Jesus said "Swear No Oaths"

This is a good article.
grant

And this part jumped out at me. Remember, the Quakers swore no oaths, thus the crown had no jurisdiction.

"When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the situation. That put a lot of them here, enough that they had a very strong influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document. Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the United States treason may only arise out of an (overt) ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act "committed" - it’s the opposite, an act "omitted." In this nation "doing nothing" can’t be criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do something. That concept in place, the new government would have lasted about three years. You see, if it were not a crime to fail to do something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING - save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a concession.

Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official "fail" to perform his lawful duties, he’d evidence in that omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that’s still the situation. It’s just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax wasn’t apportioned, and couldn’t be apportioned, that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax wasn’t absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a "kick back" or even a "return." Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that wouldn’t be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment didn’t apply. Make sense? "

You know what...just read the whole thing. It's great.
----------------------
Free yourself.

in the Republican party to be Republican. So Steele is actually sealing themselves against themselves. Ron Paul is the true Republican. They need to stop and read their platform.

Has anyone here not read this yet? If you haven't, do it now and let us know what you think.
Free yourself.

It not a matter of not taking any oaths or "swearing" your word. Your word should always be your bond, no matter what. That's the point of the message. In otherwords, by virtue of taking an oath or swearing does not mean that you should be any less likely of saying something false breaking a commitment.

Classic example of religion teaching Natural Law.

Fantastic.
grant

This is a really good article/essay. Very much worth everyone's time to read.

It's amazing that many of the comments here are not even about the article that the poster presents. It seems that because the post has the name Jesus in it that it automatically leads to a debate about Religion. I suggest people lay their prejudice aside and read the article. It is very enlightening.
grant

The difference between taking an oath and just making a plain affirmation is the difference between hiding behind the law and being a man of your word.
grant