Judas Maccabeus wrote:
John:
Are you sure you don't hold these kind of views yourself. Jury nullification is one of the "pillars" of this movement. The local "Sovereign Citizen" group distributes a jury handbook encouraging this. They have infiltrated, and in one case almost taken over one of the evangelical churches near here.
I am not all that concerned about the "constitution. The Bible is the constitution of the life I have taken up, with Jesus as my Lord. We live in obedience to Him. And sometimes we die. Anabaptism has a theology of martyrdom in it.
Dean Taylor did an excellent video on this subject, entitled "What If." If you are really interested in Anabaptist theology, you may want to take a look.
You are aware that no one rules except by God's permission. We are to obey them as much as we can, both good and bad. When Paul was giving his instructions, he had Rome in mind. Can't get much worse than that.
J.M.
You have a lot of good points, and I appreciate our discussion.
Jury nullification goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215, and was used successfully in the trials of the 16th and 17th centuries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Jury nullification is one our last defenses against judicial tyranny. (No, I am not a "Sovereign Citizen", I belong to God.)
Romans 13 specifically states that "rulers are not a terror to good works". Yet Christians were persecuted by Rome for their good works. So Romans 13 cannot be talking about Rome, as it was a terror to good works.
Romans 13 states that the rulers are "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Yet every form of evil, such as adultery, fornication, pedophilia, murder - was sanctioned by the Roman government, just as abortion is sanctioned by our own government today. Abortion and these other sins, they are "evil". So Romans 13 cannot be speaking of Rome or our governments today, because these governments are not a revenger against those that do evil.
The only way to apply Romans 13 to government is to call evil good, and good evil. (Isaiah 5:20) Romans 13 may be speaking of a "higher power", but if read carefully, few if any governments would qualify in the description given.
Our relationship to government should be determined by the entire Bible, not by the statements of one writer.
Here are some examples of how the men of God related to their government, when told to obey: (I will let you read the context):
When their government told them to stop preaching:
Acts 4:(19) But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
When told a second time:
Acts 5:(29) Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
When Stephen was speaking to the government ministers:
Acts 7:(51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
(52) Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Remember the Egyptian midwives, who lied to their government?
Exodus 1:(21) And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
Or when the people desired a King to rule over them:
1 Samuel 8:(7) And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
God wants us to follow him, not man's government.
And you are correct, the Bible is our supreme guide. If we consider the intention of Biblical law in the first 5 books of the Bible, there is no principle of using incarceration in a jail as punishment, only restitution. If a thief stole an animal or money, he had to give back twice what was stolen (Exodus 22:4, 7). If someone accidentally destroyed property, they would have to make restitution of whatever was destroyed (Exodus 22:6).
Incarceration could only for a short time, while the sentence was being determined. (Leviticus 24:12).
Incarceration does not "correct" anyone, it usually makes matters worse. (I did a prison ministry for several years and saw few, if any "correction" of the inmates.)
And if a sentence is overturned at a later date, and a person had been fined, that fine can be restored. But the years spent in prison from a sentence that was overturned can never be given back to a man.
With homosexual rape being something that occurs regularly in prison with no punishment of the guilty, any stay in prison by a Christian is cruel and unusual punishment.
And other cruelties happen in prison. Remember the Hutterite boys, Michael and Joseph Hofer, how they were "high handcuffed" to their cell doors so they could not sit down, and fed bread and water for days, all for not fighting in WWI?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_and_Michael_Hofer
I find the Biblical law much more reasonable, in that Samuel Girod should not be incarcerated, but only have repay any damages he created. And there were no damages. So there was no crime, other than not letting the FDA into his home.
And the real problem with this case is that Samuel operated his business out of his private home. While the FDA may inspect businesses, this is different with a private home, as the home is protected from "unreasonable search and seizures" by the 4th Amendment. To inspect Mr. Girod's private residence, every inspection should require a judge to sign a warrant for what was to be searched, but only based on "probable cause":
4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Even the "curtilage", which is his yard and the buildings immediately surrounding his home, could not be searched without a proper warrant, signed by a judge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage
The way I understand the case, the Judge gave an open ended injunction that Mr. Girod's home could be searched at anytime by the FDA. That clearly violates the 4th Amendment. At least Mr. Girod did not use the Castle doctrine.
I have worked with our Law enforcement as a computer technician, and our law enforcement men are some of the bravest and greatest protectors of the peace and tranquility of our nation (and this is not something I could ever do). But the same cannot be said for our legal system.
Our judges, prosecutors, and lawyers - it is a game for them. If you don't know how to play the game, you go to their jail. They put burdens on the backs of poor people they don't even lift with their finger. 6 years for Chickweed salve is ridiculous.
And if this case was overturned a year from now, how would Samuel Girod get his year in jail back? He couldn't.
But one answer would be to put the judge and prosecutor in jail, even just for 30 days, to show them the gravity and tragedy of their own actions. Putting a non-violent person in a cage accomplishes nothing. But putting a judge and prosecutor in their own jail would set a very good precedent. The inmates would love them.
I would not want anyone in jail, but the crime of the judge and prosecutor in taking away 6 years of a man's life is a much greater crime than exaggerating the claims of Chickweed salve, or not letting someone enter your home.
The judge and prosecutor at the very least need to be disbarred, and encouraged to work and actually produce something, and not live off other people as they do now. If they had to work for a living, even if just for a short while, they would be less likely to disdain those that do work.
Very nice talking to you.
John
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."