What the Point is NOT and what the Point IS re: FLDS

Published Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:18 PM

Point is NOT: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Point IS:

"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."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

I know, I am nowhere near as eloquent as Joe.

B8

by Bahnsen8
Filed under:

Comments

# WesleySonofCornelius said on Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:20 PM

What if the witness is trapped within the group and fears for his or her life?

# WesleySonofCornelius said on Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:25 PM

Another question:  did (does) the FLDS violate Texas law?

# Bahnsen8 said on Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:11 PM

Wesley,

Are you saying that you believe that probable cause, supported by the oath or affirmation of an identified individual, is unnecessary as long as 1) wrongdoing by the accused is ultimately discovered or 2) the accused in question has ever violated the law in the past?

Respectfully,

B8

# WesleySonofCornelius said on Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:50 PM

No!  I am just asking straight down to earth questions.  Does the FLDS break the law?  If so, how should the state of Texas prosecute the FLDS or individuals within the group?

I think we will find (or are now finding) that this is a very difficult issue.

# Bahnsen8 said on Friday, May 16, 2008 8:36 AM

*deep breath, sigh, smile*

Wesley,

Will you not join me, even for a brief moment, in pondering just one simple element of all this? Just one moment? OK, maybe you do not see this element as the key element, like I do. But, will you not just ponder the simple question I asked you above? Will you not just answer the simple question I asked Joe at his most recent post on this topic?

Because, according to the founding documents of our nation, HOW and WHY someone's persons, houses, papers and effects are invaded and inspected is of FOUNDATIONAL (Semper Plene Radix) importance to this topic.

B8

# WesleySonofCornelius said on Friday, May 16, 2008 9:53 AM

Honestly, I am not trying to frustrate you.  This situation has perplexed me since I first watched the Breaking News.  With that said, like many Americans it was only SINCE that News break that I was perplexed.  Why?  Because it was the first time I had even known anything about the FLDS.

This is not the case for the various states that this cult resides (Texas, Utah, Arizonia, etc.).  Many court cases against the FLDS and its members can be found.  It also appears that numerous prank calls exist as well.  Therefore, I believe in this case, those who have not dealt with the FLDS have the better view of the violation of Constitutional rights.  Or do we?

My statement "time will tell" got shot down really quickly.  However, should not the case against the state of Texas also receive the right of a hearing in court?

The state of Texas did not go in because of polygamy.  Why?  I think they knew they could not prosecute this crime because the FLDS knew how to side step the law.  Therefore, they went in under the idea of child abuse.  Did they violate the law themselves in doing so?  Time will tell (after charges are filled and a case is heard).  Right now it appears that they did.  However, several cases exist where police entered a house thinking a crime was taking place.

I am no lawyer.  However, I do know that no one should be above the law.  The law gives rights and restrictions to the State, the FLDS as an organization, the individual adults in the FLDS, as well as, the children in the FLDS.  In the last few years, child abuse has received a lot of attention.  Now I ask you: do you think the FLDS parents (and leaders) have broken the law and violated the rights of their children?  If so, in this cultic web, how best should a state deal with such a large infrastructure of criminals?

# Bahnsen8 said on Friday, May 16, 2008 11:07 AM

Thanks. I am pretty sure that you just answered "No" to my question above?! Did I read that correctly? You do unequivocally support the probable cause via sworn oath and facing your accuser concepts of the 4th and 6th amendment, right?

Now, to answer your question. I do not know, nor can I know, whether this apostate and wicked organization has broken Texas Law. If the FLDS is suspected of such heinous crimes, then every legal effort available to the civil authorities should be taken to investigate this allegation. If courtroom evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, every convicted child sex abuser should be speedily and publicly executed.

B8

# Joe Napalm said on Friday, May 16, 2008 12:07 PM

Did you know that the high priest, the high priest's father-in-law and the Sanhedrin broke Jewish law when they convicted Jesus? Did you know that Pilate broke Roman law by having Jesus beaten and executed? Yet, the point on which all of history pivots is the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus.

Do you think that it's possible that Christians were praying diligently for the people on the FLDS compound and the answer to their prayers was the unjust search and seizure by the "pagan" government of Texas?

# Bahnsen8 said on Friday, May 16, 2008 10:56 PM

Read about the difference between the secret will of God and the revealed will of God. This will answer your questions. An especially pertinent distinction, and when blurred leads to various forms of antinomianism.

# WesleySonofCornelius said on Saturday, May 17, 2008 12:45 PM

If I type "secret will verse revealed will of God" in google and Rushdoony or Bahnsen come up, then, man, you need a bigger library ...

After googling, their name did not show up.  Nice!  However, this topic must be big in the Calvinistic Presbyterian Churches ... *sigh*  Deut 29:29 appears to be the definitive verse.  Is this will topic like the Dominionism topic?  One verse lays the foundation of three or four volumes of theological "hog-wash"?

Speaking of antinomianism ... this word is almost completely void of meaning.  Why?  Every majority Christian sect plays this card against the new growing threat.  Catholics call Protestants antinomianists (especially Calvinists), Calvinists call Anabaptist antimonianists, etc, etc, etc ...  In return, the new growing Christian sect calls the old, established majority legalistic.

# WesleySonofCornelius said on Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:28 PM

Someone once wrote:

"The United States government moved ever so slightly away from this intentional, stated, overt Christian covenant with God with the ratification of the enlightenment-polluted US Constitution. Don't get me wrong. I am grateful for the Constitution, but the solution to our problems today is not as simple as going back to the Constitution. We must return to covenant with God."

Isn't removing wickedness from the land a "revealed" will of God established with his "covenant" people?

# Bahnsen8 said on Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:29 PM

Wesley,

I've missed chatting with you. You make me think, and always lead me to re-read the Bible. Thanks.

Yes, Deuteronomy 29:29 is a great summary verse for the Biblical concept that defines secret versus revealed knowledge. Take a look at the original Harvard seal and how it has changed over time for an example of how important this understanding is, and how one's view of truth and law are connected to it.

That guy you quote in your 5/17 2:28pm post sounds pretty sharp. I'd listen to him. Please clarify your question, I don't understand.