What Preachers and Atheist have in common!

If one holds to the concept of "priesthood of all believers" (as shown in 1 Peter 2:9 and 1 Corinthian 4:1 and others),then all believers have a duty to be full time conduits of the Holy Spirit whether we hold a professional position as clergy or serve the Lord in our homes or in our daily conduct in the world.

(Even the devil "believes and trembles" so he should relinquish all ties to professional politics and concentrate on loving and serving God instead. ;> )

Take away the Christians,Buddhists,Jews,Muslims,Hindus,shamans,Brights and others and there aren't too many folks left.

Remove anyone who participates in a duel in a re-enactment and there go a few more.

Then,one has to ask what constitutes a duel?

Is not a debate a duel of the intellect?

Ask a lawyer or pundit and one might well hear that battles of wit can be just as deadly to their casualties as those involving blades or bullets.

If believers and non-believers are banned along with people who challenge others with their minds,that leaves the field open to agnostics who never ask (or answer) hard questions.

That's a bit too limiting for my tastes.

It's been said that important tasks need to be given to busy people.

If that can be extended to say that leaders should be drawn from people who already know how to think,how to commit and how to work for what they believe,then excluding those who take their ideologies seriously is counter-productive.

If duels are "affaires of honor",then those who won't take risks to defend the concept of honor or their good name have no place defending and promoting the public's welfare.

While I think the formers of the Constitution meant well (and probably wanted to be picky about who they awarded temporal power),these exclusions (if applied) might pare away any persons capable of the thought and dedication needed to hold office.

Today,one need not hold property to have the franchise.

People of all races and genders can be qualified to shape the laws of the land.

Perhaps,it is time to concentrate less on what classes of individuals are unsuitable for leadership and study more on creating,identifying and utilizing those whose knowledge,desire,skill and character make them fit to control and manipulate the vital aspects of our lives.

As with the religious realm's priesthood of all believers,perhaps,secular politics needs to embrace the idea that the governed (the "laity",if you will) need to have the competency and the involvement they demand of those who rule.

We have asked our officials to act "for the people" while making them less and less "of the people" and acting "by the people".

If we preserve our participation in our own government,take our leaders from our own ranks and hold our duties as citizens as sacred as we do the duties of those in high office,then there is less of a vertical hiearchy separating the politicians and their constituents and more of a lateral kinship between different,interdependant branches with a common goal.

As Spener,Luther and their ilk reminded us about the spiritual area during the sixteenth century,the politicos of the eighteenth and nineteenth century affirmed that we are equals who give certain of our members specific duties based on their ability.

They are not separate from us nor are they of a different nature.

They empty themselves of private concerns so that they can be filled with the responsibility of their office as surely as the clergy shed personal power to channel the will of the Lord into their tasks.

I suspect this is what the creators of our constitution were after.

They weren't so much cutting off certain classes from leadership as they were assuring that those put into positions of authority had no distractions or personal agenda other than being public SERVANTS.

Our leaders are not supreme beings nor must we acquiesce to an insistence that they have a special call.

We pick them based on their talent then absorb them back into our midst when their task is done.

That is how the Church became a permanent entity rather than a time,place or specific assembly and it is how the State becomes a distinct creation no greater and no less than the individuals that make it up.

The Church's Reformation and the eighteenth century's political revolutions denied the existence of the traditional estates of nobility,clergy and the common man.

Instead,we were to be one people from whom our leaders were derived.

When we accept and respect that evolution,we don't have to question whether our activists are a fifth column undermining the nation or Robert Heinlein's sixth column that must take back its homeland from usurpers.

We are of common material and common cause with our leaders whether we support the best in doing what is appropriate or we serve the worst through our selfishness or apathy.

The three estates (nobility,clergy and commoners) were supposed to be the "natural order" here on earth.

(In truth,the lower classes were considered to be little more than snacks on the food chain.

The "commoners" were the merchant class or House of Commons type people more than the peasants,slaves,etc.)

Later on,the press was identified as "the fourth estate" that had more power than the first three.

The two big upheavals we connect to our current Western civilization held that the "Powers-That-Be" had no innate superiority and no divine mandate to rule.

Instead,there was one class that had the responsibility (rather than the privilege or right) to keep the world operating at optimum levels.

That one class would produce leaders rather than be chattel.

The leaders would be public servants and they would be hand-picked for their roles due to their merits.

This was a reversal from "Might makes right" to "Right makes might."

It was never meant to include the idea of the "regular folk" being blind sheep nor did it suggest that the public servant be a puppet for special interests.

The leaders and the led were to be one flesh and one spirit interacting in synergy for the good of the whole.

That was supposed to be a founding principle of this country even though it built upon principles used by other cultures at other times.

One of the reasons for the troubles people face nowadays is that we separate ourselves from one another and have our own priorities.

We've forgotten that a group of twigs can be easily broken one by one but those same twigs bound together can support a lot of weight and are far more difficult to damage.

We're not meant to be divided into an "us" and "them" with struggles among ourselves.

We're to be one team with every partner having his own plays to make but with a common objective requiring that every victory and every loss belongs to the whole group.

Supposedly,we've outgrown systems that spelled out who was the rightful prey of another.

We are meant to include rather than exclude.

The world has tried to give us a lifestyle where we are confined to tiny boxes for brainwashed Betas,Gammas and the like who each have been programmed to accept their own superiority and success at the others' expense.

Think of how different it would be if everyone could exist as Alpha and omega: as persons of authority,ownership,leadership and responsibility at the same time as they subordinate their wills to the needs and welfare of the ones they serve.

It's been thought that the first step toward that ideal is to see ourselves as one body.

We don't have to sing in unison but harmony will do if we manage to co-ordinate enough to concentrate on the same song.

Let the world have its system where some are more equal than others.

We can try a set-up where we only have to be equal to what needs to be done.

Kelly,

This came up during the primaries, first regarding a persons incorrect interpretation of a 501(c)3 provision and then closer to election day as an outright question of "concern" regarding my eligibility. The section regarding those in "full-time" ministry was one that I had inquired about shortly after deciding to run. There are no easy answers, but after research and questioning it was determined that this was a non-issue. The whole section is an odd one, but also a moot one. There are currently already those in the legislature that are also credentialed ministers. To be honest, most of their names escape me at this time.

I didn't have a long time to comment on this, but just wanted to let you know we had already seen this.

Couple of other quick thoughts:

Quantumcat: "The world has tried to give us a lifestyle where we are confined to tiny boxes for brainwashed Betas,Gammas and the like who each have been programmed to accept their own superiority and success at the others' expense."

Wow, I have no idea what that means.

And on the duel... You know if we take away the right to duel only outlaws will duel.

(And THAT, is sarcasm.)

Hey, thanks for those of you who did get behind what I was doing. It means a great deal! Please go vote!

Bobby Scott

that is why that a true Christian would not be a Mason, because there is only 1 God, not just some higher power!

I think that most societies that are monotheistic believe and worship the same God. The Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship the same God. I know that's going to cause some issues with some of you but that's the truth. HOW we worship that God is what makes us different. That's why the three major religions have been fighting over the same piece of dirt since there has been any distinction between the three.

As for Christians not being Masons, I am pretty sure there are many Masons that would disagree with you. Their beliefs (from what I've read) seem to be morally in line with all major religions, since the major religions pretty much have the same moral code.