0 votes

Ecclesiastical Tyranny, and running for office in America!

The recurring accusation on the DP is that "we"(I have no LIST) are "shoving our religion" down "your"(I have no list) throats.

Given that the conservative media is beginning to admit that the Tea Party sentiment is not only a legitimate threat to Republican power(hell-bent on not-supporting, pro-actively bashing, and ultimately ousting conservative hypocrites from the ONLY party that will ever be afforded a chance at governance); what KIND of candidates would the DP support?

Non-religious, ONLY secular-minded candidates...presumably a parallel philosophy that is in-line with the founders INTENT that we not exemplify ANY morality that could be construed as favorable to the tenets of a certain religious affiliation?

The modern interpretation of "separation" is WRONG; a victim of government-funded revisionist history. Also WRONG, is the knee-jerk philosophy to place any and ALL "Christians" in a fish bowl; because by making a public profession of their faith, they do ONLY to broadcast a moral superiority to everyone else - just rendering them unqualified for public office because of their conceited attitude!

What about the conceited attitude of a professing Christian congressman, President, or sitting judge? Especially when they are in sole possession of a legislative record that repeatedly violates the OATH to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of these United States?

The degree of hypocrisy, the moral "line in the sand" is what we are trying to establish here...heading into the 2010 elections...and the fact of the matter is, secularism in a candidate(a total public denial or denunciation of any or all influence of a religious faith) over one's personal moral judgments, fiscal responsibility, or approach to economic philosophy and deficits will never win the day in this nation.

The two major political parties proven to be the ONLY avenue by which public office can be attained, REQUIRE an adherence to a religion(as "good for business"), in order to "join their club", or "earn their support"; BUT, that religious affiliation(mostly, and preferably Christian), MUST BE an endorsed dues-paying member of the Ecclesiastical Tyranny Club - What is a Catholic Democrat? What is a Ralph Reed, Southern Baptist Republican?

They are hypocrites above all else! Party over principle, money and favortism from the public treasury over moral conviction, and by peer-pressure and bread and circuses; unwilling to root out lawlessness from their own ranks. Looking the other way when witnessing an evil being perpetrated against our nation's posterity, and kicking the can down the road is the NORM for these "Christian" politicians, their staffs, their party bosses, and their CLERGY...who is a bigger DANGER?...they are; because the lesser of two evils is still EVIL!

Let it be known...all of this blunt commentary is very DIVISIVE, and it is meant to be!...but "we" do not divide in order to CONQUER, we PROD to inspire the agnostic and atheist(Thomas Paine, "common sense" anti-religion types) to engage themself in self-study of American History, and the basic tenets of the Christian faith that has been weaved into a web of deceitful denominations and suspect Bible interpretations; to PROVE to themselves that not only do "we" who have not fallen for the COMPROMISED Christian faith America routinely accepts in order to maintain the status-quo actually mean you NO HARM; we just wish that you would see that the number one reason our elected officials are not fit to serve us in any representative position whatsoever is because they are HYPOCRITES to their own purported faith(s) FIRST and foremost ...as well as active advocates and supporters of tyranny; and those individual acts require no rebukes associated with the tenets of ANY faith whatsoever.

But somehow, many of the electorate in this FORUM, have somewhere been duped to believe that a strict adherence to a faith-based morality based on a belief in some Supreme Being(when formulating that simple "yea" or "nay" vote on legislation that favors self-serving, big government politicians and "K-Street" lobbyists) is tantamount to a imposing a Theocracy upon "We The People"

Let's absorb this quote from my 1880 Speller from Noah Webster...a schoolbook that cost just ten cents in the era it was used to teach proper English and phonetic pronunciation of our nation's language; that was also peppered with virtuous platitudes and life applications of certain words contained therein.

On a page, where three syllable words are taught(such as opposite, expedite, destitute, antelope, volatile, and favorite); we find this MORAL lesson regarding our civic duty..."Our farmers, mechanics, and merchants, compose the strength of our nation. Let them be wise and virtuous, and watchful of their liberties. Let them TRUST NO MAN TO LEGISLATE FOR THEM, if he lives in the habitual violation of the laws of his country."

Rush Limbaugh perhaps over a DECADE ago once: "Go read a textbook from 1850, and see what America's children had to KNOW in order to get out of the 8th grade". In 1850, in what elementary school GRADE would these spelling words be found? What about 1760, 1880, 1913, 1950, and TODAY?

Now, having grasped this VIEW of American History...I have yet to quote ANY scripture(although tempted to, being a "fundamentalist" religious zealot and perceived whack-job)...let me make the point that we Christians ALSO live in the real world; and we are visited daily by any and ALL the temptations common to man...and more often than not, we have "given in"...we watch sports, we partake in an occasional adult beverage, we have smoked, seen a both the cover, and the feature pictorial of a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, and have even bought a state-sponsored lottery ticket!!!

We're not PERFECT, we're on the same common journey as any created human being; made in God's image. The difference is that we STOPPED, and went in to see what this whole "Christian Religion" thing was all about; and some of us have been fortunate and attentive enough to the "teachings" that the Creator has opened our eyes to the hypocrisy and lies; no different than how the common citizen knows he cannot overdraw his/her checking account - how in the hell can the government do it with the people's checkbook!

Here is the RULE; Christians living in HABITUAL violation of God's moral dictates should be subject to convicting criticism - and this criticism and ostracism should persist until the "Christian" concedes the point that they are behaving in a contrary manner to the tenets of their purported faith.

The initial criticism should be done by ONLY Christians, and it should be "mild" and done in a "loving" tone; consistent with the teachings - but upon an outright public refusal to fall under conviction; the "church" should more loudly and more harshly REBUKE the person, and even QUESTION their association with the Christian faith because of their DELIBERATE refusal to change their ways(or ad infinitum rationalizations to perpetuate the behavior and refusal to turn from their ways that are contrary to their purported faith).

Sadly, in my own case; for having downloaded one song off Napster, or having played one hand of internet poker; or having had a Heineken over Thanksgiving; I can be deemed either a "violator" of the laws of my country, or be labeled a Christian HYPOCRITE.

Now, fully engaged in this debate; via listening all the fear-mongering voices of Alex Jones or even a Chuck Baldwin - Should I consider runnign for elective office so inspired to do having forsaken a great many vices; or,m should I live in FEAR of SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT of laws that I am certain were never adequately debated with one ounce of our founders wisdom considered whereas Liberty is concerned; as well as KNOW I will receive no support from the professing patriots who love to rail AGAINST George Washington's "indispensable supports".

I, for my past compromises and lapses in good judgment, and the arguments and insults hurled against my positions and personal philosophies; now have only GOOD reason NOT to run for ANY elective office...but somehow, I am compelled to FIGHT this seemingly un-winnable battle for my nation's future, and my children's posterity.

So, what is the BEST avenue other than running for office in my own backyard in order to impact the "righting" of this ship to the most of my abilities in this lifetime?

Words associated with Jonathon Swift inspire me to TRY anyway; considering always, that I am my philosophical or political opponents EQUAL in the Creator's sight - "The latter part of a wise man's life is taken up in curing the follies, prejudices and false opinions he had contracted in the former"...since I am on this humble journey...it is all the qualification I need to satisfy myself that although my bias is towards inculcating the General Principles of Christianity to my "policy positions"; I realize I must listen to "arguments" seemingly opposed to these core values on the surface...but, ones that ultimately may be rooted in the same tenets of my chosen faith!

What I fear is that many "secularists" in this movement are not really in this to "win" - but they are only desirous to "warp and spoil" our political system to their "turn" as William Penn pointed out in describing how our system of government in this nation ought to remain moral with a built-in repellent towards corrupting influences.

He said: "Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad; if it be ill, they will cure it. But, if men be bad, let the government be ever so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn." Sorry, this cannot happen by electing EXCLUSIVELY secular persons, intolerant and dismissive of any and all religious persons and/or philosophical approaches to truth, freedom, and justice wherein an opportunity lies to directly impact another person's Liberty and right to self-governance.

If I wanted to run against John Dingell, author of one the abysmal Health Care bill(and recipient of decades of money is exchange for his commitment to violate his oath and support unconstitutional legislation); my opposition should NOT come from persons and professing patriots who are elated and enamored by what Ron Paul has started in this country - because it is not like that man has denied his personal faith impacts his policy positions! What is "Just War" theory anyway?

If I were to win my respective primary as a Republican, or, run as a third party candidate in order to get my name on the ballot - I would be ONLY ONE person of tens of thousands that COULD HAVE RUN to unseat him - but CHOSE not to...and this is why our nation may well choose by DENIAL of the facts made exponentially obvious to ALL by the Ron Paul/Tea Party movement to ROT in future despotism...passing once again on the opportunity presented to us in both 2010 and 2012, to do SOMETHING at the ballot box...and because "religion is divisive" is NO sufficient reason to perpetuate this nation's demise when you have before you a candidate clearly bent on supporting Ron Paul's conservative principles of personal liberty and limited government!

And so, will "we"(the collective of Christians, Agnostics, and Atheists at the DP) not only choose NOT to support an outwardly "Christian" candidate who is knowledgeable of the fundamental tenets of his/her faith(and many of Satan's religious tricks and contradictory doctrines and denominational practices that favor compromise and delays by means of "gate-keeping" FOR the existing tyranny)?

If we do, we DERAIL and further paralyze the hopes of the whole "patriot" movement by arguing against George Washington's indispensable supports by saying unwisely that we do not wish to be externally governed by them at the same time we desire our current crop of politicians be governed by them...which can ONLY occur if we elect good persons willing to self-govern themselves by such high moral dictates - thus allowing us to do the SAME - that is LIBERTY.

Adherence to the moral dictates the General Principles of Christianity advance are first of all strictly VOLUNTARY, and will never be ENFORCED by the point of a gun; nor are they tolerant of any hypocrisy, but rather, pro-actively and pervasively quick to deem such blatant compromises and violations of the public trust as shameful.

We The People, and the candidates...must ALL willingly restrain ourselves from giving into the temptations common to man that inevitably come with such an opportunity as public service and publicly-financed governance(and you don't need to be a "Christian" in order to do so, or, be a "Christian" in order to be an American!).

So, the knee-jerk objection to any and all religious-based moral or fiscal philosophies advanced here at the DP in regards to helping to further solidify our "moral high ground" over our lot of criminal government and their cohorts in the media and corporate/banking world need to CEASE.

"sinners" - are the ONLY pool America has to choose candidates from...what shall we do about it in 2010 & 2012(and beyond)?

These disagreeing approaches to our nation's next era of political philosophies are most likely NOT polar opposites, as many proudly self-labeled God-less secularists and Libertarians like to say; but in fact can be traced to the same fountain of wisdom our founders drew from...if we are willing to admit that.

We "religionists" are only sharing a shortcut avenue to many black/white "issues" in regards to the personal character of the candidates(predominately "Christian") that we should, and inevitably will continue to nominate and be FORCED to vote upon.

Ecclesiastical Tyrants are the one's who have married themselves to the state in this past century(as the Federal Reserve System has reached it's tentacles into ALL our public policies), and they have muddied the waters of the "pure" religion and the common morality that our founders(and many generations of Americans) had once subscribed to; that afforded them God-inspired wisdom, a subsequent God-blessed economy, and earned them an incredible victory over a seemingly undefeatable foe who out-resourced and had them out-gunned at the onset of their unpopular and unsold revolution!

If I were to run for office in America, and gain the support of the Tea Party crowd because my personal faith compels me to be an ardent supporter of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and an anti-NeoCon "Just War" theory...the professing dumbed-down "Christian" Church would be my greatest opposition...because they have compromised and corrupted themselves to the degree that openly support the tyranny that both the "Christian" Democrats and "Christian" Republicans have been advancing for years...this is whom we must DEFEAT...and in order to "fight fire with fire", you're going to have to familiarize yourself with the General Principles of Christianity in order to defeat these hypocrites, rather than drive them away and make them and their worldview feel unwelcome.

"We The People" are being conquered, and we are being conquered because we have a lack of knowledge and we FEAR our government...our founders exemplified an exact OPPOSITE approach to Liberty...and were GRATEFUL to Almighty God for what they achieved...let us express the same level of gratitude for what we have enjoyed, and SACRIFICE as they did...the time, talent, and treasure the Creator has afforded us...BEFORE we lose our freedom to do so at the hand of tyrants who are hinting that they do indeed FEAR "We The People"!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There are 2 ways "kings"

There are 2 ways "kings" establish Authority over the subjects. One is by force, this type of established jurisdiction is an Unjust jurisdiction. The other way kings establish jurisdiciton is by consent, and this is Just jurisdiction.

Our current "king(s)" have not estalished thier jurisdiction by force. It is ENTIRELY through consent. SO MANY TIMES have i heard our leaders proclaim that taxes, social security, the entire system is voluntary. You should listen to them and seek exactly what they are telling you, they're not lying. In unwitting ways we give consent and are then bound to this government, through contract (covenant) and oath. The US Citizenship is VOLUNTARY, and it is what establishes jurisdiction. You DO NOT have to be a US Citizen to live within the Country of your birth. The leaders are often heard telling us this, BUT WE FAIL to understand HOW it is all voluntary. In the 20th Congress 2nd session a debate took place over states rights. Within that debate it is seen quite clearly that there were 3 or more Status of the People, citizens(and denizens), slaves and INHABITANTS. An inhabitant is someone who is not a member of the Body politic, a citizen is a member of the body politic.

If you are participating in the body politic, then you are subject to it. Plain and simple. If you are participaiting in Democracy, you are subject to it, even when you are on the losing side of an Issue.

An inhabitant on the other hand is only subject to the Natural Laws found in ALL society, murder, rape, theft, ect, those things that are actual damage to another.

The "founders" declared their independence. Precisely, they wrote the King a letter that summarily said, "We reject your Jurisdiction". This same rejection of jurisdiction is available to each and every US Citizens today. If you don't like the Laws that this jurisdiction is putting upon you, you are free to reject it, so long as you reject it in full. Participating within the jurisdiction IS CONSENT to be governed by the jurisdiction.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence