[URL=http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/a-red-hat-for-the-north-1199040.html]]]paisley's congratulations[/URL]

and

here's a letter from the reformed presbyterian church (covenanter) in ireland to dr paisley.

[URL=http://www.rpc.org/]]]letter[/URL]

(scroll on down to read the text)

i pay my taxes and obey the laws so far as they do not conflict with the laws of God.

resisting paisley and the dups' compromise is not resisting God! neither will it result in my damnation.
talk about misappropriating scripture!

i stand behind my own denomination on this one.

A lot of posters have commented on the conduct of Dr Paisley and his party the DUP since the administration was formed.

In relation to the passage of the Sexual Orientation regulations, I have heard time and time again that Dr Paisley and his party voted against them in Westminster.

Well, that claim is also inaccurate.

see [URL=http://www.newsletter.co.uk/letters-to-the-editor/Where-were-MPs-for-crucial.3236447.jp]]]here[/URL]

and

[URL=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070319/debtext/70319-0014.htm#07031932000570]]]here[/URL]

so, is dr paisley a christian first or a democrat first?

when there is a conflict between the popular will and the law of God what is his responsibility before God?

when can we expect a statement from the Rev. Dr. Paisley (in his capacity as moderator of one of the largest christian churches in N.I.)on the SORs? I believe he previously declined to do so as the matter was before the courts (his office defending them there.)

this business of "poitics being politics and church being church" would not have stopped the "old" Ian Paisley. as i recall he didn't let the fact he was in the european parliament stop him from denouncing the pope as the antichrist. what changed when he met sean brady the rc primate of all ireland? on that occasion he wouldn't mix religion and politics.

i have long observed the high opinion of the rev. dr among the Lord's people as these boards have long witnessed.

i have also long held unease about the said gentleman. despite now being a covenanter, my family were very involved in the dup in the 1970s and 1980s.

i never felt it seemly for an ambassador of Christ to lead men to the top of the mountain to wave their gun licenses, or to set up a paramilitary "third force".

i am deeply troubled about where both the fpc and the province find themselves. it may be that you are simply not old enough to appreciate that Rev Dr P. agitated and brought the collapse of many attempts at peace, and now what was previously unacceptable becomes acceptable(the only difference now being he is in charge).

as to the fpc, she exercises discipline in some dubious circumstances, yet refuses to deal with this matter in a presbyterian way.

if what paisley and others was doing was biblical he had nothing to fear. but the fpc couldn't even bear to examine his conduct in light of scripture.

now the JR of the SORs is over, i wont be holding my breath for paisley to either condemn or try to repeal them.

to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally, and to act in accordance with the general obligations on government to PROMOTE EQUALITY and prevent discrimination;

as to arminian thinking, its a bit rich you calling me that, when you are the one who is in effect saying it is beyond the providence of God for one standing on a clear and transparent christian ticket to be elected.

maybe you want to introduce your *reality* to the church to. maybe a little bit of dance, drama, philosophy, street theatre, cinema, whatever .. as that what is wanted *TODAY*..

either paisley did something wrong - in which case he should have been disciplined (WCF XXX)

or else he did nothing wrong - and he should still be allowed to stand again for further election as moderator (ignoring the section in the wcf about not being civil magistrate and minister )

i can see that discipline might have been painful, but the course taken was choosing unity over truth.

the conduct of the men involved in public office has not fallen under the spotlight of scripture. if it had, then the church could have either declared the conduct in office as above board, or else sinful.

are there still christians in ulster?

"But question; - Should Christians try to get into public office and try, by grace, to make a witness statement, at that level?

If you consider they should, then the ticket I described above would null and void your attempt *today* before it even begun."

so be it.

what you are suggesting is to devise your manifesto according to what is popular and expedient, so as to get elected in the first place. better not to get elected than to compromise on one's principles. it is God's view that matters, not man's. the fact that paisley professes Christ has made (so far) zero impact in terms of the immoral laws that affect us. what is the point of voting a christian into power if they won't deliver on their christian convictions?

it is me again! blessings to you and yours.

alan, as to civil partnerships,
http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2005/december_21_2005.htm

yes it is lawful to vote, but only for a party which has bound itself to uphold the crown rights of Christ.

if jim allister does set up a party, it would need to be limited by constitution to uphold God's law. i hope he doesn't go down the dup route again, a domocratic party with christians in it.

when this happens the majority view, even if against scripture prevails.

compare the implementation of the civil partnership legislation by the registrars and coucils in the scottish isles, compared to the dup.