American Heritage Party report on Chicago meeting

From Susan Eby:

Dan and I returned home late Tuesday from our time spent in Chicago, where over 50 enthusiastic individuals met to hear Dan’s presentation on “Explicitly Christian Politics,” and to find out more about the possibility of forming an Illinois State AHP. We were very encouraged and pleased with the good turn out (despite Chicago’s 18 degree F temperatures and continued snow!)

It was a special surprise to be greeted by Ray Stalker and his family, as well as Dave Weise and his wife, both of whom we had last enjoyed fellowship with, and shared kindred vision with, at the infamous CP convention in St Louis almost 8 years ago! Another very encouraging surprise was seeing AHP member Justin Glick, who traveled 175 miles from his home in Indiana with his brother Ryan and sister Keesha to attend the meeting when he heard that Dan would be speaking, sharing the vision of the AHP. What commitment!

In this introductory meeting, Dan articulated the fundamental purpose of the AHP as being the absolute necessity of building upon “Explicitly Christian Politics.” He began by quoting from Nancy Pearcey’s book, TOTAL TRUTH: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity:

“...I can say from experience that few [of the believers working in politics today] hold an explicitly Christian political philosophy. As a congressional chief of staff once admitted, ‘I realize that I hold certain views because I’m politically conservative, not because I see they are rooted in the Bible.’ ”

Dan went on to expound on the errancy of such a position. He declared that the Bible is indeed the great political textbook for the nations and he clearly articulated how God’s blessing is upon the families, communities and nations who obey His laws and precepts. Quoting from the writings of Groen Van Prinsterer, among others, he stated that ultimately, our battle is not conservatism vs liberalism, but rather belief vs unbelief; not in the ‘all powerful state’, but in the absolute power of God!

In short, Dan clearly laid out the need for an explicitly Biblical blueprint and Christian political party for America.

The message was very well received, and after his presentation, Illinois host Dan Sheridan took the role of moderator, as Dan responded to the many questions during the Q&A time. There were lots of questions, as individuals sought to clearly understand this ‘new concept’ of an explicitly Christian political party, and how it can work.

After the meeting was dismissed, there were still more questions asked, more discussion, and certainly more fellowship over refreshments. Response to the message was positive and encouraging!

As a result of this introductory meeting, letters will be sent to each attendant, thanking them for coming, and providing information in regard to how they may proceed in becoming involved in the upcoming formation of the Illinois AHP. AHP contact person, Dan Sheridan, along with Larry Temple, will be organizing an upcoming planning meeting there as the group begins the formation of this new organization.


We certainly rejoice to see God work in the hearts, minds, and lives of the people in Illinois. We look forward with anticipation and great expectation to see the work that the Lord brings about for His glory on the earth and in our nation!

For Christ and His Kingdom,

83 Responses to “American Heritage Party report on Chicago meeting”

  1. Rob Says:

    Are you the Judean People’s Front? Or the People’s Front of Judea?

    There’s a huge difference…

  2. Timothy West Says:

    There is not too little religion in american government, society, and public policy, but too much. Revealed religions have caused more death and human misery around the world through history than any other cause except disease.

    leave the church in the church where it belongs.

  3. Joe Says:

    The Scriptures do contain matter concerning religion and the right worshipping of God, but they also include matter concerning families and commonwealths and government of people.

  4. Trent Hill Says:


    Religious has caused serious death all over the world, this is due to its important place IN family/government/culture.
    While I’m no theocrat (and would lead the charge if a theocrat ever got into office), our Country was built by Deists/Christian. There are certianly political codes which are built upon religion and basic morals, these are the morals which everyone can agree on.
    When the Founders formed this government,there can be no doubt that they invisioned a LIMITED government with Biblical influence (but NOT domination). They commented on it many times, and only Jefferson overtly opposed ANY religious sentiment (and not even him really).

  5. Yosemite1967 Says:

    The only time that religions have caused death and human misery is when they gained exclusive control of government. Since absolute power corrupts absolutely, the temptation inevitably comes to use government power to snuff out the competition. This tendency comes from the obtainment of absolute power (the power over life and death), not from the religion. Cases in point:

    Jewish religious leaders in power snuffing out their competition, the prophets, before Christ. Then later, snuffing out Jesus and his apostles.

    Greek and Roman rulers, with their pagan religions, snuffing out their competition—Christians.

    Christian rulers coming to power, in spite of the Jewish, Greek, and Roman persecution, and, in the crusades, snuffing out their competition—pagans and Muslims.

    Muslim rulers coming to power (in many areas), in spite of persecution by Christians, and snuffing out their competition—Christians and pagans.

    Catholic rulers coming to power and snuffing out their new competition—Protestants.

    Protestant rulers coming to power in America, in spite of the persecution from the Catholic church (and its branches), and snuffing out their competition—Mormons.

    And, the chapter which has yet to be written, Mormon rulers coming to power, in spite of persecution by the Protestants, and…

    The key is to keep government from becoming a patsy to ANY religion, especially the atheist religion (Communism/Socialism—the GRAND-DADDY of murderous governments).

    Also, very few, in each of these religions, were actually the driving force behind the mayhem. To impute every member of a religion with the crimes of a few of its members who become civic leaders is unjust. I don’t blame all Catholics for the murders of early Protestants.

    Benjamin Franklin said: “When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

    So, hopefully, I may presume that it is not the goal of the AHP to use government power to favour their religion over the competition, just as I hope that it is not the goal of Mitt Romney to use government power to favour the Mormon religion over the Protestant, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, etc. religions.

  6. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Since Austin let these mulefucking right-wingers on to the blog, the site has become a rigth-wing hate blog. It’s getting really old.

  7. William Potter Says:

    undercover_anarchist wrote:
    “Since Austin let these mulefucking right-wingers on to the blog, the site has become a rigth-wing hate blog. It’s getting really old.”

    As opposed to a blog filled with senseless profanity and name calling?
    I am neither “Left Wing” nor “Right Wing” and usually hold my peace in disagreements between others but I have to step in and say that your manner of addressing your concerns is not likely to garner many allies. Civility is the cornerstone of society.
    Thank you.
    William Potter
    Jefferson Republican Party, Alabama

  8. Angela Wittman Says:

    Praise the LORD for this good report. I was not able to attend due
    to the distance (5 or 6 hour drive from my home) and my wanting to
    spend more time with my husband, but I am blessed and encouraged by
    the good report.

    I met the lovely Stalker family years ago in Pana, Illinois when I
    was a gov’t school board member helping to expose Goals 2000 in IL.
    They were a lovely home schooling family. Mr. Stalker ran for US
    Senate against Peter Fitzgerald in 1998 on the CP ticket. CP had
    ballot access, but it was challenged and they lost it.

    Dan Weise and I have had many phone conversations, but we have not
    met yet. Mr. Weise was Gary Antonacci’s mentor when Gary was the
    chairman of CP in IL. I hope and pray that new friendships were
    formed at this meeting as well as old ones renewed.

    I am so blessed to see the LORD at work in IL. Thank you for the GOOD

    Angela Wittman

  9. SovereignMN Says:

    UA says: ” the site has become a rigth-wing hate blog. It’s getting really old.”

    You are free to leave at any time.

  10. matt Says:

    I’m a Christian myself, but the whole “explicitly christian politics” thing really chafes me. Government is (ideally) a public service? Why should I care about the faith system of the person I choose to serve me? I wouldn’t hire a (self-described) Explicitly Christian Plumber for two reasons: first, I don’t care about his motivations, I care about his service. I want the leaky pipes fixed, and I don’t want my perscription meds to wind up missing and second, I’ve noticed that using one’s religion as a selling point isn’t something that confident people do.

    Send your “Explicitly Christian Politics” right back where they came from.

    Jesus was executed by mixers of religion and politics, lest we forget.

  11. Joe Says:


    Are you saying that, as a Christian, you do not believe that the Bible contains guidance relevant to civil government?

    Wouldn’t hiring someone who believes he is commanded by God not to steal, reduce the likelihood that your possessions will be stolen by your plumber? Who would you be more inclined to hire, technical skill being equal, a devoted Christian whose family you know and trust from church, or the neighborhood Satanist? I write this as someone who hired a fellow church member to fix my plumbing. When I hired him I did not have much idea of the quality of his work , but I was confident that he would deal with me honestly. Years later, I have yet to have any problem with the work that he did and none of my possessions were taken from my home.

  12. Fred C. Says:

    Is it wrong that I’m starting to get satisfaction from watching every comment section on this blog degenerate into an ideological argument on the issues rather than actual commentary on the story itself? I was annoyed when the CP-split threads (going back to when the splits first started) kept turning into the typical abortion debate, but I’m actually starting to enjoy watching everyone bicker and forget there was a news item they were going to reply to. Am I a bad person?

  13. matt Says:

    Fred C,

    You aren’t a bad person for enjoying it and we aren’t bad people for doing it. People differ, so they discuss. It’s like the real world, except a little more heated, which never hurt anyone anyway. It isn’t like we’d be having super-secret internet strategy discussions on here if we weren’t arguing.

    I do believe that the Bible contains truths about government and everything else. One theologian whose writing I enjoy put it this way: The Bible is authoritative on every issue it addresses, and it adresses everything”.

    It doesn’t, however, neccessarily follow that Christians have a monopoly on the truths contained in the Bible. Some non-Christians may understand good governance better than some Christians.

    Non-Christians who understand not to worship government will lead better than professing Christians who think socialism is ok.

  14. matt Says:

    For example:

    I would rather have Cutty Sark represent me in Congress than anyone in the Christian Falangist Party. I’d probably prefer him to most of AHP too, although I don’t know enough about them to say for sure and I’m too disinterested to research it.

  15. Trent Hill Says:

    Agreed. Cutty ‘08 Congress?

  16. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    What this country really needs is an enlightened agnostic in the White House, an unencumbered and unfettered free-thinking soul who can finally put all of these right-wing religious hypocrites and zealots in their place. Organized religion is the root of all evil—- just look at the Shiites and the Sunnis. Or, closer to home, check out the Talibaptists and Catholics, the anti-abortion fanatics who condemn abortion but could give a damn about poor babies starving in America’s slums. Where is Robert G. Ingersoll, America’s greatest agnostic, when we really need him?

  17. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    My apologies. The Catholics are a little better than the Talibaptists and other fundamentalists. I didn’t mean to necessarily lump them together. At least the Catholics care deeply about the indigent…which is more than one can say about the Christian Right, the rigorously retarded, narrow-minded sectarian group that hijacked the Republican Party a quarter of a century ago. They’re the biggest group of phonies and hypocrites that ever walked the Earth…

  18. timothy west Says:

    jesus would have called hem Pharasees.

  19. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    You’re right, Tim. I hope you’re doing well. I always enjoy your comments.

  20. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    I also have nothing against Baptists. I would take a southern Baptist like Jimmy Carter, a guy in his eighties—- and one of our country’s most enlightened individuals—- over any of the major-party candidates running for president today.

  21. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Of course, one of the greatest Baptists ever was the late Harold E. Stassen, the long-forgotten ex-governor of Minnesota and Eisenhower disarmament advisor who helped shape Ike’s great farewell speech warning against the dangerous military-industrial complex.

  22. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Incidentally, I’m thoroughly enjoying the current spectacle on the religious right, the gut-wrenching decision of “family values” conservative Republicans to decide if they should go with one of three candidates who’ve been divorced at least twice—- including Pillsbury’s Newt Gingrich, who left his wife when she was on her hospital bed suffering from cancer—- over a candidate who has had only one wife, but whose grandfather had at least thirteen wives. You gotta love it!

  23. Cody Quirk Says:

    Personally, why couldn’t Michael Peroutka, John Lofton, Scott Whiteman and company simply join up with the AHP after Tampa and build it to rival the Constitution Party, instead of constantly bashing the Constitution Party and Mormons when they could’ve used that time bashing the CP to organize the AHP in their own states and start a ballot-access drive instead?
    If they did so, as extreme as they are, I would respect them for their determination.

    But they wasted plenty of good opportunities, which only shows their lack of political viability.

  24. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    I don’t know if this site has really become a “right-wing hate blog” or not, but where is the news from the third-party left? There’s a lot more taking place in the Green Party these days—- or in California’s socialist-oriented Peace & Freedom Party, which is contemplating a truly national campaign in 2008, for that matter—- than is happening in any of the parties from the fever swamp of the berserk right… The political right has had its chance. Enough of this right-wing nonsense. Who will challenge the cowardly Democrats from the Left next year?

  25. timothy west Says:

    Austin has asked for help in covering the left side over and over, and no one has ever taken him up on it.

  26. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    America needs a left-wing President—- forty years of conservatism, from Communist-hunting Richard Nixon to the idiotic World War-seeking George W. Bush—- has made this country a mess, a mean-spirited and tattered shell of its potential as a force for good in the world.

  27. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    “Austin has asked for help in covering the left side over and over, and no one has ever taken him up on it.”

    Actually, several people, including Libertarian Paulie Cannoli—- one of the most astute and saner voices on the American Left—- and a few others, have offered to fill that role. I like Austin a lot, but this site is beginning to look a little one-sided…

  28. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    America’s preoccupation with punishing the poor and rewarding the rich for mediocity has to end at some point. Let’s make the wealthy pay for the debacle in Iraq—- after all, it’s not their sons and daughters who are dying in a needless foreign civil war created by their tax-cutting hero in the White House. If the upper middle-class and wealthier segments of American society had to pay for this war in blood, sweat and tears, it would end tomorrow…

    That’s a fact.

    There’s going to be a huge third-party vote in 2008, but it will come from the Left—- not from the Right.

  29. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    ...the poor and lower income working-class families in this country have made the ultimate sacrifice in this President’s “war on terrorism.” In addition to killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, including tens of thousands of women and children, the ultimate son of privilege—a guy who stayed drunk for most of adult life—- has sent thousands of less fortunate Americans to an early grave in a war that never should have happened. While the cowardly Democrats fail to act, the American Left will exact its revenge in 2008.

  30. Cutty Sark Says:

    “Cutty ‘08 Congress?”

    I made an informal poll of my neighbors about the viability of a prospective Congressional run. A representative comment was “nigga, you craaazy.”

    My girlfriend threatened to disfigure me horribly and render me incapable of fathering any more children, but my ex was all about it, she did a quick calculation of what Congressional pay would do for her support payments and said she would vote for me in a heartbeat.

    She also liked the idea of me spending more time further away from home, in the DC area and on Congressional fact-finding missions.

    I was deeply touched by this, perhaps the greatest vote of confidence she has offered me in years. For a split second I saw the girl I once fell in love with and could never imagine living my life without. Then she started yelling and fussing at the kids about something, reality hit and I snapped out of it.

    My youngest daughter looked like she thought I was really going to go away, and she looked really hurt, so I had to end that nonsense right there. I didn’t really know how to explain to her I have less chance of being elected than a snowman has of lasting an August weekend in Death Valley. Why would people vote against her daddy?

    Thanks for the idea though guys, the poll was educational!

  31. Joe Says:

    Matt, as a Christian I believe that only those who are believers, i.e., stand in covenant with God through faith, should be considered for the office of magistrate (Deut. 17:15).

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    Joe. Theocracy doesnt work. Thats been proven. Shush.

    Cutty, well I’d vote for you over just about any major politician.

    Darcy G. Richardson, you are forgetting one very important part of this “poor people pay the most for wars” thing. They SIGN UP for the army. They dont HAVE to. They have not been drafted. They could find other work…hell 11 million illegals (and many more LEGALS) find work here EVERY YEAR!
    The problem is that it isnt the sort of work they want.
    The State of Louisiana has more people (by percentage) serving in the armed forces than any state in the union. I am a middle class white male (HATE ME!), and have at least 7 friends (who are also middle class whiteys) over in Iraq (or Germany,being deployed to Iraq). I only know one poorer guy who went over there. In my hometown, the richest family in a city of 10,000 sent both their kids to Iraq.
    It is not about poor vs. rich.
    Its about right vs. wrong
    The war is WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THAT is why it should not have been perpetrated.
    As for only “right wing” politics being covered,BS.
    The people on HERE who are LP are mostly leftist-LP.
    Even the CPers who are on here are libertarian-leanings for the most part.
    We cover Green party news as often as we get it, but maybe you should start scouring the internet looking for articles,and when you find good ones, send them to Austin?

  33. Joe Says:

    Trent, theocracy is not a government by the state, but a government over every institution by God and His Law, and through the activities of the free man in Christ to bring ever area of life and thought under Christ’s Kingship.

  34. Jason C. Says:

    Joe if anything, I respect your passion and desire to move this country towards your vision. You have stuck to your guns in every discussion you have. You are entitled to whatever political philosophy tickles your fancy. But listen. Lets suppose this theocratic revolution takes place, who will lead us towards the light of God and rule under Christ’s Kingship? You? People like Scott Whiteman, John Lofton (who I hope I meet one day) or Peroutka? Or perhaps it be possibly one of these guys?:

    African Methodist Episcopal (1)
    African Methodist Episcopal Zion (2)
    African Orthodox Church (1)
    American Baptist Churches USA (4)
    Amish (24)
    Anabaptist (4)
    Anglican Catholic [email protected]
    Anglican Church (137)
    Antiochian [email protected]
    Armenian Evangelical Church (1)
    Armenian [email protected]
    Assemblies of God (21)
    Associated Gospel Churches of [email protected]
    Association of Vineyard Churches (5)
    Baptist (150)
    Baptist Bible Fellowship (2)
    Branch Davidian (3)
    Brethren in Christ (1)
    Bruderhof Communities (11)
    Byzantine Catholic [email protected]
    Calvary Chapel (3)
    Calvinist (5)
    Catholic (1653)
    Cell Church (14)
    Celtic [email protected]
    Charismatic Episcopal Church (2)
    Christadelphian (14)
    Christian and Missionary Alliance (6)
    Christian Churches of God (1)
    Christian Identity (7)
    Christian Reformed Church (4)
    Christian Science (9)
    Church of God (Anderson) (3)
    Church of God (Cleveland) (4)
    Church of God (Seventh Day) (1)
    Church of God in Christ (2)
    Church of God of Prophecy (1)
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (149)
    Church of [email protected]
    Church of South India (2)
    Church of the Brethren (8)
    Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America (2)
    Church of the Nazarene (17)
    Church of the New Jerusalem (4)
    Church of the United Brethren in Christ (2)
    Church Universal and Triumphant (3)
    Churches of Christ (34)
    Churches of God General Conference (5)
    Congregational Christian Churches (3)
    Coptic [email protected]
    Cumberland Presbyterian Church (1)
    Disciples of Christ (13)
    Episcopal [email protected]
    Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (4)
    Evangelical Congregational Church (5)
    Evangelical Covenant Church (1)
    Evangelical Formosan Church (1)
    Evangelical Free Church (3)
    Evangelical Lutheran Church (31)
    Evangelical Methodist Church (1)
    Evangelical Presbyterian (1)
    Family, The (aka Children of God) (9)
    Fellowship of Christian Assemblies (1)
    Fellowship of Grace Brethren (3)
    Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (2)
    Free Church of Scotland (4)
    Free Methodist (6)
    Free Presbyterian (2)
    Free Will Baptist (4)
    [email protected]
    Great Commission Association of Churches (2)

    Greek [email protected]
    Hutterian Brethren (4)
    Independent Fundamental Churches of America (1)
    Indian [email protected]
    International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (3)
    International Churches of Christ (7)
    Jehovah’s Witnesses (33)
    Living Church of God (7)
    Local Church (7)
    Lutheran (39)
    Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (18)
    Mar Thoma Syrian Church (7)
    Mennonite (27)
    Messianic [email protected]
    Methodist (19)
    Moravian Church (3)
    Nation of Yahweh (4)
    New Frontiers International (1)
    Old Catholic [email protected]
    Orthodox (96)
    Orthodox Church in [email protected]
    Orthodox Presbyterian
    Plymouth Brethren
    Presbyterian Church (USA)
    Presbyterian Church in America
    Primitive Baptist
    Protestant Reformed Church
    Reformed Baptist
    Reformed Church in America
    Reformed Church in the United States
    Reformed Churches of [email protected]
    Reformed Episcopal [email protected]
    Reformed Presbyterian Church
    Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
    Revival Centres International
    Romanian [email protected]
    [email protected]
    Russian [email protected]
    Serbian [email protected]
    Seventh Day Baptist
    Seventh-Day Adventist
    Society of Friends
    Southern Baptist Convention
    Syrian [email protected]
    True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
    Unification Church
    [email protected]
    United Church of [email protected]
    United Church of Christ
    United Church of God
    United Free Church of [email protected]
    United Methodist Church
    United Reformed Church
    Uniting Church in [email protected]
    Unity Church
    Unity Fellowship Church
    Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
    Virtual Churches
    Waldensian Church
    Way International, The
    Web Directories
    Wesleyan [email protected]
    Worldwide Church of God —
    Believe me, this is jut to name a few.

    I think you get my point. How can one promote theocracy when you have so many different views and argumetns on what exactly the Bible means in its context. From Baptism, Salvation, Marriage/Divorce to Civil matters. I shutter at the thought of what the partisan politics would like inside this political arena.

    Once again, and yours Truly,

    Jason C.

  35. Joe Says:


    I voted for Michael Peroutka for President of the United States in 2004, so he is certainly one of the people I would look to for leadership. Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. Our party has endorsed two men for civil office thus far in 2007; I voted for them. Dan Eby and other leaders of the AHP I also respect. You shudder at the thought and Trent says it has proven not to work. Considering current partisan politics inside the political arena, I hardly think our alternative could be worse. Rick Jore seems to be fairly effective in Montana so far. Our candidate who is currently serving on the town council received an award from the New York Tax Reform Organization. There is much to get discouraged by in the short term, but I take great comfort in already knowing how the story will end.

  36. Trent Hill Says:

    Rick Jore doesnt support theocracy.

  37. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Is there any reason why the American Heritage Party is not listed on TPW’s right hand column, “Party Websites?”

    I tried contacting Austin by email and telephone about this issue a while back, but I think he sort of ignored my messages….

  38. Jason Says:


  39. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Reed,

    Several months ago I also tried contacting Mr. Cassidy to request he include AHP in the 3rd party list, and I never received any response.

    Hopefully someone will bring this to his attention.

  40. Angela Wittman Says:

    Theocracy only means we are governed by God’s Law. I think some folks read way too much into it… Theocracy is totally different than an ecclesiastical form of government.

    Jay Rogers of Forerunner Ministries has an excellent article addressing this at his website: I will try to post a link to it. Another good resource is the National Reform Association.

  41. Angela Wittman Says:

    Theocracy/theonomy link:

    Jay Rogers: “We do not advocate the domination of the church over the state. Nor do we want the state to dominate the church. We want both church and state to conform to God’s law. Thus we advocate a “theocracy”—the rule of God in society through His law. We do not advocate an “ecclesiocracy”—the rule of the state by the church. We want both church and state to independently conform to biblical law. ”

    Taken from: What is Theonomy? URL:

  42. matt Says:

    You can’t enforce God’s law, and that’s ok, since He’s proven Himself worthy to do it alone.

    The idea that the powerless deserve protection has Judeo-Christian roots, but that fact doesn’t translate into an endorsement of every two-bit punk who wants to codify his Biblical interpretation in legal form for an entire nation to follow.

    Secular government’s role is to punish and deter those who would attempt to mistreat the powerless. If another mechanism can be found to do this, perhaps some market anarchist construction, then government will become obsolete.

    God will continue to be sovereign in any case, and He will continue to invite people to (voluntarily) place themselves under His laws for life.

    If any of these theonomists think that governmental constructions can make God more or less sovereign, they are only adding blasphemy to their naievety.

  43. Trent Hill Says:

    Seconded Matt.

  44. Cody Quirk Says:


  45. Cody Quirk Says:

    Why is it that the Founding Fathers of this Nation were opposed to Theocracy and any church taking on the role of Government?

    And why is it that our Constitution prohibits Religious Tests and special privileges for any one church or religion?

    Maybe its because they knew the dangers of combining church & state or making them equal.

    Theonomy and Theocracy are only different in a sense as Stalinism is different from Maoism.

    Our goal is to restore our nation back to being what it once was: a Constitutional Republic. Not to create a whole new government altogether, whether religious or secular.

  46. Cody Quirk Says:

    Jason, I think only 2 or 3 churches on your list will conform to a ‘Theonomy’.

  47. Joe Says:

    As a Christian, I believe that civil rulers are ministers of God, deriving all just authority from Him, to protect and enforce right, and restrain and punish evil-doers. Proverbs 8:15-16, Romans 13:4-6, 1 Peter 2:13-14. I am not talking about endorsing every two-bit punk. Jason asked who I would vote for. If I lived in Montana I would have voted for Rick Jore. If you would have too, and/or you voted for Michael Peroutka for President, perhaps our political views are not as dangerous as some readers have suggested.

  48. Cody Quirk Says:

    Censoring dissident views on Discussion forums, even when they’re not offensive or obtuse? Claiming Mormons are devil-worshippers and a cult and Catholics are wrong?

    The only reason why you people are not dangerous is because you have no power to be dangerous.

    Civl rulers are human, just like minsters and leaders of Churches, they are capable of error. And I especially don’t want Joe’s definition of a civil ruler in office since absolute power corrupts absolutely. The last thing we need is a elite Calvinist/Puritan council controlling America like the international bankers contol our Federal Reserve.

    Isaiah 29:13, Amos 6:12, Matt 7:1-2, Matt 23:12, 23:25-28, Luke 6:37, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:1, James 4:11-12.

    I firmly believe that my Church’s view of Government=

    Is the best form of Government to have a maintain.

    Not a Theocracy.

  49. Cody Quirk Says:

    *Is the best form of Government to have and maintain.

  50. Cody Quirk Says:

    Dang, I need to stop writting when there’s a lack of sleep.

  51. matt Says:

    As a Christian, I believe that civil rulers are ministers of God, deriving all just authority from Him, to protect and enforce right, and restrain and punish evil-doers.—————————————————————————————————————
    I agree, but the Church and God aren’t interchangeable. Many in the Church have awful theology, some are corrupt, and more than half are too weak-minded to understand human rights. If you could find someone with a perfect understanding of God’s truth and no character flaws, perhaps I would trust him or her to enforce God’s law. No such people are available. In the Bible, they tried to make Jesus assume an earthly throne and He rejected that attempt because He had a higher calling.

    I want a government that keeps the powerful from running over the weak. Nothing more, nothing less. That’s why I’m a Libertarian. If God’s law is to be enforced at all, it’s within the context of the Church.

  52. Joe Says:

    Of course none of us are perfect. God does not require perfection of civil magistates; He requires them to meet the Biblical qualifications for civil magistrates.

    Try substituting one of the other institutions established by God in your construction:

    “If you could find someone with a perfect understanding of God’s truth and no character flaws, perhaps I would trust him to be a church elder.”

    “If you could find someone with a perfect understanding of God’s truth and no character flaws, perhaps I would trust him to be a father.”

    I don’t know if you find these latter statements absurd, but I do. We are agreed that the church and God are not interchangeable. We do not advocate ecclesiocracy, rather we believe that civil magistrates are ministers of God in their own right as per Proverbs 8:15-16 and Romans 13:4-6.

  53. matt Says:

    I would agree entirely that those who govern are God’s servants. I’m not contradicting the Bible. What I’m saying is that theonomists are not qualified to be those servants. Jesus wasn’t interested in punishing blasphemers or other violators of Old Testament law, and as Christians, we are to imitate Him.

    The object of government is security of property and person.

    That’s neccessary and God has arranged for it. Everyone, Christian and Non, is blessed by living in a place where laws are enforced. Why we should saddle society with laws that are only relevant to Christians is beyond me.

    Furthermore, I question the motives of any person or group who claims to have God’s mandate for government. To me it sounds like a cynical power grab. Couple that with the fact that the people in question don’t understand the distinction between the new and the old covenants, and I couldn’t be less interested.

  54. matt Says:

    A better analogy would be this:

    “If you could find someone with a perfect understanding of God’s truth and no character flaws, perhaps I would trust him to be pope.”

    More than one Church Government can function in the same area. Secular Government maintains a monopoly on force within the area it controls.

    That monopoly is dangerous in general, and even worse when the person or group who holds it is convinced that they speak exclusively for God.

  55. Joe Says:

    Matt, at least we are apparently agreed that civil magistrates are ministers of God and are now discussing what they should do. Our party platform does not say anything about punishing blasphemers. Hopefully we can agree that they are to enforce Old Testament laws such as those against murder.

  56. Cody Quirk Says:

    “He requires them to meet the Biblical qualifications for civil magistrates.”

    Doesn’t Article 6 of the US Constitution say something about that? Oh yeah—-


    It is outright unconstitutional to have such test for civil office, Joe. You minus well advocate for Gun Control, never mind the Second Amendment.

    Your state affiliate really should change the name. If you advocate for religious tests, then you do not advocate for the Constitution, therefore you people are not Constitutionalists.

    Same as can be said as repealing the 19th Amendment, which you also advocate for.

    Theocracy or Theonomy, it’s against the US Constitution and American Values, and it can never be done in the US, unless Christ returned today.

    And I don’t think Rick Jore advocates for Religious Tests or repealing the 19th Amendment either.

    And the majority of American Christians would scoff at the goals and ideals of Christian Reconstructionism, or Dominionism.

  57. Joe Says:


    Article 6, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States does not dictate to me who I can and can not vote for. I am free to use whatever criteria I want in choosing who to vote for, whether it be in a general election or a nominating convention. As a Christian, I believe that only those who are believers, i.e., stand in covenant with God through faith, should be considered for the office of magistrate (Deut. 17:15). I think the Constitution of the United States also has something to say about religious liberty as does our party platform.

    Our state party met a week ago Monday. I proposed a resolution that might have lead eventually to changing the name of our party, and my motion died for lack of a second. Every member of our state party besides me is determined to keep our current name. That may change some day, but I doubt any time soon, and I don’t think the opinion of an outsider such as you will persuade them otherwise.

  58. John Chance Says:

    In response to the question of JASON C of 3/10/07:

    Read the TAV site, you will see who-Reformed Dominionists.

    At least Reed, Angela, Joe and others have their own Protestant party now. They will be happy-until they start tearing each other apart, monitor it and mark my words.

    If you go to my old blog at blogspot, I did a review on AHP and others named above.

    Also, look up “Dominionism” on Wikipedia and surf the net. It is all about OT-like rule.

    Rushoodny could be a ptron of the AHP. at least Gary North could speak to your convention.

  59. Joe Says:

    I’m not sure what you meant by “ptron” (patron?). Rousas John Rushdoony is dead so perhaps you meant “patron saint,” or are you referring to his son? It is my understanding that Rousas John Rushdoony spoke at a Constitution Party convention.

  60. John Chance Says:

    He may have, not sure. I think the success of the CP will climb now that less and less Dominionist lingo is floating around. Tends to turn good, committed Catholics, Mormons and mainliners off.

    Also, Joe 6-pack does not care about it and the majority of voters are Joe 6-packers. A party is largely worthless without votes, contributions and foot soldiers.

    Rushdoony-I realize-is departed and may he rest in peace. I mean that he could serve as a patron saint-per se-for AHP and a rallying point. Especially since many that left after Tampa have demonized Phillips and Shearer. Again, I would invite readers to view the psots at TAV for the past year to 1.5 yrs. Judge for yourself.

    I am happy though, many now can go to AHP with clear conscious.

  61. Cody Quirk Says:

    Article 6, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States does not dictate to me who I can and can not vote for. I am free to use whatever criteria I want in choosing who to vote for, whether it be in a general election or a nominating convention.

    =I’m talking about the establishment of a test for candidates to meet your ‘biblical qualifications’ for office. You can vote however you like by your own principles and conscience, but you cannot attempt to over-ride the US Constitution to force everybody to conform to your ideals.

    As a Christian, I believe that only those who are believers, i.e., stand in covenant with God through faith, should be considered for the office of magistrate (Deut. 17:15).

    =Fine, just don’t try to shove your views down other peoples throuts.

    I think the Constitution of the United States also has something to say about religious liberty as does our party platform.

    =Yeah, it says that all religions are equal and our government cannot enforce one religion over another!

  62. Joe Says:

    Establishing a test for candidates to meet God’s ‘biblical qualifications’ for office, does not over-ride the US Constitution nor does it force everybody to conform to our ideals. Others are free to continue voting for whomever they want.

  63. matt Says:

    Dominionism might be awful, but Gary North sure is a good writer. He has a column on Lew Rockwell’s site that’s about as consistently informative and entertaining as anything on the web.

    What I’m referring to and rejecting, Joe, is the idea that the laws of the Old Testament are binding today. I am aware that mainstream dominionist thought (!) rejects the ceremonial laws, but even so, God’s laws for the Children of Israel are not suitable for a pluralistic, free society. If the Apostles’ intention had been to spread OT law, they would have done so, and set up Torah-based shadow-governments along with every Church. They didn’t, and I think that the reason they didn’t is because they were influenced by the Holy Spirit rather than the (very human, very fallen) urge to govern.

    Furthermore, I think any attempt to institute them would involve coercion, which is Anti-Christian.

  64. Angela Wittman Says:

    I have one question for those who are concerned about God’s law ( and theocracy or theonomists in general):

    Who was the first lawgiver in the history of our world?

  65. Joe Says:

    Matt, you didn’t really answer my question. You say God’s laws are not suitable for a pluralist free society. Are you saying that God does not proscribe murder, or that laws against murder are not suitable for a pluralist, free society?

    It depends what you mean by “any attempt to institute them would involve coercion.” If you mean that government should use coercion when enforcing laws such as those against murder, I agree. If you mean that we intend dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God, I disagree.

    I agree with you about Gary North. I would be honored to listen to him speak at any convention I’m at, even if I don’t believe he has a perfect understanding of God’s truth and no character flaws.

  66. Trent Hill Says:

    In the history of the world? Who knows…some chief in Africa.
    The first GREAT one?
    Draco of Ancient Greece?

    According to the Romans it was Numa
    According to the Indians it was Manus
    According the Muslims it was Mohammad
    According to Christians it was…probably Adam. Surely he gave laws to his sons. But the first REAL lawgiver amongst Jews/Christians is Moses.

    If you were looking for the answer God,
    He does not really conform to our view of “history” and thus, could be disqualified for cheating. =)

    Alas, we are not a Judeo-Christian society. I mean, if we were a 100% Christian society, I might not have a problem with going by Mosaic Law (although alot of it is merely ceremonial, and not meant for Christians).
    However,we are not. There are indians, pakistanis, chinese, japanese, french, germans, irish, english, hindus, communists, christians, jews, zoasterianists, objectivists, homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, muslims, White Supremacists, Black Supremacists, occultists, and morons in this country. And each and every one of them has a right to be governed fairly. Even you, the dominionists deserve a fair shake. And although I may be a christian, and I probably wouldn’t mind if Occultism died…if you revoke their rights through force of law, expect me to raise an army. You won’t trample on my rights. Because guess what? you may be a pretty smart fella. But Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, and Henry were WAAAAY smarter. There was more intellect in Jefferson than in the entire AHP or NYCP. They designed a government based on the PERFECT balance of biblical common law and secular governance. You think you have a better plan? Arrogance, is what you’ll need to tell the Priest at confession.

  67. General Lee Says:

  68. matt Says:

    99.5% ditto to Trent! (It would be total, but the idea of confessing my sins to a priest (rather than one of my fellow laymen, or perhaps even the person I sinnded against) has always stuck in my craw)

    You caught me. Good point. I mean that God’s laws as understood by your particular (small) religious sect cannot and should not be used as standard law for all of society.

    God has granted the vast majority of us humans enough light to understand that murder, theft, and fraud are wrong. If we could enforce these three prohibitions, which we all agree on, we would be further ahead.

    If you and your church desire to bind yourselves with further proclamations and prohibitions based on your detailed opinions about God’s law, you are free to do so.

  69. matt Says:


    freakin ridiculous.

    my aplologies to everyone who has to read that.

  70. Trent Hill Says:


    Im actually not catholic…and I know Joe isnt. But it sounded better than “Thats what you’ll have to tell….Billy Graham?”

  71. Cody Quirk Says:

    Establishing a test for candidates to meet God’s ‘biblical qualifications’ for office, does not over-ride the US Constitution nor does it force everybody to conform to our ideals. Others are free to continue voting for whomever they want.

    =Joe, just admit you’re not a Constitutionalist, OK. Because it says No Reilgious Tests. Period.

  72. Cody Quirk Says:

    Matt, you didn’t really answer my question. You say God’s laws are not suitable for a pluralist free society. Are you saying that God does not proscribe murder, or that laws against murder are not suitable for a pluralist, free society?

    =I think what Matt is trying to say is that there are some scenarios where religion and government do not necessarily go together. And even atheists and humanists agree that murder is unlawful.
    Our American Republic is NEVER meant to be a Theocracy, the Founding Fathers strictly intended to keep our Government from becoming a organ for one Church or creed, or from regulating religious liberty.

    =Believe it or not, if you have a non-Theocratic/theonomic government- as long as the members of the non-theocratic/theonomic government are devoted to Him in their personal lives and keep their government clean and free of corruption, then God is OK with that.

    It depends what you mean by “any attempt to institute them would involve coercion.” If you mean that government should use coercion when enforcing laws such as those against murder, I agree. If you mean that we intend dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God, I disagree.

    =A elite minority controlling the majority, enforcing one view of religious laws against a people who have different takes on such laws or beliefs.
    That is as tyrannical and anti-American as establishing a Stalinist government in America. Even real Constitutionalists would fight such a government as a Theonomy from taking place.

    =I think I understand now, you wanted to make the CP advocate for these goals in government and society, yet you failed to take over and now you’re upset that you couldn’t gain power through the largest third party in terms of voter reg.
    Well, too bad, good luck in the AHP or where ever.

    =Joe, how about that offer on those 3-D glasses, your black and white (absolutionist) views are making your arguments look obtuse.

  73. Trent Hill Says:

    Cody, are you going to Boise? I recieved some sort of email about “registration”? I didnt register anywhere…just bought plane tickets.

    “Even real Constitutionalists would fight such a government as a Theonomy from taking place.”
    =ESPECIALLY Constitutionalists! I’d march to Washington gun in hand.

  74. DP Says:

    The question then comes up-who is to decide what God thinks, who is qualified for office, etc.

    When divergent peoples try to meet-well, look at Tampa and aftermath.

  75. John Chance Says:


    Take your own advice-don’t question men. After all, Perouta and Co do not want women over men.

    Sounds like you are not “remaining silent” If this continues, we may have to then presume you were not one of the “predestined before time” folks.

  76. matt Says:

    I think we are in fundamental agreement, Cody.

    I believe that the state should bear the sword (use coercion) only to punish crime, and that only that which harms the individual should be illegal.

    Personally, I would be very happy to live in a country whose laws confromed to the CP platform, but that platform would fail to provide say, drug users and homosexuals with the freedom I feel tthey deserve.

  77. Trent Hill Says:

    Matt, what with all the other freedoms being burned. I think we can agree to walk across the bridge before we start throwing rocks over Prostitution and Illicit drugs.

  78. matt Says:

    I think that’s fair, Trent.

    That’s certainly what I do at the ballot box.

    In the last election I voted for some CP candidates. Usually I did it if they had better publicity than the Lib. and had stands on the issues I could appreciate, or if the LP guy was horrible. On the internet, I just shift into debate mode.

  79. Trent Hill Says:

    Agreed. And to be honest, I think thats better. In my state’s upcoming elections, I will probably vote LP in a number of races. There are not many CP candidates here,as of yet.

  80. Cody Quirk Says:


    I’m not sure, first, I’m trying to see if I can get family bonding leave from work, but that’s gotten complicated recently.

  81. Cody Quirk Says:

    =ESPECIALLY Constitutionalists! I’d march to Washington gun in hand.

    Unlike you, I’d march to DC with a AR-15 in one hand and a machete in the other

  82. Trent Hill Says:

    Machete? Maybe you need to take marksman lessons….no one should get close enough for you to use a machete.

  83. Cody Quirk Says:

    Well, just in case I run out of ammo. Hahaha!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.