Category: Uncategorized

I’ve posted this before on Iron Ink but I was having some problems accessing it so I post it again here for my own sake.

Romans 13:1b – For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Should we follow the idea that the presumption in the text, found in vs. 3-4 that the governing authorities that are to be submitted to are governing authorities that are not ruling in such a way as to force the Christian to violate the Christians higher allegiance to Christ then we must conclude that it is those kind of governing authorities alone to which we owe our obedience.

We are going to find that Romans 13 does not allow Christians to check their moral compass at the door of the local magistrate. Romans 13 will not allow us to say “We were just following orders,” or “we were just obeying the law.”

Of course, this is not to say that God does not appoint wicked governing authorities. Such an appointment by God of such wicked governing authorities may very well be God’s appointed punishment for a people’s sin. However, such God appointed authorities may themselves find themselves removed for other God appointed authorities by God’s people as they follow lesser magistrates that God raises up in blessing to His people.

Romans 13:2 – Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves.

Taking into consideration the qualifiers from vs. 3-4, the point here is that those who resist a reasonable and just governing authority, which is not seeking to force God’s people into treason against Christ, are people that are resisting God. The text in no way countenances obedience to governing authorities appointed by God who are seeking to legislate sin or treason against Christ into the Christian’s life. Should a God appointed governing authority seek an obedience that would violate the Christians relationship to his Liege Lord Christ then at that point resistance to tyrants becomes submission to God.

The mentioning of resistance provides the opportunity for a brief rabbit trail.

First, we would say that resistance comes in different shapes and sizes. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the book of Daniel reveal what is commonly called non-violent resistance. This kind of resistance seems to be the only option open to Christians when God has not yet seen fit to raise up a lesser magistrate to command their obedience in godly defense of Christ honoring order. The resistance here is characterized as being a resistance that is willing to pay the consequences of resistance in order to do what is right before God and man. It is needless to say that such resistance does not always end in being delivered from the blazing furnace. Often in these situations we see that the blood of the martyrs is indeed the seed of the Church.

Another interesting aspect of the resistance that we find in the book of Daniel is the ability for the individual resisters to keep working for the governing authority once the particular episode causing the resistance is resolved. In other words, even though there are times of resistance that we see in the book of Daniel, there is no indication that the pagan governing authority in question couldn’t be submitted to once the particular problem was removed. This is suggestive that Christians, when living under pagan governments, can both resist and at the same time support the overall governing authority structure should that governing authority structure relent from what is provoking the necessary Christian resistance. In short, all Christian resistance, whether individual and non-violent or corporate and armed, does not necessarily have overthrow as its goal. All because I cannot bow down to the King’s image (for example) doesn’t mean that the King’s rule should be capsized. It only means that the King has to quit expecting Christians to bow down to his image.

Secondly, large scale non-violent resistance that is almost certain to bring death upon those who are non-violently resisting needs eventually to take the 6th commandment under consideration. If non-violent resistors know, due to the King’s track record for dealing with such resistance, that taking a certain non-violent action will eventuate in their own death, then the non-violent resistors need to ask themselves whether or not the giving over of their lives is some form of self murder. It seems that if we are to honor the 6th commandment as it pertains to ourselves, Christians at some point in the kind of hypothetical situation we are describing must turn their non-violent resistance into the armed resistance of self-defense. We will return to the 6th commandment again later.

Thirdly, the examples that we opened with from the Old Testament Scriptures clearly teach that armed resistance, when led by lesser magistrates, can be a Biblical response to gross egregious disobedience of ungodly magistrates.

Romans 13:3 – For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.

Do what is good.

And of course our response is… “By what standard?”

Well, the Christian only has one standard by which he determines that which is good and that is God’s explicit law. How else can we determine what is good? So, we are to do what is good by God’s standard.

“The nations are bound to recognize the Bible as the supreme law of the land; as the standard of civil legislation. God’s law as recorded in the Bible, reaches all the possible relations of humanity; extends to every duty that can be performed, and fastens its claims on associated bodies of men, as well as upon individual persons. Were this not true, we should have this monstrous anomaly in Jehovah’s government, that while men, as individuals, are bound by the laws recorded in the Bible, in their congregated capacities, they may set these laws at defiance, and even contemn as citizens, what as Christians they are bound to honor and obey. If we admit that kings, as such, are not bound by the laws contained in the Bible, they commit no sin in acting contrary to them, while they act in their official capacity. The moral laws recorded in the Holy Scriptures, are but a fairer copy, and more full and explicit declaration of the eternal and immutable principles of righteousness, which are contained in the law of nature.”

–James R. Wilson — Presbyterian Minister
THE SUBJECTION OF KINGS AND NATIONS TO MESSIAH

So, here it become obvious that the Apostle is not talking about Rulers who are tyrants and usurpers, for tyrants and usurpers most definitely are a terror to good works and are a friend to evil workers.  The call here to be subject to Magistrates here is a call that is circumscribed by the text’s definition of a Magistrate who is defined as someone who is God’s Minister to us for good. If he is a Minister to us for evil then he does not fall in the category of a Magistrate to whom we must be subject to.

The text limits who we are to be subject to by defining the person we are to be subject to. If he is not a terror to those who do evil but is instead a terror to those who do good he does not qualify as one to whom we must be subject to.

For example tyrants and usurpers are a friend to the evil workers who are abortion providers, as we saw again just this last week with the SCOTUS decision on “Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.” These kind of Magistrates we are not to be subject to for they are Ministers to us for evil.

Tyrants and Usurpers show their friendship with evil workers by taking money from those who do what is good to give to these evil workers, which is exactly what happens as the IRS takes from Christ honoring people and redistributes it to those doing evil.

Indeed, we would say that usurpers can be identified by their propensity to not be a terror to evil works but to good.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen offers here that

“When such service (to the Christian’s Lord) is repudiated by the King (or other ruling authority) and is violently and persistently transgressed, so that good citizens are terrorized by the ruler and evil men tolerated or exalted, the Christian must not comply with the tyrant’s policy but rather work for reform in the name of the Lord and divine standards of public justice.”

Romans 13:4 – For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Do not rush by the fact that the Magistrate is called here “God’s minister.”  In the Greek the word is the same word from which we get the word Deacon. It is most often used in the Scriptures to define those who minister the word or for those who fulfill the set office of deacon in the Church. Here the Magistrate is called God’s Minister, which should predispose us to thinking that the Magistrate referenced here is a Magistrate that does God’s revealed bidding. It is why Paul can say the Magistrate in question is to us for good.

If Paul had desired to say that the Magistrate was an agent of the Devil to us for good he could have said, as Paul said concerning his “thorn in the flesh,” that the Magistrate was a Messenger of Satan. But Paul doesn’t say that. Paul writes that the Magistrate is God’s Minister which inclines us to believe that the Magistrate is to be operating in accord with God’s revealed justice.

Now a word on the sword here that the Magistrate, as God’s Minister bears. The sword is a symbol of Justice. The Magistrate therefore, as God’s Minister is to be the agent of God’s justice for a people.

Now, how is the Magistrate to know what what Justice is? How is he to define Justice? The only way that the Magistrate can define Justice and so be a good to the people is to look to God’s Word as his authority for defining justice.

Listen to John Knox as he talks about the Sword of Justice,

“The Sword of Justice, Madam, is God’s, and is given to princes and rulers for one end. If they fail in their duty and spare the wicked, then those who intervene and deal out the requisite punishment will not offend God. Nor are those who restrain kings from striking innocent men committing any sin, as numerous Biblical example demonstrate. In Scotland, judges are empowered by Act of Parliament to seek out and punish those who celebrate Mass, and it is your duty, Madam, to support them. Ye should therefore consider what it is that your subjects expect from you, and what it is that ye ought to do unto them by mutual contract. They are bound to obey you and that not but in God. Ye are bound to keep laws unto them. Ye crave of them service: they crave of you protection and defence against wicked doers. Now, Madam, if ye shall deny your duty unto them…think ye to receive full obedience of them? I fear, Madam, ye shall not.”

Here we quote from Jonathan Mayhew’s Sermon entitled, ‘On The Right Of Revolution.’

“Here the apostle argues from the nature and end of magistracy, that such as did evil (and such only) had reason to be afraid of the higher powers; it being part of their office to punish evil doers, no less than to defend and encourage such as do well. But if magistrates are unrighteous; if they are respecters of persons; if they are partial in their administration of justice; then those who do well have as much reason to be afraid, as those who do evil: there can be no safety for the good, nor any peculiar ground of terror to the unruly and injurious. So that, in this case, the main end of civil government will be frustrated. And what reason is there for submitting to that government, which does by no means answer the design of government?”

And now Knox

“Let a thing here be noted, that the prophet of God sometimes may teach treason against kings, and yet neither he nor such as obey the word, spoken in the Lord’s name by him, offend God.”

Romans 13:7 – Render therefore to all their due; taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

The Holy Spirit summarizes his argumentation by calling on his listeners to give to those what is their due. Given all that we have said thus far it is clear that which is due to magistrates is dependent in some degree upon the proper due they give to the one whom has appointed them to their position and whom they themselves are subject.

This verse should be read in conjunction with Jesus’ command to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and render unto God the things that are Gods.’ (Matthew 22:21)

The giving of what is due to magistrates (Romans 13:7) or the rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesars must be measured by some standard that is beyond and above whatever the magistrate or the Caesar determines. Any Christian people who would allow a wicked Caesar or magistrate to determine on their own what is their due or what should be rendered to them would quickly become an enslaved people. Any glance of history will reveal that there are times when the magistrate has wanted taxes that were not his due. Any glance of history reveals that there have been times when the magistrate desired a fear and/or honor that were not his to command due to his disobedience to God. There are times when it is conceivable that dishonor, as the magistrate counts it, would be done out of honor to God.

Kyle and Johnson summarizing John Knox on this

1.) Romans 13, when read against the rest of Scripture does not negate the possibility of armed resistance to wicked rulers. This has been noted time and time again throughout history by people of the Reformed Faith,

“For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.”

2.) Lesser magistrates in the OT included the office of Priests (Jehoiada) and Prophets (Elijah). Is this suggestive that the office of ‘Pastor’ might therefore be considered a office that constitutes a magistrate who, even though in another jurisdictional realm, God could hypothetically raise up to lead God’s people against Tyranny in the Civil Realm ?

Consider how unlikely it is that a lesser magistrate under a supreme magistrate would ever rise up to bite the hand that has put him in that position. Is there no place to look for lesser magistrates to lead against tyranny besides those who come from the King’s house? Why not look for leadership of others magistrates that come from the house of the other jurisdictional Spheres as we see exemplified by Elijah the Prophet and Jehoida the Priest as they acted as representatives from other jurisdictional Spheres against the civil jurisdictional Sphere? If we hold that the doctrine of interposition is valid for the State in other Spheres (as in the plea to enter into the Family Sphere to the rescue of Terri Schiavo) why would not the doctrine of interposition be valid for the Church Sphere against a rampaging disobedience in the Civil Sphere?

If there are people who can answer this in a way that leans against the expected answer of the rhetorical question I would love to hear it.

3.) Non-violent resistance might be a violation of the 6th commandment depending on what is known regarding the outcome of non-violent resistance.

4.) Readings of Romans 13 that lead to the advocacy of civil disobedience for every picayune or imagined slight against the Christian faith or readings that lead to the conclusion that it is never ever right no matter what for Christians to be involved in civil disobedience are to be eschewed.

The former attitude cannot be justified by the Biblical call that we should pursue peace with all men. The latter attitude can not be justified if we are serious about avoiding the sin of idolatry. Francis Schaeffer put it this way in his Christian Manifesto,

I.) Library

The Fulford File | “Christophobia”—The Prejudice That Barely Has A Name

Yes Virginia [Dare], There Is A “Cultural Marxism”

http://amren.com/opinion/2012/01/msnbc-suspends-buchanan/

II.) Audio

http://www.principledpolicy.com/?p=1125

III.) Video

http://www.dailypaul.com/202554/ron-pauls-rockstar-victory-speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b-5VL00Sxs&feature=related

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/statism/

Because I have friends and family members who do not yet understand the difference between neo-conservatism and classical conservatism I thought I would write a few thoughts on the difference between the two. In my estimation the genius of the neo-conservative movement has been in attaching the “conservative” moniker to their identity. A more accurate nomenclature would label them “neo-liberal,” or “soft-leftist.”

1.) Neo-conservatives believe that America is responsible to expand American values and ideology at the point of a bayonet. This was the governing ideology of progressive Democrats like Woodrow Wilson who desired to make the world safe for Democracy. However, before the Wilsonian motto of making the world safe for Democracy (a motto largely taken up by the Bush II administration) Wilson understood the American instinct for a humble foreign policy by campaigning in 1916 with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” Before American entry into W.W. II the classically conservative approach to involvement in international affairs was one of modesty, as seen in the previous mentioned Wilson approach to campaigning in 1916. Classical conservatism, as opposed to neo-conservatism embraced the dictum of John Quincy Adams who once noted that, “America is a well-wisher of liberty everywhere, but defender only of her own.”

However, today’s conservatism is internationally militantly adventurous. What is sold by those who have co-opted the title of “conservative,” is the exporting of American values but the dirty little secret is that the American values that are being exported in the name of Democracy is just a warmed over socialism combined with some form of Corporate consumerism.

2.) Neo-conservatives have a much higher trust in the State as a engine for social engineering. Neo-conservatives, unlike classical conservatives don’t have an instinctive distrust for the state and would hardly agree with the Jeffersonian notion of the necessity to tie down the state with the chains of the constitution. The problem with neo-conservatives is that while they love the State less then the Stalinist Marxist they love it far more than strict Constitutionalists. For the neo-conservative the problem isn’t with big government except that they are not the ones in charge of big government.

Recently I viewed a video where the neo-conservative lecturer was suggesting that we could be for big government and still support limited government. The neo-conservative was arguing that the Federal Government should be big enough to do what it was designed to do but it should still be limited to what it was designed to do. The problem with this neo-conservative argument is that, constitutionally speaking, the delegated and enumerated powers of the Federal government, if followed, obviate the necessity for the Federal Government from either being “big” or “unlimited.”

Really, the whole idea of “big government conservative,” is such a shocking oxymoron that it is amazing that anybody can advocate it with a straight face.

3.) Neo-conservativism should really be called humble communism or chastened communism or vigorous socialism. Neo-conservatism insists that the cure for runaway Federal entitlement programs is Federal entitlement programs that are more efficient and less burdensome. This stands in contrast to a classical conservative approach that says instead that the answer to a local Brothel is not less disease ridden Madame’s but rather the elimination of the Bordello.

4.) Neo-conservatives being a movement led by many intellectual Jews has a fixation on Israel. That this is so true is seen by the reality that the mere pointing out of this truth results in screams of “antisemitism.” Neo-conservatives, it seems at times, are running an American Foreign policy that comes right out of the Government buildings in Tel Aviv. Classical conservatism in America has always been unashamed to have an “American First” foreign policy and understood that alliances were only as good as they served American interests.

Current neoconservatives see the defense of Israel as necessitating a shift in Islamic states to democracy. This goes a long way towards explaining American support for the recent “Arab Spring.” However, a realpolitik understands that the results of Democracy in Islamic countries will not be secular States but rather the result will be states that are even more theocratically Islamic.

5.) The fact that the two major parties in these united States are vehicles for either Marxist ideology or neo-conservative ideology thus reveals that the disagreement between the two parties is not one of substance but only one of methodology. Both parties are collectivist. Both parties are committed to re-making the world in a socialist image. Both parties are devoted to growing the Leviathan state. The situation that obtains now in this country politically is the same that obtained during the French Revolution. The discussion is not between left vs. right but rather the discussion is between the left side of the left and the right side of the left. Institutionally speaking, there no longer is a “right.”

When Eve decided to eat the fruit she at that moment stepped out of God’s reality having created a false reality. God’s word had been legislative for reality and when Eve refused to accept God’s word and insisted on acting on her own word she at that moment began to construct an anti-Christ reality. In such false realities what is lost is real reality. Eve was our first “Alice” who dropped us all into the Rabbit hole where everything is upside down and unreal.

Part of the meaning of being swept up into Christ’s Kingdom is that we return to real reality. However, this often means that while we can identify the March Hare reality we live in we can do little to set matters aright.

Rudyard Kipling captured something of man’s insistence to create alternate realities to his own harm is his poem, “The Gods of the Copybook Headings.”

Cultures that refuse to bow to Christ become increasingly unreal and strange. I just finished reading Malcolm Muggeridge’s novel, “Winter in Moscow,” and this is a theme that Muggeridge repeatedly returns to in this novel. The Bolsheviks in Russia had created a reality in which it was criminal to observe the falseness of the contrived reality created by the Communists.

In our own culture it has come to much the same end. Both multiculturalism and political correctness is an effort to ordain a false reality that is so sanctioned that to say or do anything to lance the false reality is to be held guilty by those who have an interest in maintaining our Humpty Dumpty culture.

So, at present, Americans are at present unreal, as is American culture.

They eat unreal food and they stuff their heads with unreal ideas like “all men are created equal,” and “diversity is the highest possible good.” They vicariously partake of unreal entertainment and listen to unreal “news.” They idolize unreal people who are made to be pinups and beautiful by unreal alterations to what becomes unreal bodies. Americans have a unreal fear of revolting against this unreality, or of doing anything that would attract the attention of the unreal authorities. They spend unreal money, while listening to unreal music. Americans live in unreal communities and form unreal relationships.

In the “conservative” and liberal unreal Church they alike enter into unreal worship of an unreal god listening to unreal ministers offer up unreal platitudes.

But like Kipling’s “Gods of the Copybook Headings” reality can not be successfully suppressed indefinitely, and as Kipling tells us in his poem, the snap-back of real reality is startling. Adam and Eve discovered that snap-back. Every culture not posited upon Biblical Christianity has, through the centuries, discovered that snap-back.

And the day is coming when the West is going to learn what a return to reality is like.

Michael Farris of HSLDA fame writes,

Ron Paul is an enemy of the legal principles that the homeschooling movement has used successfully to defend our freedom to teach our own children. He recently said that he does not believe that the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th Amendment. He said this is an abortion context (which proves that he is not politically pro-life) but, let’s examine what this means in a homechooling context.

In the 1920s, the State of Oregon banned all private education. This Oregon law was challenged as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibited states from banning private education because this overrode parental rights in an unconstitutional fashion.

If Ron Paul’s philosophy were applied to this case, then Oregon’s law would have prevailed under the 10th Amendment.

The case I won before the Supreme Court of Michigan for homeschooling freedom was based on the 14th Amendment. The federal constitutional principles of religious freedom and parental rights overrode the power of Michigan to require homeschoolers to all be certified teachers.

The homeschool victory that I argued before the Court of Appeal of California when that court had previously ruled that homeschooling was illegal in that state–was based on the 14th Amendment.

I could go on.

Home schooling would be legal in about 3 states in this country today if Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution was actually practiced by the Supreme Court.

So I have a question for all of the members of Homeschoolers for Ron Paul: Do you agree with Ron Paul that the states have the exclusive authority over the legality of homeschooling and the 14th Amendment provides no constitutional right to homeschool?

How can you support a candidate who denies the very constitutional principle that our movement used to win our freedom?

Supporting Ron Paul in the name of homeschooling is like supporting Barack Obama in the name of reducing the national debt.

Before I respond to this, I want to say up front that though I am supporting Congressman Paul, I have my issues with Paul. I think his vote on sodomites in the military was horrendous. I also see him tacking towards a more leftist / Libertarian approach towards amnesty which does not take into account the increasing possibility of cultural and ethnic balkanization as a result of unchecked illegal immigration. Finally, I find Congressman Paul insufficiently pro life in his refusal to advocate for a Constitutional amendment banning the murder of persons not yet born. Leaving the issue of murder to the states to decide that murder can be legalized would be a violation of the Constitutional guarantee of due process. The Federal government, per the 5th amendment of the US Constitution has the role to guarantee life, liberty and property when citizens are deprived of due process. All that said, I am still supporting Congressman Paul for President since I believe that his intent to destroy the banking interest, if successful, would put an end to much of the Centralized Tyranny and the Corporatism that is destroying the original intent of the founders for this Constitutional Republic.

Now let us turn to Dr. Farris’ attack on Ron Paul.

First, we must keep in mind that Michael Farris has consistently shown himself to be ideologically committed to a neo-conservative agenda. Farris has repeatedly supported Republican candidates who tow the neo-conservative line. As such Michael Farris tends towards the “Big Government, US as Empire” line. This is hardly a Christian position.

Second, Farris has, over the years, made known his distaste for Calvinism. Knowing this gives us insight also into Farris’ predisposition towards a Big Government stance as Arminians, through the centuries going back to Arch-Bishop Laud, have been Statists. A consistently Biblical Christian (i.e. — A covenant Calvinist) would never find themselves supporting neo-conservative candidates like Rick Santorum. (Santorum is reputed to be Farris’ candidate of choice.)

Third, as to the text proper of Farris’ attack we must understand first of all that Farris appeals to an amendment (the 14th) that is in point of fact not an amendment to the US Constitution. The 14th amendment was illegally passed and though well over a hundreds years have transpired since its illegal adoption and though countless cases have been decided on the basis of the phantom 14th amendment those illegal and immoral actions do not give the so called 14th amendment any more legitimacy. Legalities enforced at the end of a bayonet do not make the judicial decisions legal.

Fourth, even though the 14th amendment has been used to protect homeschooling that does not mean that other legal methods might have been better chosen to protect homeschooling. I might use a hammer to open a bottle of soda but that does not mean it is the best tool for that end. While the 14th amendment has been used to secure and protect homeschooling, Dr. Farris fails to mention that it has also been used to create the tyrannical leviathan state that all liberty minded people contend against today. The 14th amendment has been instrumental in advancing the federally supported putative rights to both sodomy and abortion. Invoking the blessings of the 14th amendment, as Farris has done, because it has given us homeschooling is like invoking blessings on a criminal that injuriously attacked your family repeatedly because he just so happened to protect your family once.

All of this to say that perhaps we should be joining Ron Paul as enemies of the legal principles that have, to date, been used to support home-schooling. If other legal principles can be found to support home-schooling that will allow us to be done with the god-forsaken 14th amendment then let them be found and let them be used and let us be done with the illegal 14th amendment.

Fifth, is Dr. Farris telling us in his complaint that he believes that the 14th and 10th amendment are in contradiction and that we should prefer the Statist 14th amendment over the enumerated and delegated restrictions implicit in the 10th amendment? Is Dr. Farris a Statist who is not satisfied with the 10th amendment?

Sixth, Dr. Farris’ approach does suggest a centralized mindset. He seemingly desires that these kinds of decisions be made in a central location as opposed to be made locally. The Founders envisioned that this Republic would be a Republic of Republics. If Oregon or Michigan as two of the Republics in the Constitutional Republic of these united States of America desired to force state schools on students then citizens of those state Republics could either vote with their feet leaving those states and moving to more friendly homeschooling states or they could resist the laws of those Republics until the laws were changed in those States. Not everything in the homeschooling world depends on Michael Farris and the SCOTUS.

The candidate that Farris moans about homeschoolers supporting is the candidate who has repeatedly articulated would dismantle the Federal Cabinet position of the Department of Education. Does Congressman Paul sound like a man who is opposed to homeschooling? Paul desires to turn this issue over to the States. Certainly this would mean the battle for homeschooling would move to the states thus moving us closer to a return to the vision of the founders of this country where what was envisioned was a local control that was even more county specific then it was state specific.

Seventh, Farris’ claim that only three states would be homeschool friendly if it were not for him and the 14th amendment is fatuous. There is no way that Farris can know what other legal arguments might have been made to support homeschooling if the 14th amendment wasn’t laying ready at hand to so easily use.

Michael Farris seems to be a man who cannot envision a country where decisions are not made in a top down fashion. Is it the case that for Michael, like so many neo-cons, that the only problem with Behemoth government is in the fact that they are not the ones in charge?

Supporting Michael Farris in the name of the 14th amendment for homeschooling is like supporting the Warren Court in the name of the 14th amendment for Roe vs. Wade.