BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 9,013
|
| | 07/26/09 at 03:45 AM | Reply with quote | #1 |
|
As some of you know, I also hang-out at Stand Firm. Not exactly a Monarchist's paradise, but .... Quote: We are neither Judeo nor Christian—we were born out of disobedience to Romans 13 and despite God’s gracious favor, we have become a pagan nation that defiles God’s institutions and murders its young. Posted by Matt Kennedy A followup poster said "...Matt Kennedy is completely correct: this nation exists because a bunch of whiny libertine tax protesters decided they could thumb their noses at Romans 13 and rebel against a good government that was “tyrannical” only in the absolute most generous sense of the word....." And check this one out: Quote: Were the colonists in 1770 legitimately under the authority of the British crown? Yes. Did the British crown do anything beyond the scope of legitimate authority for government? No. The government has the right to tax. It isn’t required to provide representation to those it would tax. The kings in Israel certainly didn’t. Caesar certainly didn’t. Did Jesus say to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Did He first demand representation in the Roman Senate? There is no biblical exception for ‘excusing oneself’ from the authority of a legitimate sovereign. Relabeling rebellion as secession does not change the true nature of the act. Neither in 1776 nor in 1861. And bad argumentation a la the Declaration of Independence doesn’t change the facts either. It absolutely kills me to think I would have been a Tory in 1776. Perhaps that is why of all the periods in American history, the one period I have assiduously avoided is the Revolutionary War. carl
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | |
Peter
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 2,637
|
| | 07/26/09 at 04:21 AM | Reply with quote | #2 |
|
I would say that although these people are correct in what they say it all happened a long time ago and they should get over it. Except who am I to speak? I've never really got over the Norman Conquest. |
| Loading... | |
BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 9,013
|
| | 07/26/09 at 04:32 AM | Reply with quote | #3 |
|
The thread's subject is "Is America a Judeo-Christian Nation", so naturally the 'founders ideals' are germain to the subject.
Matt Kennedy is an Anglican (ex TEC) priest in Bingham New York, Carl is Calvanist that would make me look like a libertine.
Royal Cello,
If your schedule allows it, next time you are up New York way, if you would be willing to, please consider going to the Church of the Good Shepard, as proxy for me. I don't think I'll ever get the chance, and a bells and smells bible teaching preacher would to me be almost a pilgrimage....
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | |
Inquisitor_Galloglasses
Registered: 03/26/09
Posts: 213
|
| | 07/26/09 at 05:02 AM | Reply with quote | #4 |
|
This is quite true. However I have wondered if Romans 13 would still apply to us in such a case as a monstrous Government of Nazi proportions, a regime under which it would be impossible to live either freely or morally, would we have the right to fight said regime or should we still comply?
__________________
"Nothing I say has any relevance on anything, no matter the subject, in the ears of my fellows. So its only natural that I continue to speak, otherwise no-one will."
My Blog if you will |
| Loading... | |
BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 9,013
|
| | 07/26/09 at 05:05 AM | Reply with quote | #5 |
|
Using Saint Paul as the example, when one can no longer live morally under the law, one dies.
I could provide a rather long typically dense quote from St. Paul here, but I'll pass.
Likewise, by his example (Phillippi anyone?), we see that obedience unto death unless directly in conflict with the order of God is required, even when government acts contrary to its own constitution.
Thus remaining loyal in body to the earthly sovereign, and loyal in spirit to God.
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | |
clark
Registered: 02/05/07
Posts: 771
|
| | 07/26/09 at 06:38 PM | Reply with quote | #6 |
|
Excellent quotes. I find that anglicanism seems to have a lot of sympathy to monarchism or maybe I have just seen an inaccurate sample of anglicans  .
|
| Loading... | |
jovan66102
Registered: 11/14/08
Posts: 884
|
| | 07/26/09 at 10:08 PM | Reply with quote | #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by clarkExcellent quotes. I find that anglicanism seems to have a lot of sympathy to monarchism or maybe I have just seen an inaccurate sample of anglicans .
No. as a former one, I think you're spot on. It's the Anglophilia.
__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis
God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.!
Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien! |
| Loading... | |
The_Harlequin_King
Registered: 07/15/09
Posts: 9
|
| | 07/26/09 at 11:43 PM | Reply with quote | #8 |
|
I don't recall His Britannic Majesty Charles III issuing any taxes at that time. Sounds like the colonists were in the right, overthrowing the yoke of the usurper's spawn and all...
__________________
 |
| Loading... | |
BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 9,013
|
| | 07/26/09 at 11:50 PM | Reply with quote | #9 |
|
Go back to drinking the ale.
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | |
BlayneII
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 453
|
| | 07/27/09 at 12:00 AM | Reply with quote | #10 |
|
I would venutre the Jacobites as rightful claimants up until the death of the last direct male line descendant. Anne was also a correct Stuart claimant, but I will support the Jacobite cause through Henry Benedict Stuart.
One cannot support either revolution through a Catholic standpoint. Glorious or American.
Love God, honour the King.
__________________
" "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" --Benjamin Franklin
"More glorious to merit a sceptre than to possess one." -- Napoleon I of France
"These are rare attainments for a damsel, but pray tell me, can she spin?" -- King James I of England, upon being introduced to a woman who was fluent in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. |
| Loading... | |
Soulblighter
Registered: 09/17/07
Posts: 384
|
| | 07/27/09 at 12:20 AM | Reply with quote | #11 |
|
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run.
May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.
__________________
"As far as men go, it is not what they are that interests me, but what they can become."
-Jean-Paul Sartre
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
-President Thomas Jefferson |
| Loading... | |
Peter
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 2,637
|
| | 07/27/09 at 12:26 AM | Reply with quote | #12 |
|
It is only a male-preference system we have. Direct male line is irrelevant; Victoria succeeded although the male line from George III survived, and Elizabeth II although there were male-line descendants of George V. Anne was no more Stuart than her sister Mary II, btw. And no more senior to their brother, except by the new law which excluded him.
I know royalcello's position is similar to yours. It never has made sense to me, though. Either you accept that the succession was changed, or you don't. Although it is true that Cardinal York was the last person to actually make a legitimist claim, so in that sense was different from all his successors in the Jacobite line, I don't see how George III was a usurper until the Cardinal breathed his last, then suddenly legitimate King although there were by then hundreds of other people ahead of him in the original line. Either he was legitimate King from the start of his reign, or he never was. I think he was.
|
| Loading... | |
BlayneII
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 453
|
| | 07/27/09 at 12:32 AM | Reply with quote | #13 |
|
I think of the Glorious Revolution as being wrong morally and in the Christian sense, just as the American one was wrong. I see it as becoming legitimate when the last Stuart Henry died. No one challenged, so the line was legitimate by default.
__________________
" "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" --Benjamin Franklin
"More glorious to merit a sceptre than to possess one." -- Napoleon I of France
"These are rare attainments for a damsel, but pray tell me, can she spin?" -- King James I of England, upon being introduced to a woman who was fluent in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. |
| Loading... | |
BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 9,013
|
| | 07/27/09 at 12:38 AM | Reply with quote | #14 |
|
James II & VII the Coward first abandoned the Relam, and then lost the Kingdoms on the Field of Battle. He was the first to 'give up the claim' - tucking tail and heading off to France.
To have asked William over was wrong, but he was Legitimate King from the cowardice of James II onward.
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | |
Peter
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 2,637
|
| | 07/27/09 at 12:43 AM | Reply with quote | #15 |
|
At the time James II and VII was seen as a danger to true religion. He probably was, if you are a Protestant. Anyway, it was for that hardly irreligious reason he was removed, apart from his manifold defects of character and abysmal conduct of government.
Your position is intellectually coherent, though it is about the most grudging acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Protestant Succession that could be expressed. For me, government is always ultimately by the consent of the governed, and James by his own failings had lost that consent. Nor was it unreasonable in the context of the times to provide against further Catholic monarchs, the precedents being notably discouraging.
I believe the Protestant Succession established in 1688, as regularised by the Bill of Rights and Claim of Right and subsequently affirmed by the Acts of Settlement and Union, is and was the proper and legitimate order of succession in this country, regardless of what claims were made by residents of Rome and other places outside the kingdoms from which their line had been expelled..
|
| Loading... | |
