IQ of a Potato

Bret responds,

1.) The Colonial Americans did not revolt because they rejected the legitimacy of a Monarch. The Colonial Americans revolted because they The American Revolutionaries revolted against the British crown because they rejected the illegitimate rule of a legitimate monarch. King George III had violated the political charters and covenants of the colonies and having violated those political charters and covenants the Colonialists understood they had to obligation to obey a otherwise legitimate Monarchy who had declared his illegitimacy by his actions in violating the political covenants that had been entered into by King and people.

2.) Now Christian pro establishment of religion people are “like the Marxists?” What a nekulturny Clark shows himself to be. Personally, I don’t want to go back to a Christian strongman Prince such as Stephen Wolfe advocates. I would prefer a return to muscular Christian Constitutional Republicanism. However, having said that and understanding that Enlightenment political theory is decidedly NOT Christian I can understand people thinking that a Christian strongman Prince man might be the way to go.

In closing let’s note something Cornelius Van Til (CVT) said. CVT wrote that people could be incredibly bright but still incredibly wrong. The analogy that CVT used is that of a miter saw. People’s minds are like miter saws that can be incredibly sharp but suffer from cutting at the wrong angle every time. I suppose it is possible that Clark is not an Idiot. I suppose he is just a CVT miter saw that cuts at the wrong angle every time. Either way… Idiot of miter saw don’t send your sons to be taught by R. Scott Clark.

R2K Dissembler

Bret responds,

1.) Pluralism is a myth since pluralism does not allow for a Christian religion that resolves that there should be no other God’s before the God of the Bible in the public square. So, we do not live under pluralism. We live under a religious establishment that makes the State is God since it is the State which is the supreme entity that determines how far any God can walk in the public square. The State is, because of Scott’s putative religious pluralism, the God who is God over all the Gods. THAT is NOT pluralism. That is a system where there is one God (the FEDS) and all other gods must genuflect before that God. What we have is the old pluralistic Roman system that allowed for all the gods to be present in the public square as long as each of them pinched incense to Caesar. That R2K and Scott can’t see this and insists quite to the contrary that we live in pluralism just screams that this man should not be allowed within 10 miles of a pulpit or lectern.

2.) American religious pluralism works? Scott keeps using that word “work.” I do not think it means what he thinks it means. Well, I suppose if you believe that 50 million dead babies means “working” I guess it does. I suppose if you believe Drag Queen Story Hour, gender surgery for children, and sodomites marry uranians means “working” than I guess it works.

Do you see what I mean by repeatedly saying the man is an “idiot?” Only an idiot would say “American religious pluralism works.”

3.) Theocracy is an inescapable category. See earlier entry on this point. No government is arranged so as to avoid theocracy. Clark is an idiot.

4.) Of course everyone argues for theocracy since it is never an argument of if but only of which. Scott himself is arguing for a theocratic arrangement as embraced by Hume, Rousseau, and Voltaire. He probably doesn’t even know that since he is blind to his own worldview.

5.) Religious pluralism (so called) has got us where we are at and R. Scott Idiot suggests the remedy for where we are at is more religious pluralism (so called)? The man is a towering Idiot.

R2K Novice Historian

Bret Responds,

I won’t take the time to unravel this but if the reader will reference the book by William T. Cavanaugh titled “The Myth of Religious Violence,” one will learn from Cavanaugh that the claim that “religion is … essentially prone to violence is one of the foundational legitimating myths of the liberal nation-state (p. 4).” In other words, of course R. Scott Idiot would seek to perpetuate this myth since their myth perpetuates his religious advocacy for the religion that outlaws the supremacy of Jesus Christ as King of Kings. Cavanaugh goes on to say that “It is this claim (the presence of wars of religion) that I find both unsustainable and dangerous (p. 6).”

Cavanaugh shreds our beloved Dr. R. Scott Idiot by writing of different variants of this view that “They all suffer from the same defect: the inability to find a convincing way to separate religious violence from secular violence (p. 8.)” Such arguments in fact “immunize themselves from empirical evidence (p. 8.)” Cavanaugh argues on the contrary that “so-called secular ideologies and institutions like nationalism and liberalism can be just as absolutist, divisive, and irrational as those called religious (p. 8.)”

Cavanaugh in fact organizes the different variants of Clark’s claim in Chapter 1 under the three categories of claims that “religion” is 1) absolutist, 2) divisive and 3) irrational. Cavanaugh concludes the chapter, indicating “The point is that the distinction between secular and religious violence is unhelpful, misleading, and mystifying, and it should be avoided altogether (p. 56).”

Now either Dr. R. Scott Idiot doesn’t know this and so is stupid or else he does know it and is seeking to deceive people into his position. So, either he is an idiot or he is a deceiver. You decide which is worst.

Crackerjack Ph.D recipient in History

Bret responds,

1.) The great Supreme Court justice Joseph Story declared that Christianity was in fact a necessary component of the English common-law tradition, and offered the “only solid basis of civil society.” Therefore, inasmuch as America was based on the English common-law tradition, in that much it is indisputable that America had Christianity in a defacto sense established as our established religion. Having said that, allow me to say that only a pagan would applaud the notion that a nation should have no established religion. Would someone tell Scott that the first amendment breaks the first commandment?

2.) Why did they reject the idea of a National Church? They rejected it because 9 of the 13 states already had a National Church in their sovereign states and so creating a National Church would have been a poison pill in any attempt to bring into formation these united (sovereign) States of America. They did NOT reject a national Church because they were all a bunch of Baptists or R2K (but I repeat myself) who thought that National Church BAD.

3.) The fact that through the unconstitutional doctrine of incorporation that states that parts of the bill of rights limits the states when the bill of rights was insisted upon by the states in order to limit the FEDS, so that now the FEDS can use the doctrine of incorporation to limit the States in no wise means that such convoluted reasoning should have ever been accepted. Only specialists in contradiction like R. Scott Idiot could ever say that the doctrine of incorporation was a good idea.

4.) Finally, let us note that any idea that this constitutional experiment has worked is laughable in light of any knowledge of US History. Did the Constitution work for our social order with the war of Northern Aggression? Did the constitutional experiment work in keeping marriage defined as marriage (Obergefell vs. Hodges)? Did the constitutional experiment work in stopping all the constitutionally illegal wars of the 20th century? Did the constitutional experiment work to save 50 million babies? The whole damn constitutional experiment has NOT worked unless you belong to the left. R. Scott Clark is a man of the left. He is an Enlightenment Man.

And here is R. Scott Clark applauding those fallen men and their fallen work.

Postscript — Despite the failures noted above I believe the fault lies not with the Constitution, which I do believe by in large is a Christian document. The failure with the constitutional experiment is because fallen men have wrenched it to unconstitutional ends.

R2K Idiot Savant

Bret responds,

1.) Americans were never revolutionaries. Americans were counter-Revolutionaries. See C. Gregg Singer’s “A Theological Interpretation of American History.” (Psst … Scott … Dude; that means Americans were revolting against the Revolutionary actions of the British Parliament.)

2.) The Declaration was in error when it said that “the authority of the government is derived from the consent of the governed.” This is one of the weaknesses of the Declaration. This is humanist reasoning. Are you a humanist Scott? Don’t answer that… we already know the answer. In all case the authority of government is derived from the reality of God and His Law-Word.