Comment: I found something in law that may concern athiests

(See in situ)


I found something in law that may concern athiests

I take no side between those who believe in God and those whose don't. I am simply a humble onlooker of what I observe in existence as facts with logic dictating my interpretation.

I would like to point out something very unique I found in my study of Law that has quantifiable disadvantage to one who totally rejects "God". Hang with me here because you have probably never heard this before.

I notice in all Government forms the government demands one to fill out that these forms all offer the signer criminal liability of perjury under statutory code. I have even seen this court and jury duty oaths. I always completely reject this offer to criminal liability. Intuitively, I have always thought to myself hey here I am doing my own thing and now some a$$hole$ are shoving a contract in my face demanding I except criminal liability which I did not have before.

How can this be lawful?

I looked into this question and found that Law had already resolved this conflict with the concept of "God". One use to take oaths under "God". Why take the oath under God? The answer I found is that in Law God=NULL literally. By signing or stating an oath under God one does not have to offer criminal liability in a contract and the signer is not required to accept criminal liability for their statements to be heard. This concept of God=NULL also shows up in some insurance contracts as "acts of God" which I have seen on a car insurance claim when a deer jumped in front of a car and destroyed the car this is in insurance "an act of God" as the cause of the claim.

When I looked into it how this oath under God was converted to contractually derived consent of the governed for criminal liability under statutory code I found that the alterations on the contracts and oaths was literally born of atheists stating in court that they do not recognize God. The statutes and rules of the court were altered to allow either one to be utilized but the default was converted to criminal perjury offered instead of God. This has caused big problems for those who demand the legal nullity of God because now most of the mindless "judges" and "Magistrates" along with most attorneys know nothing of this history and now have lost the concept that God=NULL in Law. HAving a NULL in law is literally as important as having 0 in mathematics. I could write voluminous books on the implications of not having a NULL set in Law. We literally broke the foundation of Law by removing the concept of God from Law.

The quantifiable disadvantage for those who reject God completely including from application in Law is because accepting this criminal liability to the statutory code of perjury ensures a court has consent of the governed hence just powers have been derived from the consent of the governed (by your own acceptance of the criminal liability)for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction in a criminal action against you. Singing under God does provide a fact that you would tell the truth or whatever else it is applicable to that particular oath but it does not pre-emptively provide signed proof of "consent of the governed" derived from you. This means another member of the governed (not you) would be required to consent to just powers of the court with a valid cause of action for the court to have properly derived "consent of the governed" and thus even have subject matter jurisdiction.

This is a quantifiable disadvantage for possible interpretations of law for those who completely reject the concept of "God" including the concept that in Law God simply means NULL.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...