House of Representatives – PaulThompsonBlog

Obey God Rather than Man

Posted on August 21, 2024Leave a comment

On August 18, 2024, the Eastside Baptist Church introduced a draft resolution for consideration by the congregation to adopt. Within a few moments, an adjustment of a few words and a few grammatical corrections a unanimous to answer a tyrannical government that wants to force daughters by the “abominable practice of including women in conscription. The answer was a resounding, unanimous, yes! Amen!

Congress has not included women in the required draft, but every indication is that they want this. Irregardless of who is elected in the fall, expect another attempt to pass this legislation. Members of Eastside Baptist are ready with our answer.

Following is the finished draft of the resolution.

A proclamation regarding the abominable practice
of including women in conscription,
that is, the compulsory enlistment for state military service.
Colloquially referred to as the Selective Service,
or the draft,
conscription is referenced in the Selective Service Act of 1917 which
authorized the federal government to temporarily expand the military
through compulsive mustering.
This act required all men between the ages of 21 (18 as of 1918) to 45 to register for
military service.
As far back as 1945 and as recently as 2024, US presidents and the US Congress
have attempted to amend this act to include women.
The following proclamations are representative
of God’s people at Eastside Baptist Church
and serve as notice of intention to
practice Godly dissent in the face of tyranny.

We affirm and deny the following propositions:

Article I: Women in the military
WE AFFIRM that the word of God declares it to be contrary to righteousness, justice,
and goodness through the law given down through Moses, applied through general
equity, for women to put on the martial attire of a man and that it is likewise unlawful for
women to be conscripted into the military, combat or otherwise.

WE AFFIRM the duty of warrior is given distinctly to men of fighting age.

WE DENY that it is the duty, nature, or responsibility of women to protect their countries
in the office of warrior.
Genesis 14:14; Numbers 1:2-3; 26; 31:3-4; 32:25-27; Deuteronomy 22:5; Joshua 1:14;
6:3; 8:3; Judges 7:1-8; 20:8-11; 1 Samuel 8:11-13; 13:2; 1 Chronicles 21:5, 23-24; 2
Chronicles 25:5-6; 26:11-14; Nehemiah 4:13-14; Jeremiah 51:30

Article II: Cowardice
WE AFFIRM that it is cowardice for a nation or individual men to cause women to stand
in the office of warrior. And that cowards have their portion in the lake that burns with
fire and sulfur, which is the second death; that eternal punishment, Hell.

WE DENY that it is affirming, courageous, or kind to women to treat them like men and

WE DENY that men ought to behave like women.
Genesis 5:2; 1:27; Numbers 1:2–3; Judges 4:8-9; Revelation 21:8, 1 Samuel 8:11; Isaiah
19:16; Jeremiah 50:37; Nahum 3:13; 1 Peter 3:7;

Article III: Equality
WE AFFIRM that men and women are ontologically (fundamentally) equal (regarding
being as image-bearers).

WE DENY that men and women are economically (functionally) equal (regarding
activity and roles).
Genesis 5:2; 1:27; Galatians 3:27–29; Galatians 4:6; Colossians 3:10-11; 1 Tim 2:8–15

Article IV: Disobedience to Tyranny
WE AFFIRM that resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

WE DENY that God’s people are to blindly follow the godless edicts of a prideful,
selfish, and unbelieving government or a congressional act of the same stripe.
Exodus 14:27-28; Deuteronomy 6:15-57; Psalm 2:2-3; 94:20; 118:9; 119:126; 136:13-18;
Ezekiel 22:29-30; Daniel 6:11; Daniel 3:16; Acts 5:29 ; 14:19; Romans 12:17-21; 1
Corinthians 7:23

Article V: Natural Law
WE AFFIRM that natural law itself cries out that women are vessels designed for the
giving of life not the systematic taking away of life.

WE DENY any value of the zeitgeistic retardation of the LGQBT+ and abortion agendas
and their logical continuation in female conscription. All three ideologies are direct
attacks on women’s distinctions and their glory.
Genesis 1:27; 5:12; Exodus 23:19; 1 Samuel 8:11-13

Article VI: Support Roles and Self-Defence
WE AFFIRM that certain martial support roles are appropriate for women and that there
is liberty of conscience regarding some non combatant jobs.

WE DENY that these roles shall be conscripted or compulsory.
-and-
WE AFFIRM that women are entitled to the certain unalienable rights which they are
endowed by their Trinitarian Creator to protect themselves and those around them.
WE DENY that the act of self defense is militaristic in nature.
Deuteronomy 28:1-14; Judges 4; Psalm 33:12

Article VII: Just War
WE AFFIRM that there are just and legitimate reasons for nations to go to war and that
Christians may participate in said just wars.

WE DENY that all wars are just.
Exodus 22:2 Numbers 21:21-24; Joshua 5:13; I Chronicles 21:16; Proverbs 20:18; 24:6;
Ecclesiastes 3:8; Revelation 19:1-5

CONCLUSION:

WHEREAS we value the glory and beauty of our wives and daughters above the state’s immoral
and selfish ambitions,
-and-
WHEREAS we love our neighbors as ourselves,
-and-
WHEREAS we are “not [to] be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather,
[we Fear] the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28)
THEREFORE, we are resolved to defend our wives and daughters and not to allow them or the
wives and daughters of our neighbors, who may likewise dissent, to be conscripted into the
United States Armed Forces and we are opposed to any such future measures regardless of their
successful or legal passage through Congress or presidential executive edict either in time of war
or peace because such acts or actions would be clean contrary to the Law of God, the conscience
of His people, and the good of our land.
-and-
THEREFORE according to the great tradition of Christendom and our beloved nation we are in
agreement with our fathers before us that when the state commands that which God forbids, or
forbids that which God commands, we are to obey God rather than man.

Our Christian conscience binds us

Speaker of the House does Not Speak for Me

Posted on January 12, 20212 Comments

This is indeed the day that the Lord has made, I will rejoice and be glad in it. But I will not let the events of the first week of the 117th congress of the United States of America cause fear in me.

A session began with a blasphemous prayer by a United Methodist preacher/representative who prayed in the name of Brahma (a false god), then mayhem broke out at the Capitol, while the Speaker of the House introduced new rules for the House chambers that abandon logic, reason, history and most importantly, righteousness.

The foolish conclusion of that prayer that opened the session, praying in the name of Brahma and being stated with “amen” and “awoman” may have been more than buffoonery and more a political whistle of a freight train. I’m not saying I understand the full implications of what this new rule means but this is for sure – the ruin of a nation is at the end of this rail, the bridge is out.

Who in the House of Representatives is speaking against this and what response will be from the church? I know what many pastors and churches will do… many will celebrate this. This pastor will not adhere to the forced agenda of the unholy.

I will leave the actual language of the new house rule here. While I move over to the water fountain to get a drink of cold water, again.

House Resolution: (e) GENDER-INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE.— 16
(1) In clause 1(c)(9) of rule X, strike ‘‘seamen’’ and insert ‘‘seafarers’’.
(2) In clause 4(a)(1)(B) of rule X, strike ‘‘Chairman’’ and insert ‘‘Chair’’.
(3) In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, strike ‘‘father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter’’ and insert ‘‘parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild’’.
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117hresPIH-hres5.pdf

That’s three strikes Madam Speaker of the House. You’re out!

Make no mistake about it –

…my hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness…

“Oh, that You would tear open the heavens and come down…”
(Isaiah 64:1)

I’m Just A Bill?

Posted on January 27, 20152 Comments

Yesterday as Renee and I were walking up the steps of the Idaho Capitol Building I was trying to remember that classic School House Rock song “I’m Just A Bill”. I fear I could not recall many of the lyrics. But the real reason I was on Capitol Hill yesterday was of greater weight than a Saturday morning childhood memory of someone perhaps trying to redeem the time for something of greater value.

My purpose to be on Capitol Hill in Boise, Idaho yesterday was to give testimony. A copy of that testimony is available HERE.

My day old observation of the experience is one of appreciation for the process. It is from three vantage points.

What country is like the United States of America? Wow. If you have never witnessed or participated in such an experience you should plan a family day outing to Capitol Hill. When a bill is in committee there is an opportunity that the committee has a hearing open for public discussion. It is an open invitation for the citizens to express their desire in regards to the committees action. It is an invitation to appeal.
Here’s what I would do if I had privilege to raise young children in my home again. We would learn about a bill we wanted to follow all the way through the process. One of significance. And then I would plan regular field trips to Capitol Hill and make plans to participate at all available processes.
I learned that I did not agree with everyone who spoke to House Bill No. 2 (2015). This was not a surprise, it is to be expected. There are opposing views on a bill of this magnitude. It would be expected that the person I sat next to would not be speaking to the bill in agreement. There would be no mistaking to anyone in the Lincoln auditorium that I was a man. And there would be no mistaking to anyone that I was sitting next to a man dressed as a woman, presenting himself as a woman with physical alterations. No one in the room would have difficulty making this distinction.
We sat next to each other in a civil manner. I said hello, commented on a few things while waiting for the proceedings to begin, and respectfully sat next to each other the entire time.

I respect a process that lets every citizen testify and express emotion for their desires.

I appreciated others who spoke against House Bill No. 2, as I too am opposed. I was pleased that there were others who spoke boldly of their hope that Idaho would honor God and not equate sexual orientation and gender identity as a simple civil rights issue.

I was pleased to hear others speak with precision of the Lord Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible, clergy and laymen alike.

It was not long in the proceedings that the reality that I would not be in agreement with everyone who claims to be a bible believing Christian. I would find that I’m equally opposed to some of the defense of the bible from some on the same side of the bill as I.

But even more troubling was to begin hearing clergy from some denominations defending sexually deviant behavior as ordained by God and supported from Scripture.

This was a moment of great significance for me.

It is not only important that a Christian voice be heard, it is of eternal importance that a Christian, a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ learn to articulate with pin point precision what one believes and able to defend this with kindness, compassion and appeal for the soul of all men and women.
Finally, I have been spiritually, profoundly impacted by my time spent on Capitol Hill.
Indeed there is a great sin in in the land. I sat next to an individual who is equally fit for hell as I. I have tasted the kindness of God upon my own soul. And I have a duty to all humanity to act compassionately and truthfully with all.

House Bill No. 2

Posted on January 21, 2015Leave a comment

Change in Idaho law may soon look like this… (underlined is the proposed change)

(2) To secure for all individuals within the state freedom from discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin or disability in connection with employment, public accommodations, and real property transactions, discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin in connection with education, discrimination because of age in connection with employment, and thereby to protect their interest in personal dignity, to make available to the state their full productive capacities, to secure the state against domestic strife and unrest, to preserve the public safety, health, and general welfare, and to promote the interests, rights and privileges of individuals within the state.

The entire proposed law is HERE, it is worth reading.

The House Committee hearing is on Monday, January 26, at 8:00am in the West Wing auditorium in the capital building in Boise.

There are three places of greatest interest to me in the proposed law.

I’m not in favor of civic law to govern spiritual morality. There is need for a civic form of morality that I favor, such as laws that protect against harm, danger, murder, etc… I favor laws that protect individuals and their private property and provide protection for them within civic law.
I’m not in favor of civic law jurisdiction imposing spiritual sway over church jurisdiction. Only reason for civic law to give governing jurisdiction over church jurisdiction is in areas where the church may violate civic morality.
It’s not clear that this law directly effects churches, however, if passed, this law opens the door to make it a crime in Idaho to speak in public that the sinful act of homosexuality and the wicked desires of men who want to be treated as women, or women who want to be treated as men is a sin against God. According to a recent Cornerstone Family Council e-alert, “the law will apply in almost all matters of employment, business, and public accommodations (including public restrooms and locker rooms). The criminal penalties will apply regardless of whether your own faith encourages you to view these behaviors as immoral. Violation will subject you to penalties of up to 6 months in jail.”

The Cornerstone Family Council e-alert offers suggestions of what you can do:
1. Send two sets of emails today to the email list, below:
  1. First to all of Idaho’s Representatives as a group; and
  2. Then individual emails to each member of the House State Affairs Committee. This bill will be heard in that committee on Monday, January 26th at 8:00 a.m.
2. Send an effective email to your Representatives:
  1. For all of these emails:
    1. In your “Subject” box put “Vote No on House Bill 2”
    2. Compose a short and polite message explaining why the Representative should vote against House Bill 2.
    3. End by thanking them for their service to our state.
3. E-mail and/or post this on all social media profiles you have.
4. Then, attend the Committee hearing in the West Wing auditorium in the capitol building at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, January 26th. To let your voice be heard and your sacred liberties preserved. Indicate your opposition to the House Bill 2 when you sign in at the committee meeting. Last year there were over 400 people opposing our bill extending our religious liberties. Your presence – whether or not you speak – is crucial.

Here are some helpful resources for you in contacting Idaho Representatives and the House State Affairs Committee. courtesy of Idaho Cornerstone Family Council

All Idaho Representatives:

cut and paste all emails into one email or send individual emails:

hscott@house.idaho.gov; sdixon@house.idaho.gov; vbar@house.idaho.gov;eredman@house.idaho.gov; rmendive@house.idaho.gov; dcheatham@house.idaho.gov; lmalek@house.idaho.gov;
ksims@house.idaho.gov; cntroy@house.idaho.gov; smcmillan@house.idaho.gov;
pshepherd@house.idaho.gov; tgestrin@house.idaho.gov; mbeyeler@house.idaho.gov;
rkerby@house.idaho.gov; jboyle@house.idaho.gov; bhixon@house.idaho.gov;gchaney@house.idaho.gov;
gbatt@house.idaho.gov; cperry@house.idaho.gov; randerst@house.idaho.gov;
ryoungblood@house.idaho.gov; bcrane@house.idaho.gov; gcollins@house.idaho.gov; mmoyle@house.idaho.gov;reedd@house.idaho.gov; lluker@house.idaho.gov; pmcdonald@house.idaho.gov; jpalmer@house.idaho.gov;jholtzclaw@house.idaho.gov; sharris@house.idaho.gov; tdayley@house.idaho.gov; jvanderwoude@house.idaho.gov;
jmonks@house.idaho.gov; rwills@house.idaho.gov; pnielsen@house.idaho.gov; lclow@house.idaho.gov;
shartgen@house.idaho.gov;mbell@house.idaho.gov; ckauffman@house.idaho.gov;
smiller@house.idaho.gov; sbedke@house.idaho.gov; fwood@house.idaho.gov;kandrus@house.idaho.gov;
kpacker@house.idaho.gov; jthompson@house.idaho.gov; wendyhorman@house.idaho.gov;
nanderson@house.idaho.gov; jvanorden@house.idaho.gov; mgibbs@house.idaho.gov;
tloertscher@house.idaho.gov;jtrujillo@house.idaho.gov; lbateman@house.idaho.gov;
nater@house.idaho.gov; draybould@house.idaho.gov;vburtenshaw@house.idaho.gov; promrell@house.idaho.gov; pjordan@house.idaho.gov; drudolph@house.idaho.gov;
jrusche@house.idaho.gov; jmccrostie@house.idaho.gov; hkloc@house.idaho.gov; jgannon@house.idaho.gov; schew@house.idaho.gov;irubel@house.idaho.gov; pking@house.idaho.gov; merpelding@house.idaho.gov; mwintrow@house.idaho.gov;dpence@house.idaho.gov; mnye@house.idaho.gov; esmith@house.idaho.gov

Send one email to all on the House State Affairs Committee:

cut and paste all emails into one email or send individual emails:

Here is my letter, you are welcome to modify it as needed.

Dear Representative,

My name is Paul Thompson, I am a citizen of the city of Twin Falls, in the county of Twin Falls, of Idaho.

I count it a pleasure to contact you today to express my opinion in relationship to House Bill No. 2 (2015) I have read the entire proposed change that you will hear on Monday, January 26, 2015.

Please vote ‘no’ on this bill for the following reasons:

1) I think it is a risky move to pass legislation that governs the expression of opinion of any citizen.
2) I find that our current law already protects all citizens from being discriminated against.
3) The jurisdiction of the state moves dangerously close to imposing a type of “state church” opinion with a law such as this.

I respect that you give serious and sober consideration to all changes to Idaho code and law. Thank you for taking the time to hear my plea to not pass House Bill No. 2 (2015).

respectfully,

Paul Thompson
Twin Falls, Idaho

Posts Tagged with House of Representatives

Obey God Rather than Man

Speaker of the House does Not Speak for Me

I’m Just A Bill?

House Bill No. 2

Follow PaulThompsonBlog