|
Is the "United States" a Christian "nation?" Micah 7:
Written in the real world by Marc Stevens
A popular myth is the "United States" is a "Christian nation" or a "nation" founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. This is actually two separate myths: 1) there is a "nation" and 2) it's founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. The first myth, that there is a "nation," is proven to be a myth by Judeo-Christian ethics themselves. As I will show, a "nation," as we know it, cannot be founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. This is based a simple truth: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. To unravel these myths, we must know what a "nation" such as the so-called "United States" is, or is supposed to be. As the name suggests, the "United States" is more than one "state" joined together. What is a "state" though? We can quickly dispel the political nonsense a "state" is a geographic location such as "New York." If not, then politicians should explain where the "State of New York" was on July 3rd, 1776. A "state" is defined as "A body politic, occupying a definite territory, and politically organized under one government." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1210. The "United States" is "A body politic and corporate." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1318. A "body politic" is "formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact." Preamble, Massachusetts Constitution and Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113. "Government" is alleged to be men and women providing the service of protecting "Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to those men and women who "Consent" to such service, Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776. In reality though, "government" is one man controlling another man without the latter's consent ostensibly for the latter's own "good." Knowing this, let's look at the facts. The "states" and the "United States" were allegedly created by pieces of paper and ink called "constitutions." Being nothing more than paper and ink, "constitutions" are only obligatory on men and women as contracts, agreements or compacts. After all, a "body politic" is supposed to be a "voluntary association." I recommend reading Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. As stated therein, the "constitution" is unsigned and as such created nothing. Myth number one is dispelled on that alone (there are other reasons not included herein): there are no "states" and no "United States." In other words, there is no "nation." Let's look at just a few common Judeo-Christian ethics and compare them with the real-life application of those four pieces of paper and ink called the "constitution." The question here is this: Is the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" provided in a manner consistent with Judeo-Christian ethics? There are "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." - Exodus 20:13, 15-16. And "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." - John 15:12. Are you free to accept and support the "constitution" (four pieces of paper and ink) or not? Free means there are no strings or conditions attached, such as being killed, robbed and lied to if you don't accept. Do you have a choice to not accept the wonderful "protection" (remember 9/11?) and other pretended "services" offered by the "constitution?" If so, are you obligated to pay for such services i.e., your "fair share of taxes?" Can you decline paying "taxes" without being killed, robbed or lied to by men and women claiming to be a "state?" Let me first dispel the claim you can "just move to another country." Such emotional claim is ridiculous because the "United States" is not a geographic location but instead ostensibly a "voluntary association of individuals." It also supports the fact the "constitution" is not offered freely. The "constitution" isn't offered freely on a take-it-or-leave it basis like contracts or agreements. Remember, if not a contract, the "constitution" binds no one and creates nothing but is just four really old pieces of paper and ink. Those "services" are provided and paid for on a compulsory basis; your "Consent" has nothing to do with it. So, to answer the question, NO; the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is NOT provided in a manner consistent with the above Judeo-Christian ethics: "Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity!" - Habakkuk 2:12. The idea there's a "benefit" to people because a group of men and women provide their "services" on a compulsory basis and this so-called "benefit" then somehow "obligates" people to pay "taxes" is preposterous. That's how the mob does business. The "constitution" is offered on a compulsory or violent basis. This contradicts "state constitutions" and the Declaration of Independence that state it's "voluntary" and by "Consent." This is inconsistent with Exodus 20:15 and John 15:12. What if you refuse to "pay your fair share?" Refuse to "pay your fair share" and you provide these valiant protectors of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" with an awesome opportunity to contradict Exodus 20:13. If you doubt application of the "constitution" contradicts Exodus 20:13 and John 15:12, then go back into the "history" books and refresh your memory about the "civil war." Read about the slaughter of men, women and children because they decided to leave the pretended "voluntary association of individuals." So much for the asinine "if you don't like this country then leave." If you still doubt this, read article 1 § 2 of the Nevada "constitution." For those who are not faint of heart, grow marijuana on land you are convinced you own. When the men with machine guns show up, boldly tell them you have no agreement or "social compact" with them and they should get off your property immediately. When you say it make sure your hands are empty and where the agriculture police can see them. Even if we assume there's a "nation," it was not based on Judeo-Christian ethics because those so-called "services" are paid for on a violent basis. The taking of property by force or threats of force is called stealing. The act of stealing and "taxation" are virtually identical. You don't have to take my word for it either:
BY Florence Olsen - Friday, September 17,
2004
Report on Secrecy in the US Administration A study on secrecy in the US administration found that growth in secrecy since 2001 caused federal government and private industry officials to spend $6.5 billion on classifying government information in fiscal 2003. That amount represents a $1.8 billion, or 38 percent, increase, compared to the amount spent on classification in fiscal 2001. The classification expenses were for maintaining secure information systems, controlling physical access to buildings, training employees and providing background checks for government and contractor employees. The costs are cited in a recent study conducted by the House Government Reform Committee's Minority Staff Special Investigations Division at the request of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking minority member. The 81-page report, released Sept. 14, quotes experts who said the government's policies on Freedom of Information Act requests have changed under the Bush administration. One of those experts, Meredith Fuchs, general counsel for the National Security Archive at George Washington University, said in the report: "The Bush administration started on a bad foot when Attorney General Ashcroft introduced a policy that discouraged government agencies from releasing records under FOIA, even when they have the discretion to release. It got worse when they elevated privacy, corporate and other interests above any public interest in information." The report concludes that administration policies have undermined public access to government information. |