government.

It is absolutely hysterical when people apply Romans 13 as if it were a command to submit to our politicians! LOL!

The United States is a consitutional republic. Every politician has sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. In fact, every military officer has also sworn to uphold the consitution. This means that the authority in our situation to which Romans 13 applies is the United States Constitution.

Does anyone really have any doubts that some military men are contemplating the implications of their oath of office? This is what the Oath Keepers movement is all about. Do you really think that no military man takes his oath seriously? Do you really think that no military officer has considered his responsibility to uphold the Bill of Rights, including the Tenth Amendment? This could be quite problematic for the Obama Administration.

The Oath of Office is a solemn oath taken by officers of the United States Uniformed Services on commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service. It is statutory (i.e. required by law) and is prescribed by Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code...
One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Oath_of _Allegiance

More problems!

It is concievable that the power referenced in Romans 13 could be applied to the Constitution. This has always been recognized as the supreme authority in our land, and no one person or party indeed. To it all our rulers have pledged fidelity. It is said we are a nation of laws, and no one is above them.

It has been said on this wise:

"But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING.
For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is."
-Thomas Payne, COMMON SENSE

Chiefest,

This is precisely why the Obama Administration was having apoplexy over the fact that the president of Honduras had been thrown out for unconstitutional activity. Latin American countries are not exactly hotbeds of constitutional government. To know that it has happened in Honduras and then say it can’t happen here is absolute nonsense.

Chiefest, like many today Mr. Payne never made the connection that we owe the concept that LAW IS KING to the Protestant Reformation. Mr. Franklin had to reproof him later on for his radical naturalism.

I am mulling your question. The answers lie in Genesis 3 in Adam's response to God after his sin and in the curse.

I haven't considered Payne's religous beliefs, only his explanation concerning the prominence of the law, ie Consititutional law. I believe this was fairly indicative of the founders beliefs.

Submitting to the government can be different than submitting to the politicians when we are following the law ant they are not. In addition, we have a moral law to submit to above the Politicians, who were referred to in romans 13, and the law of the land.

BTW, the Constitution, for the most part, is an internal procedural manual. The amendments bring in some morals but the rest of the Constitution does not. The Constitution started as a racist document. The problem with it today is not the Constitution itself but the pedestal on which it is placed

Note that my last statement in my first note should go unchallenged after one reads the secret debates of the Constitution