From Cradle To Grave--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 6/6

Womb to Tomb. Welfare State. Whatever you name it, it is the same thing: State supremacy over the lives of humans.

Thus far, I suspect--and I pray I’m wrong--that many readers have not sustained such a long series. They may believe this is the work of a quack. So, as the last in a series I shall quote copiously and explicitly from the Constitution of Iraq: you decide if this is a government worth defending with American blood:

Article 22: “Work is a right for all Iraqis so as to guarantee them a decent living.”

What more needs to be said? Communism anyone?

Article 25: “The State guarantees the reform of the Iraqi economy in accordance with modern economic principles to insure the full investment of its resources, diversification of its sources and the encouragement and the development of the
private sector.”

Of course, once the Triune God is out of the picture, then economics becomes the plaything of the powerful-and who is more powerful than the government?

Article 23: 1st — Private property is protected and the owner has the right to use it, exploit it and benefit from it within the boundaries of the law.
Article (27): 1st — Public property is sacrosanct, and its
protection is the duty of every citizen.

Remember that game of compare and contrast as a child? It’s a very useful tool: the owner has a right to private property “within the boundaries of the law”; however, “public property is sacrosanct”—that is “regarded as sacred and inviolable.” This language is not used for private property. Note also how protection of-not private property-but public property is the “duty of every citizen”. Da, tvoritsch—yes, comrade: for the State is inviolable and the citizen is expendable.

Article 29: “A. The family is the foundation of society; the State preserves its entity and its religious, moral and patriotic values.”
“B. The State guarantees the protection of motherhood, childhood and old age and shall care for children and youth and provides them with the appropriate conditions to further their talents and abilities.”

How magnanimous of the State to preserve the very entity that should sustain it! Rather, when the government is in the business of taking care of the family, it is no longer recognizing its proper place under God nor its dependence upon the Family. Who takes care of children? The parents. Who takes care of the Family? The Parent-State. Thus, the Family becomes the child of the State.

Article 30: “First: The state guarantee [sic] to the individual and the family--especially children and women--social and health security and the basic requirements for leading a free and dignified life. The state also ensures the above a suitable income and appropriate housing.”

This is quite a blank check; a very expensive check that will most likely (if carried out consistently and faithfully) raise oil prices from Iraq (Article 109: "Oil and gas is the property of all the Iraqi people," i.e. the State). What exactly does “basic requirements for…life” entail? Whatever the legislature determines it! What is “suitable” income and housing? Whatever the State tells the masses. Desiring freedom from “terrorism”, Iraq has bought slavery, willingly and whole-heartedly.

Article 33: “First: Every individual has the right to live in a safe
environment.”
Article (15): "Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom” except "in accordance to the law and based on a ruling by the appropriate judicial body."

So, through careful progression it becomes apparent that nullifying the Triune God of Christianity as the final and ultimate environment of man, the State fills in the vacuum: the State becomes the environment of man, nurturing him, protecting him. For the small price of freedom and individuality, man exchanges liberty for slavery.

Finally, if you are not nauseous yet:

Article (45): Restricting or limiting any of the freedoms and liberties stated in this constitution may only happen by, or according to, law and as long as this restriction or limitation does not undermine the essence of the right or freedom.

Thus, public property is "sacrosanct"--invioable and beyond the authority of others (article 27)--yet all the liberties and freedoms of the people of Iraq are not sacrosanct: they are strictly limited by law. In a little well known country of the world, life, liberty and private property (in theory!) are, under God, sacrosanct--that is why 1776 exploded upon the world! It was the birth of a Republic, not a Democracy.

Iraq has absolutely no Christian history or culture. Its god is the impersonal god of raw causality: Allah. Thus, it does not take individualism seriously (personalism) and makes all the spheres of life (family, church, business, etc.) mechanistic. Having no concept of the Trinity, the many (individuals) becomes absorbed into the one (State). Personhood is subjected to the impersonal laws of the Koran—melding itself naturally to totalitarian rule (either a kingly, oligarchy or democratic (mob) rule). The mechanism of the State is secondary to the results: total protection at the cost of total control.

As Rushdoony aptly points out in The Politics of Guilt and Pity, since all the unregenerate are guilty before God, they try to assuage that guilt: thus, eventually, the State becomes the savior (if anarchy is to be avoided). The State, in place of God, will plan the economy and the society, working all things for the good of them that love it.

May America wake-up from its theological slumbering; may the Conservative Christians (in the truest sense of the words) repent of their political laziness. Pragmatism meets the Welfare State halfway; thus, in principle (since the State has not lost any ground) Pragmatic realpolitik of the Christian Right has succumbed to tyranny. They just don’t realize it yet. They offer only part of the womb or pieces of the tomb to the State, hoping to fend off the ever-hungry alligator. They voted for the very "Republican" (Party) America that has perpetuated this monstrosity of a constitution.

Only time will tell if they learn their lesson.
I, for one, will not put my trust in them or their princes, but in the name of the Lord my God.

The Right To Bare Your Arms--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 5

Unlike our American Constitution, the Iraqi constitution, hailed as a "progress towards peace," has no right to bear arms--although they may bare their arms by wearing short-sleeve shirts. They have no explicit right to own a gun or create militias:

"Article 9: (b) Forming military militias outside the framework of the armed forces is banned. "

So, if, as was gleefully reported by "Mike" the Army sharpshooter on the Laura Ingrahm show today, the only point of creating an Iraqi "democracy" is to "give freedom of choice"--even if it means they "vote for a monarchy"--then the right to bear arms is no longer relevant.

We are right back to making Democracy a god.

The Protestant belief of old--from the Reformers to the Puritans--founded our nation on the natural and Biblical right of self-defense--even if that meant self-defense from our own government. Such a doctrine is absent in Iraq.

That is scary. They could collapse back into a tyranny without any means to protect themselves.

But what is more scary is their lack of a Gospel culture: they have no theological or ideological underpinning to stand-up against tyrants.

Let's face it, they're voting in Socialism--if not outright Communism--so they are already under a form of tyranny.

Pray for them--and pray for us.

Federalism Redefined ?--Iraqi Constitution Pt.4

1. Traditional Definition:
“Federalism is a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). The two levels of government are interdependent, and share sovereignty.”—Wikipedia

2. Iraqi Definition:
“Article 13: 1st - This constitution shall be considered as the supreme and highest law in Iraq. It shall be binding throughout the whole country without exceptions.
2nd - No law that contradicts this constitution shall be passed; any passage in the regional constitutions and any other legal passages that contradict this constitution shall be considered null.”

Remember: our Constitution was written to limit the federal government, not the state governments. That's why the States have their own constitutions! Compare the Tenth Amendment.

Given the lack of Iraqi legal history, the supremacy of Islam imbedded in the document and the hasty drafting of this constitution, it is not certain how this article will be used.

Is Democracy Our God?--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 3

Vox Populi—the voice of the people.
Democracy—the vote of the people.
Egalitarianism—the equality of the people.
Equal opportunity—the potential of the people.

I see a pattern: the people are the cornerstone to modern politics.
God is out of the picture.

That is why the president (and other neo-cons) stress their desire to “spread democracy” around the world—kinda like spreading a gospel.

Rushdoony’s excellent book, This Independent Republic, summarizes this modern political approach:

“science is methodology [not meaning]. Hence, again, the establishment of democracy is seen as the cure-all for all cultures, since methodology will remake man. Democracy is thus applied to Asiatic, African, and Latin American states without any regard for their historical and cultural conditions, because it is assumed that the form or method is the creator of valid objectives…” (128)

More precisely, America wishes to mold the world—via neocon and liberal politick—into a “safer” place for all. This is a violation of Biblical sphere sovereignty:

“Interventionism is a pretension to deity, a claim to powers of mediation and to divine government, and hence is inadmissible [to a Christian worldview]”

(p.138)

And it is not the Biblical Gospel.
Why? Because the Biblical Gospel is not compatible with depraved people. The Biblical Gospel is not of this world (political) but from above (God). They first need regeneration before they can even begin to vote on principle.

But this will not stop our nation from promoting such falsehoods as:

“The law is sovereign. The people are the source of authorities and its legitimacy…” (Article 5 of the Iraqi Constitution).

Or:

Article 16: “Equal opportunities are guaranteed for all Iraqis. The state guarantees the taking of the necessary measures to achieve such equal opportunities.”

No, dear reader, the law (whatever that may be defined as) is not sovereign—only God is sovereign!
No, fellow Americans, the people are not the arbiters of authority or legitimacy—only God and His Law are our authority and legitimacy.

That is why the Apostles said: “we ought to obey God rather than man”!
Voting is proper, in its place. But they never determine good and evil. Laws, in submission to God’s Law, are proper. But they never trump God.

In the multicultural context of Iraq, and specifically its Islamic roots, it is hard to determine what exactly its constitution means. In contrast, the American constitution has a clearly defined past that helps interpret its meaning. America (theoretically) is a Republic and not a (direct) Democracy.

So, any given statement (such as the Iraqis have “liberties”) can be just as binding as the Old Soviet constitution—which, incidentally, “secured” the rights of religion and the press.
No really—click here .

The Iraqi charter limits many of these freedoms “according to law” but never defines that law.

Well, that does not seem to matter to our leaders since Iraq will have a “democracy”—an opportunity to vote. That’s what matters.

Democracy is the savior of the world; the people must vote!

Then again, the Old Soviets were allowed to vote as well…
Until next time, comrade…

Supporting Islamic Socialism--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 2

There are a plethora of problems with this constitution. Not the least of which is its explicit foundation upon Islam.
As a conservative Christian—Reformed to boot—I highly object to sending American forces to die for a constitution I would never live under.

But I digress.

Because there are so many problems and questionable items in the Iraqi charter, let me outline the major theological and political errors in the Iraqi constitution:

1. Islamic supremacy.
2. The people are sovereign (Vox Populi)
3. Federalism Redefined.
4. Right to bear arms—without guns.
5. From Cradle to Grave.

When articles 22, 25, 28-40 are read then the claim of socialism will be established. When the Preamble, articles 2, 10 and 12 are read then the claim of Islam will be established. Put them together and Islamic Socialism is born.
Case in point:

"Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the
undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the
principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the
rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution."

It is not at all clear how these three statements can stand with each over. Logically, if Islam is the "basic source" of that society then b) and c) are subordinate.

The bigger question is: can we support this?
Can conservative Christians separate their religious beliefs from their political? Of course not! That is why we fight vehemently against pro-death candidates.

But is this as far as we are willing to go? Do we think it is morally acceptable for our leaders to support—with American money and blood—an Islamic regime?

The American Constitutional Republic (not a “democracy”) is not easily planted elsewhere in the world because of our unique Christian history that formed it--our country was based upon covenantal principles which sustained our freedoms (read Mathis’ Genesis of American Freedoms—comment for a copy). But “democracy” is easy to plant.

Is it radical to ask our national leaders not to support an Islamic Socialistic state!?

Perhaps, as in the past, many will rationalize the president’s decision. That’s too bad. As conservative Christians we are to stand upon principle not pragmatism. And I can find no Biblical principle that defends the shedding of American blood to build an Islamic Socialistic State.
_______________________________
[FYI: You can thank my friend who handed me an article about the Iraqi constitution; wishing to verify the info, I began my quest for the elusive Iraqi constitution.]

Socialism As "Progress Toward Peace"--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 1

American conservatives do not believe that work is a guaranteed right, or that health care should be administered and supported by the State. Nor do they believe that the State exists to guarantee equal opportunity, hand out free education or support the basic societal institutions such as the family. They do not endorse Socialism in any of its forms.

Or do they?

The Iraqi constitution (which, interestingly, is not easy to find anywhere on the 'net, let alone talked about in any major news source) is not a document in the spirit of '76. It is more like the red ghost of 1917.

So, when president Bush hails this new step of adopting the constitution, he's really endorsing what this blog title shouts: "Socialistic Constitution As 'Progress Toward Peace'"--a partial quote of Bush himself.

Yes, this sounds wild. But, if you've ever read my posts, I try to avoid shocking statements for the sake of excitment. I'm dead serious. Read the constitution here (BBC).

Or here (voanews).

Here (american chronicle).

Even at USA Today.

All of them from the AP wire service. (Dated August 24 to October 12)

Here's a sneak peek: Article 34 states:

"free education is a right for all Iraqis in all its stages"
--even private education.

That's just a taste of what is to come.

Patience, I'll summarize the salient points.
Stay tuned, comrade.

Connecting the Arctic Dots

As an engineer I've had much training in the basic sciences. I was taught to think logically, to analyze the data, chart it and draw conlusions--to "connect the dots".
As a matter of fact, all Americans who took any science have gone through this process.

That is except for the New York Times.

Using NASA data, Junkscience.com has done a favor and "connected the dots" of artic warming.

For us and for the New York Times.
Read on!

SDG

Learning From the Past

President Bush endorsed Miers, stating that he knew her heart and trusted that she would be an excellent judge. Besides the obvious fact that Bush has erred in trusting someone (witness his endorsement of Mr. Brown at FEMA), or the more obvious truth that Senators need a track record upon which to evaluate nominees, the recent history of electing people who are professing Christians is not encouraging. There is one notable instance of such a case back in the late 80s:

"Wanting to avoid a repeat of that failure [of Bork], President Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy, who had no track record as a constructionist but was described as a devout Christian family man. Today, Justice Kennedy cites international law as a basis for his opinions and is a consistent dissenter in "family-friendly" cases."

Read on...

Doubting Dobson?

In the middle of last week, Dobson expressed concerns on the new nomination, Miers. He has some doubts.
After digging into some interviews, I have some doubts about Dobson. He states:

"You know what? I do," Dobson said, affirming her response. "I don't believe that homosexuals should be denied a job."

I don't agree with this. And the Constitution does not agree with this. The doctrine of freedom of association coupled with private rights implies that an owner of a company can hire anyone he choses. If he only wants to hire Christians and not homosexuals, so be it.

The Christian does not live in a mechanistic universe in which all he has to do is hire workers who can do the job. Rather, he lives in a moral universe in which he is accountable to God. And in such a universe, hiring men in such a state of depravity is risky at best.

Dobson has helped many Christians over the years. That cannot be denied. However, believing that homosexuals have a right to any job is not a help to the Christian cause.

Doubting Dobson in this instance is a good thing.

SDG

A Short Review 5: The Art of Prophesying

A Short Book Review 5 William Perkins' The Art of Prophesying

Whether you want a book that will raise eyebrows with your Reformed friends or that will entice non-Reformed acquaintances, this is it. Prophesying has a uniquely Puritan meaning: preaching. As in our time, William Perkins’ day was a time when faithful preaching was rare and great emotional orators were prevalent. In response, he rekindled the “plainness of speech” style that characterized the Puritans.

This simply written little book is evenly divided into two parts: preaching and calling. Perkins defines and defends preaching before setting the ground rules for interpreting Scripture (an extremely useful, non-technical and readable section with an abundance of verses). Perkins dedicates the rest of the book to the calling, function and significance of the true Gospel minister. Ministers are men of God: they rebuke, exhort, and teach in the name of the Lord with a God-given authority. “Yet you must not rage…against it, nor must you hate the minister, nor resort to personal criticism of him. Instead, submit your self to the gospel…if you respond otherwise you will…wrong the minister…and, unfortunately, you will harm yourself even more” (119). There is also blessing: “Do you have a godly pastor? Confer with him. Go to him for comfort and counsel; profit from his company, sit under his ministry frequently; count him worthy of ‘double honor’…Never imagine that it is a…commonplace blessing to have ‘one of a thousand’. Thank God for giving this mercy to you, which he has denied to so many others” (100).

Even if you will never enter the ministry, the first part of the book is worth the price and the latter half should imbibe you with a renewed sense of the greatness of the Gospel Ministry.

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

Just this night, I was watching channel 4 here in Colorado. The news report interviewed the local butcher-shop--the misnamed Planned Parenthood--which complained that the new judicial nominee, Miers, was against abortion while president of the ABA association in Texas.

Yet earlier the newsreport from cnsnews.com noted that Miers "proposed a referendum that would have allowed the American Bar Association's (ABA) rank and file members to decide whether the organization should take a position on abortion rights." (See also Foxnews)

So, who's telling the truth? It is not necessarily true that since Miers' pushed for such a proposal that she was against abortion--it could be that she believes that such important issues should not bypass the members.

But the interview with channel four stated otherwise. This means either:
1) The abortion representative lied;
2) Channel four lied by virtue of editing the interview;
3) CNS News is lying.

Whether this is lying intentionally or through sloppy research is another question.

But it is sure that many Americans will miss this "discrepancy".
Too bad that liars don't have spontaneous combustion in their clothing.
It would make it easier to spot them.

SDG