Determination of my general reading comprehension aside, I have clearly demonstrated an inability to understand “Reply To This”.

You seem to be seeing the penumbra of intent in this document that I just do not see. This declaration does not equate to liberation theology in any way shape or form unless you read into it some things that are not there.
There is no intent to create a new political movement or a new theological movement. This is just civil disobedience by an individual. The signers of this declaration do not sign on behalf of any denomination or even to represent any denomination. Each individual signs according to his individual conscience that he will break laws and accept the penalty of breaking laws.
I agree with you that someone wishing to display civil disobedience who is not a Christian is not going to sign this declaration, but that is the only rationale that I can see for not signing it.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

First of all I didn’t mean to imply you were charging that the writers of the declaration wanted to enact any legislation. I’ve participated in several debates/arguments concerning the Declaration and that’s the common theme…I simply restated my position concerning this arguement because those opposing it keep putting up the straw men of the FLA and the DOMA as reasons why the signers and those who follow them should be ignored/condemned/marginalized. Sorry for the confusion on that point because it wasn’t meant to apply to you…and I shouldn’t have dragged THAT discussion here from other sites/threads/diaries.

As to the reading comprehension dig…I don’t see anywhere in the declaration where the framers of it intended to make a political or theological point beyond simply stating the moral dilemmas being thrust upon people of faith such as the conflict between obeying those placed in positions of authority as opposed to not committing immoral acts that those who are in places of authority are requiring and coercing us to do through the rule of law and or enforcement of saif laws.

The purpose and intent of those who wrote the declaration is to state plainly and concisely that there is no moral obligation under Christian principles, doctrines, commandments and the tenets set forth in scripture to follow unjust laws where the application of those laws forces a moral choice between following the dictates of one’s conscience and faith and breaking the laws and commands of those placed in civil authority. Reading anything into it beyond that is simply illegitimate and completyely besides the point.

It is not a place to discuss the differences between the many denominations represented by those who sign it and any discussion of doctrinal differences between the signers would rightly muddy the simple message intended and doom the effort to the privations and bomb throwing that would inevitably ensue.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

I’m 0-for-2 on “Reply To This” today. Choking at the plate.

Rather, my point was that the movement of what became the theologically liberal Protestant denominations frequent involved an early, well-intended elevation of political activism over biblical faithfulness to the historic faith.

While I wasn’t intending in my first post to this diary to say you thinbk the declaration is calling for legislation or other actions contrary to conservative thought…you betray your bias in that direction with this statement….how else to explain what you say so plainly here….again The Declaration is intended to deal with the conundrum of the following when being asked by civil authorities to commit acts that are specifically contrary to Scripture, Doctrine, and the will of almighty GOD:

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.

Rom 13:4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Rom 13:5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

Rom 13:6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.

Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

This is a document meant to speak to Christians who know this scripture and are conflicted about the horns of the dilemma evident in the demand of this scripture when confronted with an intrusive government who is dictating personal behavior that requires a church to marry same sex couples in violation of scripture. Or Catholic and other hospitals run by religious denominations which are being forced by government to participate in the taking of human life by offering abortion services or requiring people of religious faith in the Catholic and Protestant health systems to participate in what those individuals see as the taking of innocent life!

the list goes on and on of instances where the government is stomping on the rights of the individual forcing them to commit acts contrary to the dictates of his/her own conscience and this declaration simply states the principle that we are not bound to follow the dictates of civil authority in instances when said authority would dictate a moral wrong and it further serves as a commitment of it’s signers one to another to stand firm in not caving to the dictates of an over reaching civil authority in instances where an un-Christian action is being commanded.

As to your point that there is no mention or reaching out for Muslims, Jews or people of other faiths…again this document is written by Christians FOR Christians. Your point is well taken and maybe there should be a second like minded document that deals with the concerns of all faith droups where an out of contol civil authority is being abused and used to stomp on religious libeerties but frankly I’m sick to death of the attitude constantly thrown about that members of a specific demographic can’t speak out as a community and join together in a common cause without being accused of intolerance or being belittled as narrow minded bigots if they don’t make allowances for every single possible minority view out there!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

My concern, restated, is not that individuals are wanting to declare their intent to conservative principles even at the cost of their well-being, but that they found it necessary to include language which implies that they are of one mind with their co-signers on details about which they, or at least their several communions, have historically been irreconcilably opposed.

For the sola Scriptura Protestant at least, that does indeed signal a willingness to sublimate essential doctrines of the faith to political expediency, and the long-term results of that sublimation are never healthy for the Church.

The document is about our joining together in common cause on what we DO agree with. I don’t have to agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation in order to see the issues where I agree with Catholics…I don’t have to agree that it is OK to pray to Mary or some other saint in the place of Christ himself in order to come together in common cause when it comes to the loss of liberties they are being faced with every day…I don’t have to be a Catholic to see what’s wrong with forcing a Catholic Hospital participate in the whole sale slaughter of innocents that is abortion…or to force a Catholic Charity place a child in a hoe of a same sex couple…! don’t have to agree with Smith that he was visited by Gabriel and that he was a prophet of God to agree with the Mormon Church that Abortion is wrong…I don’t have to agree with Calvinists on the doctrine of predestination to see what is wrong with having a government force my Church to use its facilities to marry a same sex couple…I don’t have to agree with the anti Calvinists about free will…or Baptists about eternal security…or Pentecostals about speaking in tongues etc etc…

We are all being forced by an intrusive federal government to compromise our beliefs and our faiths and for the life of me I don’t know why this is such a controversy…

I’ll end this with Jefferson’s statement on this that is carved into the marble of his Memorial:

I pledge upon the alter of ALMIGHTY GOD eternal hostility toward all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.

maybe THAT should be the Manhattan Declaration!!!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

I would appreciate being pointed to an instance where I have ever accused anyone here for not making allowances for every single possible minority vew out there,,,,

I point you to your statement from the original post. I suppose maybe I’m the one with a reading comprehension problem but this seems pretty obvious to me.

And what of the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Atheist who is in agreement with the major principles? Are they expected or invited to sign in expression of political solidarity with the principles expressed? If not, are they deemed incapable ofacquiring proper political motivation? If so, are they assumed to find it easy to violate their own consciences by publicly declaring fidelity to the cause of Jesus Christ?

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

But as a Christian I am also called to, and will, work with or for any them for any common good in the civil sphere–something to do with “loving your neighbor as yourself”.

so what’s your objection then? On the one h

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

But as a Christian I am also called to, and will, work with or for any them for any common good in the civil sphere–something to do with “loving your neighbor as yourself”.

So what’s your objection then? On the one hand you seem to object because it appeals to Christians to stand together as the faithful of the one true GOD but you object to that because apparently you think Catholics and Protestants have irreconcilable doctrinal differences and the declaration doesn’t deal adequately with those doctrinal and fundamental differences…

BUT…on the other hand you object as you do here apparently to the fact that it isn’t inclusive enough of non Christian individuals…

I think it’s pretty clear unless you are inclined to nit pick that this is a document written by Christians of every denomination to clarify a position as I’ve previously stated over and over again that there is no moral imperative to abide by unjust laws and that the principle laid out in Romans 13 is not an absolute imperative. If it were, Christianity would not have survived Nero. Yes there is an appeal to non believers to join us in our commitment to one another before God to live by his rule and dictate and ignore mandates placed on us by the state…but it is just that…an appeal to reason for like minded unbelievers who see the contradiction and unjustness of government edicts that would restrict an individual from the free exercise of his religion or would force an individual to engage in acts that are directly opposed to his own conscience or the express prohabition of his faith.

in short the document is written to be a compact between Christians who are extending an invitation to like minded individuals who may or may not be Christians…and any attempt to make it more or less than that is…again….besides the point.

As it is…it’s still a free country and as a believer in natural law, I respect your decision not to participate or to become a signatory…but I hope you are electing not to participate with a correct understanding of the issues at hand…It is my humble opinion that you are reading things into the declaration that are no there…and misinterpreting the intent of those who wrote it…so I appeal to your reason to reconsider and rethink your position…but if you decide in the end not to sign I say…good for you…and with that…I’ll leave the issue there.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Here is what you wrote that tells me what you are worried about most:

This has happened before. For all the vitriol heaped recently upon Rev. Wright and those of similar mind by Conservatives, the short-sighted would do well to remember that the theologically liberal mainstream denominations, now so inextricably and disastrously linked to political liberalism, began their decline from conservative roots at the hands of the most well-meaning persons and movements, including those universally acknowledged to have succeeded “for the common good”

I am not able to argue and persuade you to stop worrying about how a future movement could result from this Manhattan Declaration. By the same token you can’t persuade me to start worrying when I am not seeing the Manhattan Declaration as such a complicated and ambitious document. Chuck Colson is one of the originators, and there is no history of him being so complicated and ambitious in his prison ministry.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

4) There wasn’t time to develop it, but another example of a concern about terminology overloading, beyond my repeated objection to the particular usage of the term Gospel, arises in the section on Life. While the clear emphasis is on abortion, there are also statements which a faithful Roman Catholic would be likely to read as including opposition to the death penalty. Will some Evangelicals feel a need to “unsign” if some of their Catholic co-signers indicate support for such inclusion?

this is what I keep coming back to because you seem to miss the reason for the Declaration. The issue the Declaration attempts to address is the conundrum faced by individuals and religious organizations when the state passes laws requiring them to commit acts which are in direct contradiction of their faith or conscience…your use of the death penalty doesn’t fit here becuase the administering the death penalty is a function of the state. The declaration doesn’t address the issue and what anyone’s position on the death penalty is is irrelevent to what the declaration calls for.

In order for the argument about the death penalty to apply to the declaration you would have to have the state ordering an individual to pull the trigger, or the switch or administer the lethal injection for it to apply to thie declaration.

Actually, I’m glad you used this because I think I can kill a couple birds with one stone on this…including a burr under my saddle that I aluded to above…that being that this declaration is a call for civil disobedience….which it is not…

What I’m driving it here is…in order for the declaration to apply to any issue…you have to have an instance where the state is forcing compliance by an individual to an unjust law that requires an individual to commit an act that is against his will and in direct conflict witrh the tenets of his faith.

in the example you attempt to draw from here…as I say…in order for it to apply to the declaration, you would have to have the state forcing an individual citizen to administer the death penalty…and require that individual commit the act as an individual and not as a representative of the state.

If the faith of that person says that by administering the death penalty upon another individual, they are committing murder…then the declaration calls for that the individual being coerced to refuse to administer the death penalty.

This is where the burr under my saddle comes in…in this instance the individual refusing to comply is not participating in civil disobedience as that term has come to be recognized which is as a form of protest…The Declaration doesn’t call for us to disobey the law as a form of protest…what it calls for is for the individual to refuse to comply out of an obligation for that individual to not participate in the act out of concern for his immortal soul and it clarifies the inherent conflict of Romans 13 with the command of Holy Scripture to flee from all unrighteousness.

At this point I’d also like to address part of what you said here…please don’t confuse my discussion here as an attempt to convince you to sign the Declaration. Whether you sign it or not is irrelevant to my discussion here…I am debating this with you and aesthete on this for two reasons…first I find the discussion stimulating and second because I simply wish to make sure you are not signing it for the right reasons and not based on Miss-characterizations about what this is all about. There is an additional desire to make sure the miss-characterization is not allowed to continue.

finally as to this:

rather than any Declaration, the faithful preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in His church and the teaching to disciples of all things He commanded, not limited to but including what many Christians have long known without the need for public Declaration, that “in the world you will have tribulation, but take heart–I have overcome the world.”

again…the intent of the Declaration isn’t to bring us all together in agreement on every nuance in doctrine within the Christian faith. it is as I’ve said over and over to bring us all together in areas where we do agree…and to again clarify the moral imperative of looking to God’s commands when faced with a choice between obeying that command or obeying GOD’s command in scripture to obey those placed in civil authority over us as set forth in Romans 13.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson