American Heritage Party

[RRHeustisJr]

I was once a member of the Constitution Party, but have come to realize that it is not a Christian party, but is rather a vehicle for Mormonism and Pluralism to flourish. (See my post at: http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/showpost.php?p=13090&postcount=7 ).

Since leaving the Constitution Party, I have joined America's only explicitly Christian party, the American Heritage Party (http://www.americanheritageparty.org).

[RRHeustisJr]

An explicitly Christian.... BUMP!

[RRHeustisJr]

THREAD CONTINUED FROM:
http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/showpost.php?p=13542&postcount=47

Tallen says:

As it stands now, the individual get to pursue his own happiness. The government doesn't regulate or dictate his conscience, as there is no religious test for being an American citizen.It appears as if you are making a huge assumption that the American Heritage Party or Reconstructionists in general somehow seek to regulate or dictate to others' consciences. Absolutely not true.

As one who would be considered a Reconstructionist, for lack of a better term, I believe that any person born in the United States from American parents is automatically an American citizen. To believe that there is a religious test for mere citizenship of a baby, then each and every baby born in the United States would not be an American since most of them have not been regenerated as Christians. Preposterous. We don't believe that, and your assumption is a caricature of Reconstructionism.

Tallen says:

Again RRH, the individual gets to define this. He has constitutional rights to pursue his Creator without the state telling him what god he has to follow. This is what the Constitution was about, and the reason that we are given freedom to speak.Again, another assumption on your part. You are assuming that simply because we wish to proclaim Christ's Kingship in the civil sphere, we are automatically "telling people what god he has to follow." As a Reformed Christian (which all Reconstructionists are), I am well aware of the fact that non-Christians have the total inability to repent and believe on Christ until their hearts are regenerated by the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit. To force someone to believe in a God when they lack the power to do so, is again preposterous. Another caricature.

However, this does not mean that our civil laws cannot be based upon Christian principles; and it certainly does not mean that our civil government cannot acknowledge King Jesus Christ and His sovereignty over all of our civil affairs. Apples and oranges.

Tallen says:

Do you agree with the Constitution of the US and the Bill of Rights? Consider: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,.... US Constitution Amendment 1As an attorney, I am sworn to uphold the Constitution. But that's neither here nor there.

The original meaning of this Amendment is that the Congress has no power to declare an official national denominational church, such as the Church of England. The intent was to prevent any one single Christian denomination from establishing itself as a national church. The original intent of the First Amendment does not forbid local or state governments from explicitly acknowledging King Jesus Christ as the sovereign and source of our civil blessings. It also does not forbid Congress from passing laws that acknowledge His Kingship and biblical principles.

Simply put, acknowledging Christ is a far cry from establishing a single denominational church.

Tallen says:

In case you didn't notice, Christian principals will prevail. But not through a country or through dictating Christian morality. As a post-millennialist, I believe that Christ will return when all His enemies become His footstool. I believe in ultimate victory in the end. Duty is ours to follow Christ in all of our endeavors, including civil affairs. The results are in God's hands.

Regarding "Christian morality," I would much rather enjoy a government that acknowledges the virtues of Christian morality than suffer under one that dictates the vice of Humanist morality.

Morality prevails regardless of who rules. One morality always prevails, so the proper question is Which morality? If Christians sit on the sidelines, whether in civil affairs, education, entertainment, science, or whatever else, then Christian morality cannot prevail.

Christian morality prevails when Christians prevail.

Tallen says:

The humanist won't prevail, judgement will come.
I agree. God controls all things whatsoever that come to pass. But He also controls the means to those ends. Humanists will not prevail in the end, but they may prevail (and are prevailing) at various times and places en route to Judgement Day. They will continue to prevail until and unless Christians confront Humanism in all of its forms.

As an observation, it almost seems as if you are saying, "Well, Christians win in the end, so let's not get involved. Let the Humanists enjoy their reign in government. Christ will come soon."

This almost sounds like pre-millennial dispensationalist Rapture theology.

Tallen says:

Let me ask you this RRH, would you support a constitutional amendment that would put the homosexual to death?No, of course not. I don't believe in capital punishment simply because of one's status. It makes as much sense as punishing an alcoholic simply for being an alcoholic.

Moreover, the Federal government has no jurisdiction over criminal law. That should be left to the discretion of state and local governments where the people consent to their own laws.

[Tallen]

Thank you RRH, I have read this and am thinking about what you said at the moment. I will get back to you, I am sure, as I will have more questions. But thank you for you patience as I think this over.

Blessings.

[RRHeustisJr]

Thank you RRH, I have read this and am thinking about what you said at the moment. I will get back to you, I am sure, as I will have more questions. But thank you for you patience as I think this over.

Blessings.

Hi Tallen,

Are you still thinking about this? :bigthink:

[Tallen]

Hi Tallen,

Are you still thinking about this? :bigthink:

Yes, I wish more activity would happen on this thread though. I would like to play out my ideas and bounce them around from a few different perspectives.

At the moment I have several questions and probably ought to address your post.

[JBaker45]

Yes, I wish more activity would happen on this thread though. I would like to play out my ideas and bounce them around from a few different perspectives.

At the moment I have several questions and probably ought to address your post.
I'm ready to vote PVV :bigtup: :medium-smiley-011:

[Joe S]

I'm ready to vote PVV :bigtup: :medium-smiley-011:

What? :medium-smiley-010::bigthink::BigB:

[tking]

What? :medium-smiley-010::bigthink::BigB:

HAHA! I'm glad I'm not the only one! I STILL can't bring myself to use the nose-picking smiley...LOL! One of these days I'll be able to take a deep breath and do it...:making_faces:

[JBaker45]

What? :medium-smiley-010::bigthink::BigB:
That's what the anti-Islamic Dutch political reformer Geert Wilders calls his new party : the Party for freedom (which, in the Germanic language is abbreviated PVV).

Edited to add : Joe, see this thread http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/showthread.php?p=13884

[Tallen]

I was once a member of the Constitution Party, but have come to realize that it is not a Christian party, but is rather a vehicle for Mormonism and Pluralism to flourish. (See my post at: http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/showpost.php?p=13090&postcount=7 ).

Since leaving the Constitution Party, I have joined America's only explicitly Christian party, the American Heritage Party (http://www.americanheritageparty.org).

After much consideration, and I really have been considering this, I have decided that I could at this time probably support a third party that would be in line with my Christian beliefs. Now we have to move the party away from the "Theonomy" leaders.

I could support a party that would withdraw all of our military from foriegn soil unless specifically asked to be there by the legal representing government, end all wars on foriegn soil, strengthen our own boarders and enforce existing laws concerning illegal aliens and foreigners on our soil. I would support a "fair tax" that would fund government and the tithe going to support government when a person wants to give it there, according to Duet 14:28. And the abolishment of the IRS, of coarse. These things among others.

How does that sound RRH?

[RRHeustisJr]

After much consideration, and I really have been considering this, I have decided that I could at this time probably support a third party that would be in line with my Christian beliefs. Now we have to move the party away from the "Theonomy" leaders.

I could support a party that would withdraw all of our military from foriegn soil unless specifically asked to be there by the legal representing government, end all wars on foriegn soil, strengthen our own boarders and enforce existing laws concerning illegal aliens and foreigners on our soil. I would support a "fair tax" that would fund government and the tithe going to support government when a person wants to give it there, according to Duet 14:28. And the abolishment of the IRS, of coarse. These things among others.

How does that sound RRH?

Regarding "Theonomy," even theonomists disagree on various things within its purview. However, if we do not support theonomy (God's law), then by default we support autonomy (Man's law).

Regarding the American Heritage Party, pick out the specific areas of the platform with which you disagree, rather than targeting the removal of "Theonomy leaders."

Regarding the other issues, you bring up, I could see the American Heritage Party serving as a substantially good fit regarding your political leanings. A "fair tax" would still have to be Constitutional though (apportioned properly among the several States), but in a nutshell the other issues are in substantial compliance with the positions of the party.