Now, before I reply anymore or ask you further questions, let me ask you something. Does this view you're expressing only pertain to American Christians with their government or do you feel this way about YOUR own government in YOUR country? Just trying to see if you're, well, "consistent."
1. That's fairly condescending. 2. The explanation previously given uses the government of Nero (as Paul) did, as the exemplar. You really think any current government on the planet is worse than Nero? As K said, when one lives as a citizen of "the kingdom of God," earthly governments are quite inconsequential.
What is "condescending" in my post? That I want to make sure K is not being hypocritical? ??? If that's what you're referring to that's not "condescending." It's making sure somebody, whom I don't know personally, is being consistent in their view of how citizens should interact with their government.
That, having interacted with him as long as you have, that you would even think that is quite insulting. On a completely different level, whether he were hypocritical or not has nothing to do with the validity of his argument and that of Scripture which supports it.
It doesn't matter to me how long I've interacted with somebody. Or how well I "think" I know somebody. You'd be amazed at how people sometimes "surprise" me. I think I'll just skip praying for our leaders. I won't call down anything evil on them, or even that they get removed from office, but I can't find it in me to wish blessings for them, either, while they continually screw our country over. I'm just taking the neutral route. It's the best I can manage. Also, since many leaders ignore it anyway, maybe we SHOULD just get rid of the Constitution...
If you wish to not do that which God declares to be good and pleasing in His sight, that's between you and Him.
My view pertains to any person living under any government, past, present and future. If it didn't I wouldn't have used Paul, Timothy, Nero, and the 1st century Roman Empire as my go-to example. You're American so we're talking about American politics. If you were Canadian and describing the kind of prayer that you described, or Swiss, or Mexican, or Latvian, or whatever else, then I would have said the same thing. Countries and governments come and go, Jesus doesn't.
Before I reply to this, let me ask you a question. You confuse me. On the one hand, you being an attorney, you've always come across as pro-Constitution (a quality of yours I actually respect), but then you get on my case for me being upset at American leaders who fail to abide by the Constitution. Can you explain the discrepancy to me? I would've figured you to be a person that shares my view that leaders that don't want to abide by the Constitution need to be removed from power rather quickly, not several years later when their terms are up and the damage is done. You, as a lawyer, follow the Constitution. Don't you think others should have to as well? ???
Of course I believe in the constitution, as that is the document that we, the people, have agreed to for our form of governance. The constitution has 3 ways in which we, the people, control our leaders. One is not political. Two are political. The non-political remedy is the courts, which have regularly checked both Republican and Democratic administrations over the centuries. The most powerful, however, is political and is regular and frequent elections. The second is impeachment, but impeachment is only for the narrowest of reasons, and should not be used frequently or without grave consideration first, as it is incredibly disruptive to our governing process. Leaders that don't want to follow the constitution should never be elected in the first place. The Dumb Masses get the government they elect. Our system is not designed to do anything "quickly". Gridlock is built into the system. We don't want to be Italy or Greece. We've had 12 Presidents (I think) since World War II. Italy has had more than 60 Prime Ministers in that same time period. We don't want to be Italy.
I agree that it would be a good idea that leaders that don't want to follow the Constitution should not be elected in the first place. However, nobody has a crystal ball that can see the future and one doesn't always know that a particular somebody in power regards the Constitution as something to wipe their butt with until AFTER they've gotten in power. So, if somebody flagrantly disregards the Constitution and abuses it there's nothing that can be done...other than just not elect them the next time around? They can wipe their butt with it for several years and we just have to live with the consequences of that, no matter how severe they may be? If so, why did the Founding Fathers not devise a better way to deal with that problem? They had to have known that could be a possibility. ???
Is there something about the word "impeachment" that you don't understand? It is a harsh penalty for the worst of offenses, but not intended to be used every time a politician does something that 1/2 the populace doesn't like. The ballot box is the first check. The courts are the second check. Impeachment is the final remedy. This is not a difficult concept.
I guess the issue I'm having is what is a "minor" transgression of the Constitution and what is a "major" transgression of the Constitution? I'd prefer somebody in power does neither, by the way. I'd prefer they, well, abide by the Constitution. All the time. And I'm not talking about I think the President should be impeached merely because I don't like what he or she does. The issue is if their actions are unconstitutional. Or not. I'm sure there are plenty of things a President may do that I may not personally like BUT aren't unconstitutional. If their actions are not unconstitutional, I don't have to like their actions. However, I also wouldn't be clamoring for the President to be impeached, either.
The constitution, in its provisions for impeachment, uses the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." The courts have interpreted that to be a pretty high standard. Perjury wasn't enough to get Clinton convicted.
Which is annoying. I don't particularly think it fair that he can lie with impunity but if I lied in court, about ANYTHING, I could be charged with perjury. And serve jail time for it. I don't know about you but I'm on the verge of saying screw off to the whole political system in the United States and simply stop voting. Politicians all seem like liars that can do whatever they want and get away with it. Very few, if any, morals. No integrity. Little to no accountability while in office. I don't know. I guess my standards are too high or something...
The whole point of limited government is for the governed... The people... To be self-governed as much as possible.
I agree with that. I'm all for as little government as possible, unlike liberals who want (need?) government in all aspects of their lives. It's just that I would hope that, among the people we do need to have in government, they would be moral, have integrity, and fulfill their roles like they swore to do. According to the Constitution of this country. Unfortunately, though, people like that appear to be a dying breed. I also love how, as Christians, we're obligated to obey and respect those in authority over us, even when they don't actually do anything of merit that deserves respect... :