Zombie Constitutionalism? | Doug Wilson Reacts to
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Pastor Doug Wilson reacts to some comments made by @AuronMacIntyre about the Constitution. Are conservatives guilty of zombie constitutionalism?
Doug Reacts is a reaction video series presented by Canon Press.
Thanks for the kind words Doug, glad you enjoyed the video!
One of the main things the Civil War did was to centralize government power and then to eliminate religious requirements for office in many states (14th Amendment). This made all government offices secularized. In the 1960's these chickens came home to roost; prayer was taken out of schools, Bible reading too, people advanced sexual chaos, immigration floodgates were prepped, and the Civil Rights Act (aka, government gets to regulate your freedom of association in all areas of life) came to exist. A sad trajectory really, and very different from the Christian, free, moral colonies in the 1700's.
The 13 original colonies were three sheets to the wind. The reason the Mayflower went to Massachusetts was because they had more beer than Virginia. Most of our founding fathers were slave owners, Deists, Unitarians, or atheists. Hardly "Christian, free, moral colonies". Our Constitution became a secular document when it proclaimed "We the people.." rather than "As God has Directed" or "According to God's laws.." You opine about the 1960s. Do you realize that in 1964 the vast majority of the nation believed black football players were not smart enough to play with white football players? Did you forget that as late as 1964 we were still killing people to prevent black people from voting? You talk about "government gets to regulate your freedom of association in all areas of life". Take a look at the Whiskey Rebellion. That has been going on since the country began.
"Democracy means agreeing with the left."? Well, i did a google search for "what is a democracy?" This is what i got: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." The definition of democracy (like all political labels) has changed and evolved. The last time democracy drastically changed definitions was after WWI, which (among many other changes) caused women getting the right to vote. Doug's assertion " Democracy means agreeing with the Left." is not only inaccurate, it is vindictive
@@1Whipperin You are partially correct. "We the people.." clearly meant white men. It excluded black folks and women.
@@1Whipperin Doug also asserted that if an election result doesn't agree with the Left, it was stolen. Apparently Doug didn't get the memo that since 1988 GOP presidential candidate has lost the popular vote in every election except one (2004). And he thinks the left steals elections? The more he makes condemnations about the Left (and thereby tacitly affirms "conservatism") the more delusional he gets.
Doug also asserted that if an election result doesn't agree with the Left, it was stolen. Apparently Doug didn't get the memo that since 1988 GOP presidential candidate has lost the popular vote in every election except one (2004). And he thinks the left steals elections? The more he makes condemnations about the Left (and thereby tacitly affirms "conservatism") the more delusional he gets.
Auron is one of my favorite commentators on politics. Love to see Doug interacting with his content.
I so wish there were more Americans who understood and valued the message being put fourth here.
I like the idea of the concept of being “internalized.” We seem to act out things as being so when our hearts are persuaded they are so, not because, whatever is being discussed, is on paper.
The crossover we didn't know that we needed but is nonetheless a pleasant surprise.
Day made! Doug Reacts is the best thing on UA-cam!
Also, only lawmakers and law enforcers are sovereign citizens. Not the citizens themselves. They are the only ones not held to the standard of the law.
Finally, Canon Press at 100k! Awesome and well deserved
I appreciate your videos. Watch them regularly.
Point of fact it isn’t whether the people internalize a constitution that makes it effective. It’s whether there is sufficient power to enforce it. It certainly makes it easier if the people internalize it, but it isn’t a sufficient condition. Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and even the Left Wing of the Democratic Party didn’t require a majority to internalize their revolution. All that was required was the ability to obtain sufficient power.
I notice that you didn't mention the Jews as others have...
You made a great point in my book!
@@virtualpilgrim8645
The gun is in Uncle Sam's hand.
The Zionists are just holding the leash that's attached to him.
@@josephinewhite6224 what book is that Josephine
"My book" was just a phrase.
Fascinating. I just finished up listening to Voddie Baucham's sermon series on Revelation, and one of the things he emphasised, especially toward the end of the series is our various ways of having an over-realised eschatology. In the last sermon on Rev 22, he said that all attempts at utopia, including both Christian attempts and secular attempts, are one example of this over-realised eschatology, where we want heaven on earth. However when the Spirit and the Bride are calling for Christ to come at the end of the book, they (and we by inclusion in the Bride) are also waiting for Christ to have the fullness of the reward for which He died. To sum up, as Christians, our mission isn't to save politics, because politics never saved a soul, our mission is to preach Christ crucified to all who will listen, and then when all whom the Father has given to the Son (John 6:37) have come we will have heaven on earth, because our Saviour-King will return. In the meantime, if our countries keep becoming more secular rather than more Christian, there's not a constitution known to man that can save a nation.
Maybe the Christian Nationalists who think mandating Focus On The Family should get this message.
@@skylinefever you should probably listen to the interview that Doug Wilson did with Voddie Baucham on this exact topic. It's on youtube now
“They must be made to care”… yes, go on.
The mistake of the Sovereign Citizen movement is the hilarious belief that a government is beholden to laws. It would be like pleading to the head of a cartel by appealing to the Plaza System.
Back in 2001, I asked what an attorney general is even for, all I ever saw was presidents using an attorney general to make excuses to ignore the 5th Amendment.
Someone was discussing picking one. I argued that we should just get a placeholder until we can find a legitimate purpose for having an AG.
Auron is the man. Based.
I thought these two honorable gentlemen had a lot in common, and so it proves to be.
Cheeky move pastor Wilson. Indirectly clarifying his case for mere Christendom to reflect a regenerate people upholding Christian laws and values instead of a Machiavellian top down church state.
What a great way to phrase it.
Wilson has been advocating a bottom up gentle Reformation and militating against top down violent Revolutions all along.
If the church were serious we would be making disciples that obey everything Christ commanded and living Semper Reformanda in our families, churches, and communities leavening the whole lump instead of going on Moral Majority crusades while neglecting the home front.
"That was really good." What more of a rating could person want? :) Appreciate the commentary!
“Made to care “. I like it. Unfortunately there’s only one way and it’s bloody. So fat I see no evidence of the population willing to sacrifice. Covid was a test and we failed miserably.
Russia, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Belarus, Iran, Assad, China, etc have been passing most of their tests so far. 🤷 Now we can add Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Gabon, etc to the list.
Maybe post-war occidental society was just founded on bad values. 🤷
The peoples of the winter cannot embody the spirit of the peoples of the spring.
We reside in the winter of our cycle.
Do not lose heart in this however, as Evola said
“Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.”
Great work Doug.
Hmmm.... Reminds me of people who say that succession can be prevented by a piece of paper...
I watch alot on the constitution ....this is probably the best summary of today's situation......thanks Brotha Doug
I always knew there was a reason for the support for the Confederate flag.
My lawyer gave me a gift of a t-shirt yesterday, that has images for the founding fathers and the words "It's only treason if you lose."
We are a federation of states, as we are titled “The United States of America.” Meaning the states united within the continent of America.
The USA doesn't have states. The USA *is* a state. It has *provinces.*
If you actually read the constitution and the Declaration of Independence, you will see that it is united States of America. Some of the modern documents have altered it to be United States of America.
Great vid... except the Star Wars reference: obviously Pastor Doug has never run through Beggar's Canyon.
Thanks! I’ve just ordered this book.
Congrats on 100K Subs!!!
Well said! Thanks brother!
Very interesting points
Police=policy. Statutes are for the good administration of government, not Law for the people. Unalienable rights, not government issued privileges. The Law of the land/people is still the common Law if you know it.
It took 14min and 33sec till the first usual misuse of the word "woke". Slowing down.
Sovereign citizen is an oxymoron . You cant be sovereign and a citizen at the same time .
Where does one get its authority ? A popularity contest ? Legal and lawful are two different things .
I think about how many people are even capable of being full believers, and how many are just going along with it in order to get through life.
Can any of this be fixed at this point without a bloody civil war?
I think he is missing the point.
Constitutions don’t mean anything if people don’t care for them. Legalism is only for justifying those in power that use it.
i am curious what the precedent is with the Articles standing from shortly after the Constitution was ratified‽ It surely happened, but what is recorder i wonder.
Read Gary North’s Conspiracy in Philadelphia
Civil rights or civil liberties do I have the freedom to do a thing or do I have a right to do a thing. Rights are given freedoms are taken I guess
Freedom is a reward for morality and morality is by product of following God's law
This is the most western, specifically American take I have ever heard
@@Jtsteww and?
You said: @lenardruterbories6742 Freedom is a reward for morality and morality is by product of following God's law." Oh really? The folks that were following "God's law" were the ones killing other Christians by the millions in the 30 years war, the 80 years war, the 100 years war, and The German Peasant war (to mention just a few of our historic atrocities). In today's America, the states that have the highest populations of "evangelical" and "conservative" Christian are the same states that lead the nation in abortion rates, divorce rates, violent crime, maternal and infant mortality rates, poverty, teen pregnancy, to mention just a few associated atrocities. So much for "Freedom is a reward for morality and morality is by product of following God's law".
@@manager0175 the belief in government is the cause most of the atrocities you mentioned
The fact that you used words thike the State the nation and sects of churches such as evangelical proves in my mind at lest that we are talking about people who believe in things other then God's law. Also if God's law demand an element of society to be exterminated then by nessasity its a good thing.
@@Beijingbiden I do hope you are being hyperbolic, or sarcastic, or using some other figure of speech to express yourself to the height of extremes.
I say the same as Doug Wilson I can't believe I live in these times.
‘Minority rights for all” would make a great T-shirt.
Syndrome "When everyone has super power, nobody does."
The conservative traditionalist patriots must push back on liberal mandates. A mandate is not a law.
If they can force it on you, then it's the law. That's what the law *is.* It's not what's written down. It's what's enforced.
You must start by getting rid of T***p. Until then, you are nothing but the epitome of hypocrite.
I’m going to ask the question begged, “how does this apply to the Bible if no document preserves itself?”
The bride.
The Bride.
The Spirit preserves the document, because it's sacramentally set in God's economy with that purpose.
John Webster on Holy Scripture is great here.
Canon Revisited by Kruger, also good.
Context. The constitution as it was first written isn't changing, what Doug means by that sentence is that it won't produce adherence just by existing. Its adherents must evangelize and also enforce its precepts
God preserves the Bible from generation to generation throughout history.
I agree with the point, but have some problems with some historical statements. I don't think it should even be claimed that there was anything legally dubious about the ratification of the Constitution. Should they have ratified it is a different argument. The Constitution was not an amended Articles, so it didn't need to follow the rules of the Articles. One should view ratification of the Constitution as secession from the Articles, and joining a new government. Ratification did not destroy the Articles. It would have been theoretically possible for states to continue in a separate union under thr Articles, while 9 states joined a new government under the Constitution. Nobody was forced to ratify the Constitution, and North Carolina, for example, didn't join the new Union until a bit later. So, every state under the Articles legally did away with it.
Secondly, this can't be relegated to the civil rights era. The Constitution has been fundemetally dead since 1865, with a long history of court cases getting farther from even pretending to adhere.
If one wants Constitutional government, it requres the courage to admit Lincoln killed it, and to be willing to contemplate things like secession.
So few people apparently truly understand this point: "If one wants Constitutional government, it requires the courage to admit Lincoln killed it"
I can see it says there is a reply to my post, but for some reason I can't see the reply itself.
@@ryanmckenzie3627 I can't see that other post either. Happens all the time. It is UA-cam shadow banning comments.
Like you, I agree that Auron MacIntyre has identified the fact that a new, semi-secret Constitution was foisted on the American people in the 1960's with the Civil Rights movement, and I thank him for pointing that out. Also like you, I have some problems with some historical statements Mr. MacIntyre made, and I'm disappointed that Pastor Wilson did not point them out. However, the problems I have seem to be more numerous than the ones you enumerated.
First is the statement that the Constitution is the founding document of this country. There are four documents that make up the Basic Law of the USA, namely the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. All four are in force as Basic Law, and anyone who tries to say the first three are not is either ignorant or malicious.
The Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation in a manner very similar to how the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. The fact that it does so doesn't mean the Old Testament is no longer the Word of God--likewise, the existence of the Constitution doesn't mean that the Articles of Confederation have been repealed. There are two things in the Articles of Confederation that were not superseded by the Constitution, and which are still in force--and the fact that they are still in force proves that the Articles are still the Law of the Land. The first is that the name of this country is the "United States of America." (And I will jump on anyone who simply calls it "the United States." How do I not know you're talking about the United Mexican States if you drop the "of America" part? This is not nitpicking--this is crucial.)
The second is that the states are joined in a perpetual union. This was Abraham Lincoln's basis for waging the Civil War--and that shows that Lincoln understood that the Articles are still in force.
You say that no state was forced to ratify the Constitution. Well--I guess there is a distinction between coercion and force. North Carolina and Rhode Island were the holdouts in ratifying the Constitution. The Federal Government finally told Rhode Island that if they didn't ratify, they would start treating Rhode Island like a foreign nation. There's your coercion.
You are correct about when the first Constitution died. Lincoln saved the Union by destroying the Republic. That ushered in a second Constitution for a century. The Civil Rights movement ushered in a third Constitution.
@@virtualpilgrim8645 I get shadow-banned sometimes, and I can't figure out why (and other times, I can't figure out how I DON'T get shadow-banned!).
Most recently, I was shadow-banned for asking a question about the history of the Methodist Church. While my family was traditionally Methodist, they acted more like Baptists. One thing in particular about this is that not only did my family not baptize their babies--they'd never even HEARD of the concept of infant baptism. That makes me think no Methodists in a three-county area practiced infant baptism, as we're talking about several generations here, and the various branches of my family hadn't been connected by marriage yet.
Let's see if I get silenced for asking this question again.
And if anyone can answer my questions about the Methodists, I thank you in advance.
internalizing
I've have just found your channel. I had to be in Kansas City for a time. Great channel. I subscribed to it. Personally I would appreciate to see more of your work. People need to see it. Thank You. May God bless your work and your channel. Thank You.
well, whatever political system we have now, it certainly isnt working. and there is little to nothing standing in the way of you and me being steamrolled whenever convenient.
I think it's interesting and possibly important that the declaration of Independence is the actual foundational document of these United States of america. Any government that is not compatible with the declaration is by definition not american. The declaration of Independence relies squarely upon the natural laws of nature's god. We know that this God is good because he is given us life liberty and the ability to pursue that which will bring us lasting happiness. The declaration is based upon that long history of the Scottish declaration back to the magna Carta and even back to albert.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, Articles of Confederation (1777)
The other reason the “sovereign citizens” are wrong for resisting police is that the Articles of Confederation were for the states, not the local magistrates. In fact, local police would have more relative power under the articles.
The arbitrary caprice side of government mentioned at 9:23 is this covered in Caldwell's book or is their another book someone can recommend. Thanks.
So… are we supposed to vote our way out of this? Vote harder?
And this is why nations are defined by race and ethnicity - including America. It is ironic how Doug Wilson will agree with McIntyre's essay but then rail against "Kinism" and claim America is merely a creed. The founders of our republic and the general population in America were acutely aware of their racial kinship as essential to maintaining law and order and unity regardless of the form of government they were under. You can search the constitution and the Declaration of Independence for the word nation, and I think it appears three times only in reference to Britain and other foreign nations. The Constitution and the Declaration never claimed the United States was a nation. The United States is merely legal regulating document. America is a nation, because America is an ethnos.
Nope. The idea that "racial kinship" provided any kind of unity or law and order in early America is demonstrably false. Quakers were hanged in Boston in the 17th century, and Catholics were banned for almost ten years. White Irish immigrants faced incredible hostility, as did Italians. Though at that time figures like Benjamin Franklin actually didn't think of anyone in Europe, including Swedes and Russians, as white - only the English. And the history of Europe itself charts how those with "racial kinship" invade, subdue, execute and revolt against each other. You're nostalgic for a completely imaginary ideal of racial segregation which would in practice be horrible.
@@aallen5256 Quit twisting my words. I said kinship is essential but not sufficient. You are correct that there are religious disputes. You are therefore making my case that a nation is unified by language, culture, race, kinship, and religion. The more similar of people they are, the more likely they are to get along. Kinship is just one essential component of that unity. As for different people coming in from Europe you know there is one subject that is taboo to talk about. Jews.
@@virtualpilgrim8645 Your words don't need twisting!! You're a white supremacist and anti-semite, and you've already been proved not to know what you're talking about in that other thread where you were misrepresenting Singaporean leaders and trying to cherry-pick Ben Franklin quotes. You think that 'racial kinship' is essential to unity and law and order - this is simply untrue. As the history of white people in America shows; rejecting Irish, Italian immigrants, etc. and the entire of history of Europe equally shows.
@@aallen5256
Irish are not Anglo-Saxon.
Italians are not Anglo-Saxon.
Germans, Swedes, Russians, etc are not Anglo-Saxon.
You're just proving his point.
@@sullathehutt7720 The Angles are literally from Germany!! You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
And, that isn't his point. His point is that shared whiteness creates unity. My point is that it absolutely doesn't. And the idea that Swedish people aren't white just shows how low resolution these kind of taxonomies are.
The Constitution is a piece of paper.
"They must be made to care." - 100% yes.
Keep speaking brother!
My hammer built my house, so why can't the constitution enforce separation of power, or even it's abuse?
No, YOU built your house, using the hammer. It's a tool. Just like the constitution, it takes capable people to make it worth anything
Thats one smart hammer
@@mariaconcepcionrodriguezhe2850 that's one super active set of papers.
That guy has to be canadian
Mr. Macintyre lives in Texas, and I think he was born in Virginia.
So if the articles of confederation were made illegally under King George and the constitution was made illegally under the articles of confederation, then why should I worry about staying legal under the constitution when I want to assert and claim my freedom?
This is the major problem my fellow Christians run into when trying to find a way to legitimize government. Christ laws are universal. It does not matter what group you belong to what organization you are a part of or watt piece of paper written by men you claim to drive some authority from. All of Christ laws apply to you the same. Meaning that love first the Lord your God, do you want to others as you would have them do you want to you. Love thy neighbor as thy self. These are antithetical to government as we know it.
Benjamin Franklin said, "Force shites on the back of reason."
If you love your children, you don't leave them un-governed.
Christian leaders must look at their flocks the same way.
@@sullathehutt7720 oh that’s it. Nacy Pelosi loves us.
There is a difference between to govern something you are given stewardship over. And government or the State.
The State or governments and “love” should not be used in the same sentence.
@@justinwhitsitt7072
No, there is no difference. The state is given stewardship over the populace. That's how civilization works. Hierarchy. Monopoly of force. Law enforcement.
You are going to be lorded over by somebody on this earth, period. Do you want Nancy Pelosi, or would you prefer somebody else? Because if you continue to bleat anarchist platitudes, Nancy Pelosi will continue to lord over you and nothing will change.
Force settles all disputes. ⚔️
I guess "conservative Christians" are content to just continue letting the fox run the henhouse. 🤷 From the sound of it, none of them have the stomach to actually remove or replace the fox. Just keep whining about it.
This idea of a second constitution is bogus. The first constitution gave all religions, whether it be islamacists, atheists, humanists, homosexuals, communists, socialists, Satanist’s, trans, you name it, the 1st constitution gave them all equal protection under the law. It’s called the 1st amendment and the freedom of speech, press, and assembly under the bill of rights gives them the protection to promote and flourish under the protection of the 1 st constitution.
You might argue this wasn’t the intent of the founders because we all have heard what devout orthodox Christians they were. The truth is, they weren’t. Under the influence of the sweeping enlightenment wave, most of the founders were in rebellion to the Puritan fathers who gave us Christian state government constitutions. Not only did they secularize the the Puritans influence, they removed any reference to the appeal of the Bible as the standard of law, but they removed any mention of the sovereign triune God of the Bible as the ultimate authority. Instead they gave all authority to the demos, “we the people”, as the sovereign authority.
Muslims, atheists, humanists, homosexuals, communists, socialists, Satanists, and trannies cannot “flourish” under any constitution. These are all ideologies of death.
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
None of these ideologies are “religious” in the Puritan or Jamesian/Biblical sense of the word Adams was referring to, and certainly none of them are moral. They cannot “flourish”, except in the sense that a malignant cancer might be said to flourish.
The 1st amendment only grants protection to Christian and catholic denominations. Not Jews, Muslims, Mormons, NAR, atheists or pagans
I have a question for you: What kind of nation is the United States?
Your assertions are utterly risible.
The word "religion" as we use it today is different from its historical usage. Nobody ever spoke of the "Muslim religion" or the "Hindu religion" or the "Buddhist religion" until James George Frazer published his book _The Golden Bough_ in 1890.
In the 1892 case _Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,_ the Supreme Court declared America to be a Christian nation--and that wasn't the only time such a declaration had been made in the history of this country. Kentucky's first constitution required anyone holding public office to affirm belief in the Holy Trinity.
When America troops liberated the Nazi death camps at the end of WW2, they didn't free the homosexuals there. Homosexuals were still arrested for their homosexuality in this country as late as the 1970's. That's a fact. You don't get to make up your own facts. You need to find out what the truth is and stop projecting your prejudices onto the past and what you think it was like.
The Bible can still be quoted to prove a point in court in America--although not all judges follow this law. The reason is that our first Constitution is not being followed.
@@bigscarysteve "risable" = absurd or laughable for us common folk... :-)
Now apply this logic towards the Scriptures.🤔 Sorry, God’s word stands forever. If we have God given rights, tyrants do not have the authority to take away your rights. You give them the authority over your KING!
I don't think that the constitution was adopted illegally. I believe the sovereign states and their chosen Representatives by legislature had an opportunity to adopt or to reject. They sent the representatives to Philadelphia with authority to do exactly what they did was to come up with a constitution and send it back to the States for ratification if they chose to. Many of the states chose to have signing statements which forced our bill of rights. That is essentially what the civil war was about. The ability for a state to charge the new federal government with an abrogation of it's responsibilities and to pull out from the union. The signing statements were what led to our Bill of Rights and why the Bill of Rights can never be repealed or overridden without destroying the very foundation of the United States of america.
"Democracy means agreeing with the left."? Well, i did a google search for "what is a democracy?" This is what i got: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." The definition of democracy (like all political labels) has changed and evolved. The last time democracy drastically changed definitions was after WWI, which (among many other changes) caused getting women the right to vote. Doug's assertion " Democracy means agreeing with the left." is not only inaccurate, it is vindictive.
Uh huh. Meanwhile, here in reality, disagreeing with the left gets you labeled as a threat to "Our Democracy ™" that Hilary Clinton wants to forcibly reeducate. Wake up.
As the contemporary left uses the word "Democracy" it is code for secular humanist social contract theory where "the voice of the people is the voice of God" and manifests itself as an Aristotelian Statism where the State is the highest organizing principle of all reality.
The democracy worldview is rooted in atheistic autonomous human idolatry which is antithetical and utterly irreconcilable to God's rule and reign over all creation as the supreme lawgiver and judge of all the earth.
Watch Democracy Now! and Thom Hartmann and ask why the hard core Progressives harp on democracy ad nauseam.
How can you look at the demeanor/hostility/brashness and just pure narcissism of Doug Wilson and even begin to see the meekness of the Lord Jesus who silently carried his cross.
What are you talking about? I don't get that impression at all. That just sounds like outright hostility on your part.
@@christalone71 his smugness is far from the character of Jesus.
@@Jtsteww Again, I don't see that at all. He is someone who loves the Lord and loves the truth. Maybe what you're seeing is just his the humor in his personality. Definitely not smugness.
@@JtstewwJesus was plenty smug and loud so different times. You really ought to read the Gospels
@@cosmictreason2242 no, he wasn’t. He turned tables one time in a very specific instance.