I received a Facebook comment today in response to a recent post on public school. Quadir, the gentleman, stated that he couldn’t have learned if his education wasn’t free and why would I not want him to learn. I was delighted to comment.
My response is below:
Quadir, thanks for your comment. First of all education is not free. It is provided at the expense of the working tax payers. Second, in America, we are not a democracy but a “constitutional republic” a rule of law under the constitution that was written to limit the power of government not its citizens, the ones who wrote it. If public education is not constitutional there should be no argument because providing for education would then be unlawful under our present rule of law.
It isn’t a question of whether I want you to learn or not, it is what you learn and who should pay for your education. In this country we are all recognized that we are all Created equal and have the same rights and privileges provided by God, not government.
If you want to become educated, it is a matter of taking individual personal responsibility to achieve the goals you desire on your own merit, not at the expense of others, this is government endorsed stealing or “legalized plunder.” Shall I take your wealth; you have worked hard for, by force, to educate my children, Of course not. If you would like to offer charity that comes from the heart that is your choice, but by force is robbing you against your will. The other thing about government education is that what your learned wasn't education at all, it was a brainwashing indoctrination of what they, the government, wants or thinks you should you to know, a conditioning process if you will.
Quadir, my question is what is it that you learned or hoped to learn? I assume you wanted to become educated, as you said, which requires multiple perspectives on particular ideas or theories. What has happened instead is a “free indoctrination” it is having the government take taxpayer money, by force, also unlawful, and tell you what is fact and what is not without giving you both perspectives so that you may utilize your God given ability to use logic and reason and your critical thinking skills to come to these conclusions yourself.
Did you learn about America? About our "constitutional republic", that we are a nation of laws, founded on Biblical principles, that adherence to the constitution required that you acknowledged a Creator that was the source of all things, not that we came from some “primordial soup” and are just a random chemical reaction, that our Founders were homosexuals, that evolution is a fact or that it is illegal to link Christianity to the history of this country?
Did you learn that secular societies in history have always resulted in anarchy or tyranny? How about that the word "tyranny" in Greek, that means "secular rule." How about our American Founding fathers, the sacrifices for freedom made by them and those soldiers who give their life for others for that cause that is now being destroyed by the government that" we the people" created to preserve our freedom?
To me it is very clear and hopefully now clear to you as well, Government schools promote government as god. They want you to believe they are the source of all things, that is why it is crucial that God is not taught in school. Once you have been conditioned to accept this, you will then look to the government and worship them according to the rights they think you should have or not have rather than the rights that God gave you that government was to protect, not take away!
They are not teaching you to be educated to be self sufficient, and take personal responsibility for your actions, they are teaching you to be reliant on a system, a system that will take that responsibility from you, do all things for you, a system that is doomed to fail our future generations.
The sad part is that most government indoctrinators, some whom a good people, are oblivious to this fact as they wonder why the children in these schools are becoming more and more defiant when they don’t do what these teachers ask them to. These children as well as the teachers have been conditioned to be this way by the system in which they attend.
Perhaps this is why public school was not included in our constitution.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Nature and Law
Western logic seems to always have had some regard for the existence of natural law, however eastern philosophies have remained skeptical about nature and the supernatural commonly found in agnosticism and atheism that believes in the “ultimate truth” based in “nothingness” or basically the impossibility of ‘absolute truth.”
Some that believe in natural law believe in a higher law in nature rather than the law of the state which man can and will discover as he evolves. In other words, This law of nature is the only true law, the law that will govern man.
Believers in natural law would include Marxists, relativists, and existentialists in that natural law would be what this law means to them, relatively speaking, that these laws in whole or in part and vary in description according to what they would like to believe it is as they understand it and can evolve over time as society “progresses and becomes more perfect.”
There are those who deny natural law and believe only in the law of man, or “the law of the state.” Human truth is as it appears in history, “The state” resulting in only “civil government “as man’s last and best hope,” how sad.
Chinese, Hindu, Muslim and even Western ideologies couldn’t agree on the definition of natural law. Some say law is not whats is logical but what has been experienced, as it evolves is what is understood to be convenient “at that time,” or as valuable as one thinks it is, or the experience of the people “collectively” that make changes due to experience and developments in their reality.
If law and nature are determined by changes and developed experience wouldn’t all laws and constitutions would be meaningless? If the courts had to reflect on these changes, could they keep up with the pace that laws evolve? It would seem that in these circumstances the only logical conclusion would be constantly increasing, evolving laws resulting in chaos in that it would be hard for everyone to be aware of all the laws that had been or are being changed. This results in either anarchy or some form of totalitarianism.
Christians believe that Biblical laws are created by God that govern nature, not laws of nature but laws over nature, these laws entrusted to man for his protection and the protection of the earth and all its systems and inhabitants. This distinction is that the power over nature rests in the hands of God and God alone as nature itself has no power, “it is only the sum of the total universe”
For Christians it isn’t nature but God that is the standard of all things. Nature exists in a fallen world against God as things on nature are not necessarily for good like crimes- murders, thefts, perversions etc. The world is in rebellion against God so it isn’t nature that should be our focus but God.
An acknowledgment of God is an understanding that we are governed by His established laws in nature, physical reality, society, morality, religion; church even nutrition, digestion and sleep.
Darwin destroyed the understanding of Biblical law in that he stated “rather than specific detailed consistent boundaries, law is evolving, developing, reflected experience of the people ‘collectively” as expressed through the courts making judges themselves into gods, or as Plato stated “ philosopher-kings who are totalitarian rulers over man kind, can we not relate to this mindset today?
We are told who to believe, what to believe, how to believe and not to question authority because it is those who rule over us that know better than we do.
Has anyone ever given much thought to why those who oppose God are some of the most angry and vocal when God is mentioned? If they don’t believe in God, and they can’t see him, why are they so bothered?
It isn’t that they don’t believe at all, it is when they hear the mention of God, it is my belief, they become convicted by the Holy spirit and are reminded of His existence and that they, the “men” are not gods at all, but that there is the supreme Creator of the universe that is still in control no matter how hard they try to silence those who believe.
“When we deny God as our God then we make men gods over us.” and as history dictates always leads us back to bondage and eventually death.” Psalms 127:1
(paraphrased from"Law and Liberty" by RJ Rushdoony)
Some that believe in natural law believe in a higher law in nature rather than the law of the state which man can and will discover as he evolves. In other words, This law of nature is the only true law, the law that will govern man.
Believers in natural law would include Marxists, relativists, and existentialists in that natural law would be what this law means to them, relatively speaking, that these laws in whole or in part and vary in description according to what they would like to believe it is as they understand it and can evolve over time as society “progresses and becomes more perfect.”
There are those who deny natural law and believe only in the law of man, or “the law of the state.” Human truth is as it appears in history, “The state” resulting in only “civil government “as man’s last and best hope,” how sad.
Chinese, Hindu, Muslim and even Western ideologies couldn’t agree on the definition of natural law. Some say law is not whats is logical but what has been experienced, as it evolves is what is understood to be convenient “at that time,” or as valuable as one thinks it is, or the experience of the people “collectively” that make changes due to experience and developments in their reality.
If law and nature are determined by changes and developed experience wouldn’t all laws and constitutions would be meaningless? If the courts had to reflect on these changes, could they keep up with the pace that laws evolve? It would seem that in these circumstances the only logical conclusion would be constantly increasing, evolving laws resulting in chaos in that it would be hard for everyone to be aware of all the laws that had been or are being changed. This results in either anarchy or some form of totalitarianism.
Christians believe that Biblical laws are created by God that govern nature, not laws of nature but laws over nature, these laws entrusted to man for his protection and the protection of the earth and all its systems and inhabitants. This distinction is that the power over nature rests in the hands of God and God alone as nature itself has no power, “it is only the sum of the total universe”
For Christians it isn’t nature but God that is the standard of all things. Nature exists in a fallen world against God as things on nature are not necessarily for good like crimes- murders, thefts, perversions etc. The world is in rebellion against God so it isn’t nature that should be our focus but God.
An acknowledgment of God is an understanding that we are governed by His established laws in nature, physical reality, society, morality, religion; church even nutrition, digestion and sleep.
Darwin destroyed the understanding of Biblical law in that he stated “rather than specific detailed consistent boundaries, law is evolving, developing, reflected experience of the people ‘collectively” as expressed through the courts making judges themselves into gods, or as Plato stated “ philosopher-kings who are totalitarian rulers over man kind, can we not relate to this mindset today?
We are told who to believe, what to believe, how to believe and not to question authority because it is those who rule over us that know better than we do.
Has anyone ever given much thought to why those who oppose God are some of the most angry and vocal when God is mentioned? If they don’t believe in God, and they can’t see him, why are they so bothered?
It isn’t that they don’t believe at all, it is when they hear the mention of God, it is my belief, they become convicted by the Holy spirit and are reminded of His existence and that they, the “men” are not gods at all, but that there is the supreme Creator of the universe that is still in control no matter how hard they try to silence those who believe.
“When we deny God as our God then we make men gods over us.” and as history dictates always leads us back to bondage and eventually death.” Psalms 127:1
(paraphrased from"Law and Liberty" by RJ Rushdoony)
Idaho's governor and the selling off of America
I have been trying to stay on top of all the important news the media is incapable of exposing and the more I read, the more disgusted I get, I mean seriously! Are we really this stupid to think that our government is doing what is in the best interest of its citizens?
The drugs and propaganda this regime is shoving down our throat must be working in the fulfillment of their agenda, we now willingly train our military with the communists, that hate us by the way, in our own country and no one sees this as a problem? Are we immune here in Idaho, NOT A CHANCE!!
Months, maybe a year ago I heard on local KTVB, Idaho’s communist news channel, how elated this state is to accept the Singapore military to train here in Mountain Home, that it would be long term.
Months later I read or hear about the Chinese military here as well also staying long term, I was outraged at the ignorant smiles on their faces and wondered if anyone knew the serious ramifications of what is to come.
Economically speaking, I red that China pretty well owns America in that it holds more US treasuries than anyone else which means to those who don't know, that this country is indebted to our enemy! Do we see the problem yet? Let me continue
Recently, I have been receiving email from a friend where Idaho now has engaged in something else.
Chinese company eyes Boise: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html
Evidently China feels that Idaho will be a good economic industrial foothold. Now it appears that Idaho government has stepped into prostitution becoming the pimp for the Chinese whores in that we can now sell off our sovereignty granting citizenship to those who pay enough for it and help us get out of the financial mess that was created by spending beyond our means with the budget the Idaho legislature stated they supposedly balanced.
Instead of the American people realizing the danger of such transactions they say:
“I think China’s coming over here shows they are willing to collaborate on the reinvigoration of the American industrial base,” said Jeff Don, CEO of Eagle-based C3, which is acting as an Idaho representative for the Chinese company, called Sinomach for short.
So China, our communist enemy, is trying to HELP us now?
So I read on that our CONSERVATIVE governor Otter traveled to China last June, probably on the back of the taxpayers, “to tell anyone who would listen that Idaho is open for business.” China surpassed Japan as the second largest economy in the world in 2010. What better way to take control of the last free nation on earth, all under the guise of “helping us.”out of our economic woes.
Did we realize our governor supports the global warming theory by his endorsement of this project? “Sinomach, who is working with Southeast Idaho Energy company also would separate the carbon dioxide that contributes to climate change and ship it to Wyoming, where it can be pumped underground to enhance the extraction of natural gas.
What if the Governor and our local Idaho legislature decided to save money by killing its own citizens or reduce the amount of children born to decrease levels of CO2 that THEY BELIeVE is contributing to “climate change? Sound impossible? Why? It’s what communist governments do. With China as the economic powerhouse that now apparently owns the US, what would stop them?
Otter, while in Beijing, also worked with Doug Sayer, president and CEO of Premier Technology, “to build long-term relationships with China National.” (This sounds promising.)
“Anything we can do to work toward having good industry opportunities for investment is important whether we get a piece of that work,” Sayer said. (Anything huh?)
Pat Sullivan, a Boise lobbyist who works with Southeast Idaho Energy said “One thing these Chinese see is we have a governor here who has a great big open-door policy, and I think that’s making a difference in this Sinomach project,” he said.
So we have a governor with a “great big open door policy,” a president that has a great big open border policy, who calls his own citizens terrorists and grants the real enemy full amnesty to roam this country in full freedom to achieve economic prosperity while the tax paying citizens are losing our sovereignty, our homes, jobs, wealth ,our freedom and under increasing surveillance?
The really neat thing were doing here (NOT!) in Idaho is making a constitutional amendment that will allow the government to allow us to go into more debt, “that allows the airport to borrow money to build facilities that can be leased to companies on a long-term basis.” The airport commission also has the authority to grant long-term leases and landing rights to air carriers, including those from China.” (Isn’t this wonderful?)
This is such good news that the the flood gates will be open when they stated “We’re getting calls from investors from all across Asia who are interested in Idaho,”
Brad Little also showed support stating: “Idaho’s the last state that should say we don’t want to do business with Asia,” said Lt. Gov. Brad Little. “Asia’s where the money is.”
So, its all about the money. Forget sovereignty, forget the constitution, the founders “original intent”, forget national security, forget those who have sacrificed their lives so that we could remain free, lets just throw it all way, I mean “Who cares about America anyway? Apparently no one that we elected to represent us!
“Little, who met with Zhang Chun, director general of Sinomach, and other company officials, said “he thinks the state and the company are a good fit.”
But we should be proud of our lieutenant governor when he did say ““We’re sure not going to favor a Chinese company over an Idaho company,” (Isn’t that reassuring.)
In summary, it is my belief, our government welcomes our communist enemies to do business here because they fear that maybe the citizens will finally realize that maybe they weren’t as fiscally responsible as they said they were and by allowing these transactions to take place, it would be a great way to cover their tracks since the Chinese own us anyway.
Reality is if China owns us and they are that good for Idaho’s economy, our government will bend over and do anything to keep them here even if it means favoring China’s interests like CO2 regulations, child birth limits to help reduce carbon emissions or promoting their business interests over our own.
Every day as we fall deeper into tyranny, it becomes more and more difficult to see any visible remains of what America was, even here in Idaho.
Posterity — you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."
—John Quincy Adams
"An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest."
— Jewish proverb
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
The drugs and propaganda this regime is shoving down our throat must be working in the fulfillment of their agenda, we now willingly train our military with the communists, that hate us by the way, in our own country and no one sees this as a problem? Are we immune here in Idaho, NOT A CHANCE!!
Months, maybe a year ago I heard on local KTVB, Idaho’s communist news channel, how elated this state is to accept the Singapore military to train here in Mountain Home, that it would be long term.
Months later I read or hear about the Chinese military here as well also staying long term, I was outraged at the ignorant smiles on their faces and wondered if anyone knew the serious ramifications of what is to come.
Economically speaking, I red that China pretty well owns America in that it holds more US treasuries than anyone else which means to those who don't know, that this country is indebted to our enemy! Do we see the problem yet? Let me continue
Recently, I have been receiving email from a friend where Idaho now has engaged in something else.
Chinese company eyes Boise: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html
Evidently China feels that Idaho will be a good economic industrial foothold. Now it appears that Idaho government has stepped into prostitution becoming the pimp for the Chinese whores in that we can now sell off our sovereignty granting citizenship to those who pay enough for it and help us get out of the financial mess that was created by spending beyond our means with the budget the Idaho legislature stated they supposedly balanced.
Instead of the American people realizing the danger of such transactions they say:
“I think China’s coming over here shows they are willing to collaborate on the reinvigoration of the American industrial base,” said Jeff Don, CEO of Eagle-based C3, which is acting as an Idaho representative for the Chinese company, called Sinomach for short.
So China, our communist enemy, is trying to HELP us now?
So I read on that our CONSERVATIVE governor Otter traveled to China last June, probably on the back of the taxpayers, “to tell anyone who would listen that Idaho is open for business.” China surpassed Japan as the second largest economy in the world in 2010. What better way to take control of the last free nation on earth, all under the guise of “helping us.”out of our economic woes.
Did we realize our governor supports the global warming theory by his endorsement of this project? “Sinomach, who is working with Southeast Idaho Energy company also would separate the carbon dioxide that contributes to climate change and ship it to Wyoming, where it can be pumped underground to enhance the extraction of natural gas.
What if the Governor and our local Idaho legislature decided to save money by killing its own citizens or reduce the amount of children born to decrease levels of CO2 that THEY BELIeVE is contributing to “climate change? Sound impossible? Why? It’s what communist governments do. With China as the economic powerhouse that now apparently owns the US, what would stop them?
Otter, while in Beijing, also worked with Doug Sayer, president and CEO of Premier Technology, “to build long-term relationships with China National.” (This sounds promising.)
“Anything we can do to work toward having good industry opportunities for investment is important whether we get a piece of that work,” Sayer said. (Anything huh?)
Pat Sullivan, a Boise lobbyist who works with Southeast Idaho Energy said “One thing these Chinese see is we have a governor here who has a great big open-door policy, and I think that’s making a difference in this Sinomach project,” he said.
So we have a governor with a “great big open door policy,” a president that has a great big open border policy, who calls his own citizens terrorists and grants the real enemy full amnesty to roam this country in full freedom to achieve economic prosperity while the tax paying citizens are losing our sovereignty, our homes, jobs, wealth ,our freedom and under increasing surveillance?
The really neat thing were doing here (NOT!) in Idaho is making a constitutional amendment that will allow the government to allow us to go into more debt, “that allows the airport to borrow money to build facilities that can be leased to companies on a long-term basis.” The airport commission also has the authority to grant long-term leases and landing rights to air carriers, including those from China.” (Isn’t this wonderful?)
This is such good news that the the flood gates will be open when they stated “We’re getting calls from investors from all across Asia who are interested in Idaho,”
Brad Little also showed support stating: “Idaho’s the last state that should say we don’t want to do business with Asia,” said Lt. Gov. Brad Little. “Asia’s where the money is.”
So, its all about the money. Forget sovereignty, forget the constitution, the founders “original intent”, forget national security, forget those who have sacrificed their lives so that we could remain free, lets just throw it all way, I mean “Who cares about America anyway? Apparently no one that we elected to represent us!
“Little, who met with Zhang Chun, director general of Sinomach, and other company officials, said “he thinks the state and the company are a good fit.”
But we should be proud of our lieutenant governor when he did say ““We’re sure not going to favor a Chinese company over an Idaho company,” (Isn’t that reassuring.)
In summary, it is my belief, our government welcomes our communist enemies to do business here because they fear that maybe the citizens will finally realize that maybe they weren’t as fiscally responsible as they said they were and by allowing these transactions to take place, it would be a great way to cover their tracks since the Chinese own us anyway.
Reality is if China owns us and they are that good for Idaho’s economy, our government will bend over and do anything to keep them here even if it means favoring China’s interests like CO2 regulations, child birth limits to help reduce carbon emissions or promoting their business interests over our own.
Every day as we fall deeper into tyranny, it becomes more and more difficult to see any visible remains of what America was, even here in Idaho.
Posterity — you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."
—John Quincy Adams
"An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest."
— Jewish proverb
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
Monday, January 3, 2011
Politics, Pornography and the Law
Another attempt at paraphrasing a chapter from the book “law and Liberty , By RJ Rushdoony. I felt this book so compelling I didn’t know how else to share it. The credit once again should be given to the author.
Ever wonder if the whole idea of pornography is based on the advancement of some kind of “agenda,” political gain or is it really just a business, a product of our free market economy?
Is or should pornography be considered obscene? It has been said that obscenity is a “cleansing process” but pornography tends to “add to the murk,” that pornography is “dirt for dirt’s sake” and obscenity is the destruction of law and moral order, pornography is more explorative and obscenity does have rather a “revolutionary purpose.”
Pornography abandons law and favors rebellion against it, fanning the flames against law,
hates morality and views it as man’s bondage to restriction. It sees morality boring, tedious and restrictive and views these restrictions as evil.
Supporters of Pornography state that morality is “death due to the confinement of marriage, family, law and religious faith.” These supporters believe that morality is “old school” and the destiny of man as he “evolves” should be free of such restrictions for man’s greatest enemies are religion, morality and law.
How is it that these supporters feel that they can make such a statement, like“old school” of "evolution" when such a statement insinuates the adherence to a natural consistent order of events, that includes restrictions based on fact that is absent in their worldview? If man is also free from restrictions are they not free to do and think as they please, and in no position to say what “should” and “shouldn’t be?” It appears it would be a bit contrary in its position?
Socialist scholars (a contradiction in terms?) call for the destruction of the monogamic bourgeois family as we know it. They call for complete “sexual freedom.” These scholars view religion and morality as slavery and view Marxist socialist as freedom specifically quoted as “Moral anarchism is the tool for totalitarianism, socialism and dictatorship!” Does this mean that the socialist government would now welcome the breaking of laws to prove the people are free? Or that the more restrictions they face, the more they violate laws making them more free or quite the opposite? Or is this a way for the government to return people to bondage under the auspices of “freedom?”
While Christianity gives man logic, reason, consistency, it also gives him is individualism, faith and character of self government, Humanism (Marxism) espouses inconsistency and chaos of a ransom nature, it abandons the individual, denies faith in God and suggests faith in man instead, denies individual character and the importance and value of the individual, suggesting “collectivism” as its alternative, that results in a totalitarian government that then determines rights.
Isn’t it interesting that Marxists are opposed to legislation against pornography,” in the name of freedom,” but say nothing about the increased restrictions due to the contant and growing involvement of government in the personal lives of the people whom they govern and the moral anarchy they welcome?
Just the idea that those who support pornography can deny God, law and order in support of their position that they are a random chemical reaction, that all things are a result of chance and say that people are entitled to be free then suggest that people should think and act a certain way is completely contradictory to their worldview. If this were true they would have no adherence to anything requiring logic or consistency or have the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot do due the fact that they were a result of a random chemical reaction, a freak of nature.
Shall we promote “sexual freedom”, including prostitution, pedophilia, adultery, incest, rape and sodomy but call for the abolition of the death penalty, theft and murder, or shall we state all acts now have equal standing in the law? This arbitrary and inconsistent nature is the problem with man’s law that does not exist in God’s law and why God’s law is crucial in the proper function of society.
The politics of pornography is the “politics of Marxist revolution.” It is the reorganization of life, laws, thought and a society in the hope to fulfill the unrealistic, unobtainable “wishful thinking” utopian ideology of a “free world,” free from the restrictions of religion, morality and law, which in reality are absurd, illogical, irrational and unbelievable!
Today, the supreme court and many Americans believe that what were once moral violations of Biblical proportions (Sodomy, homosexuality, adultery etc) are now socially redeemable justified activities and that such laws are capable of evolving over time, and will if we continue our present course.
If two hundred years ago, in this country, pornography and other “sexual freedoms” were considered unlawful and now have become accepted, in fifty years, as we supposedly “evolve” shall we accept bestiality and things that are not yet socially justified today?
Substituting God’s law for man’s law makes anything possible, anything legal, and anything acceptable, it would only be a matter of time.
What is the result of replacing your trust in God for your trust in man, as Marxist promote? As history dictates people have been conditioned by their government to believe that they do things in the best interest of the people, always resulting in anarchy or some form of totalitarianism.
The question is, is your government really trying to protect your freedom or is it using the promotion of an agenda “in the name of freedom” to return you back to bondage?
With our country now adamantly promoting “the separation of church and state,” that God has no right in government, the governments agenda should be clear, this is not about freedom, it’s about control.
Ever wonder if the whole idea of pornography is based on the advancement of some kind of “agenda,” political gain or is it really just a business, a product of our free market economy?
Is or should pornography be considered obscene? It has been said that obscenity is a “cleansing process” but pornography tends to “add to the murk,” that pornography is “dirt for dirt’s sake” and obscenity is the destruction of law and moral order, pornography is more explorative and obscenity does have rather a “revolutionary purpose.”
Pornography abandons law and favors rebellion against it, fanning the flames against law,
hates morality and views it as man’s bondage to restriction. It sees morality boring, tedious and restrictive and views these restrictions as evil.
Supporters of Pornography state that morality is “death due to the confinement of marriage, family, law and religious faith.” These supporters believe that morality is “old school” and the destiny of man as he “evolves” should be free of such restrictions for man’s greatest enemies are religion, morality and law.
How is it that these supporters feel that they can make such a statement, like“old school” of "evolution" when such a statement insinuates the adherence to a natural consistent order of events, that includes restrictions based on fact that is absent in their worldview? If man is also free from restrictions are they not free to do and think as they please, and in no position to say what “should” and “shouldn’t be?” It appears it would be a bit contrary in its position?
Socialist scholars (a contradiction in terms?) call for the destruction of the monogamic bourgeois family as we know it. They call for complete “sexual freedom.” These scholars view religion and morality as slavery and view Marxist socialist as freedom specifically quoted as “Moral anarchism is the tool for totalitarianism, socialism and dictatorship!” Does this mean that the socialist government would now welcome the breaking of laws to prove the people are free? Or that the more restrictions they face, the more they violate laws making them more free or quite the opposite? Or is this a way for the government to return people to bondage under the auspices of “freedom?”
While Christianity gives man logic, reason, consistency, it also gives him is individualism, faith and character of self government, Humanism (Marxism) espouses inconsistency and chaos of a ransom nature, it abandons the individual, denies faith in God and suggests faith in man instead, denies individual character and the importance and value of the individual, suggesting “collectivism” as its alternative, that results in a totalitarian government that then determines rights.
Isn’t it interesting that Marxists are opposed to legislation against pornography,” in the name of freedom,” but say nothing about the increased restrictions due to the contant and growing involvement of government in the personal lives of the people whom they govern and the moral anarchy they welcome?
Just the idea that those who support pornography can deny God, law and order in support of their position that they are a random chemical reaction, that all things are a result of chance and say that people are entitled to be free then suggest that people should think and act a certain way is completely contradictory to their worldview. If this were true they would have no adherence to anything requiring logic or consistency or have the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot do due the fact that they were a result of a random chemical reaction, a freak of nature.
Shall we promote “sexual freedom”, including prostitution, pedophilia, adultery, incest, rape and sodomy but call for the abolition of the death penalty, theft and murder, or shall we state all acts now have equal standing in the law? This arbitrary and inconsistent nature is the problem with man’s law that does not exist in God’s law and why God’s law is crucial in the proper function of society.
The politics of pornography is the “politics of Marxist revolution.” It is the reorganization of life, laws, thought and a society in the hope to fulfill the unrealistic, unobtainable “wishful thinking” utopian ideology of a “free world,” free from the restrictions of religion, morality and law, which in reality are absurd, illogical, irrational and unbelievable!
Today, the supreme court and many Americans believe that what were once moral violations of Biblical proportions (Sodomy, homosexuality, adultery etc) are now socially redeemable justified activities and that such laws are capable of evolving over time, and will if we continue our present course.
If two hundred years ago, in this country, pornography and other “sexual freedoms” were considered unlawful and now have become accepted, in fifty years, as we supposedly “evolve” shall we accept bestiality and things that are not yet socially justified today?
Substituting God’s law for man’s law makes anything possible, anything legal, and anything acceptable, it would only be a matter of time.
What is the result of replacing your trust in God for your trust in man, as Marxist promote? As history dictates people have been conditioned by their government to believe that they do things in the best interest of the people, always resulting in anarchy or some form of totalitarianism.
The question is, is your government really trying to protect your freedom or is it using the promotion of an agenda “in the name of freedom” to return you back to bondage?
With our country now adamantly promoting “the separation of church and state,” that God has no right in government, the governments agenda should be clear, this is not about freedom, it’s about control.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Liberty, Pornography and The Law
LIBERTY, PORNOGRAPHY AND THE LAW
In my excitement about reading “Law and Liberty” by RJ Rushdoony, I continue my attempt to paraphrase the book that I wish everyone would buy because of how it explains the relationship of law in the various areas of our society. Full credit should be given to the author as my only desire is to promote his book and share his point of view of which I completely agree.
Are laws imposed on pornography a violation of one’s freedom of expression, their liberty and their freedom?
For years it seems, to some, we have tried to find a way to legislate and restrict the freedom of a two billion dollar a year business, they see it as restriction of free market capitalism while still others feel that this freedom has gone to the extreme and needs to be controlled.
It has been said that the legislative process has been difficult because of the lack of strength of current laws but regardless of whether those agree on the various laws or not, it is agreed among most that tighter restrictions and laws are needed to control crime and STD’s.
If we passed laws against porn would it mean a greater loss of liberty, through government censorship creating a larger problem than the one in question?
This moral issue creates problems because morality directly affects liberty.
Liberty is defined as: “The state of being exempt from domination of others or from restricting circumstances.”
As a “free people” are we really free, being exempt from domination and restrictions? We all have responsibilities, husbands, wives, children, animals,bosses, offices, taxes and government, are these responsibilities not domination and restriction to various degrees?
We all have some form of restrictions and no one is exempt, even “free people.”
Is absolute or unlimited liberty even possible and is it even a good thing? If man, as described by God, is fallen and has an inherent sinful nature will he not eventually be a law unto himself?
All societies in history whom have abandoned God have resulted in either in anarchy or some form of totalitarianism, both which are the enemy to law and liberty.
God’s law was created because of the inherent nature of man, so that we may live the most free, most prosperous and be able to achieve maximum liberty through such moral restraint and respect for others which is the purpose of law.
Is it really endangering liberty if we impose laws against pornography?
Is freedom really unlimited freedom? How about freedom of religion? Can we go and do as we please and say what we want in the name of free speech or expression? Can we lie to others and do so legally under the same premise, why are they different? Can you yell “bomb” or”fire” in an airport or crowded room? Can we freely use profanity on TV or in meeting with government officials, How about the press?
Freedoms we have must be respected and exercised using personal responsibility with respect to all without creating chaos.
American liberty and law are achieved and maintained by furthering liberty by the law not to create freedom from it. Legislation must CAREFULLY and CONSCIOUSLY be created to preserve liberty for future generations and God’s law, not man’s law is the principle that guarantees this freedom.
Laws to control pornography further liberty not destroy or obstruct it because it protects families and prevents social decay because it begs the utilization of personal responsibility through Godly, moral and ethical behaviors.
Pornography is, in fact, more of an enemy to the law rather than an element of liberty because it demands a society of moral anarchy where people break laws to prove they are free.
Today, while people compare pornography to freedom of the press, it is much different in that it breeds moral irresponsibility, destroys families, creates bitterness, sadness resentment and anger when combined lead to anything but a civil society where children are lost and made wards of the state, parents are lost and looking for ways to mask the pain, “on the rebound” perpetuating the pain, the children are neglected, become angry, hostile and allows for the government to have to take care of all of them, resulting in the endless creation of physical and psychological disorders and medications to treat them.
Our Founding fathers were quoted as saying “Our constitution was written for a moral and religious people and wholly inadequate for any other form of government” ( Did I see religion and government in the same sentence?)
What happens to our law and our liberty when we become a people whom are neither?
In my excitement about reading “Law and Liberty” by RJ Rushdoony, I continue my attempt to paraphrase the book that I wish everyone would buy because of how it explains the relationship of law in the various areas of our society. Full credit should be given to the author as my only desire is to promote his book and share his point of view of which I completely agree.
Are laws imposed on pornography a violation of one’s freedom of expression, their liberty and their freedom?
For years it seems, to some, we have tried to find a way to legislate and restrict the freedom of a two billion dollar a year business, they see it as restriction of free market capitalism while still others feel that this freedom has gone to the extreme and needs to be controlled.
It has been said that the legislative process has been difficult because of the lack of strength of current laws but regardless of whether those agree on the various laws or not, it is agreed among most that tighter restrictions and laws are needed to control crime and STD’s.
If we passed laws against porn would it mean a greater loss of liberty, through government censorship creating a larger problem than the one in question?
This moral issue creates problems because morality directly affects liberty.
Liberty is defined as: “The state of being exempt from domination of others or from restricting circumstances.”
As a “free people” are we really free, being exempt from domination and restrictions? We all have responsibilities, husbands, wives, children, animals,bosses, offices, taxes and government, are these responsibilities not domination and restriction to various degrees?
We all have some form of restrictions and no one is exempt, even “free people.”
Is absolute or unlimited liberty even possible and is it even a good thing? If man, as described by God, is fallen and has an inherent sinful nature will he not eventually be a law unto himself?
All societies in history whom have abandoned God have resulted in either in anarchy or some form of totalitarianism, both which are the enemy to law and liberty.
God’s law was created because of the inherent nature of man, so that we may live the most free, most prosperous and be able to achieve maximum liberty through such moral restraint and respect for others which is the purpose of law.
Is it really endangering liberty if we impose laws against pornography?
Is freedom really unlimited freedom? How about freedom of religion? Can we go and do as we please and say what we want in the name of free speech or expression? Can we lie to others and do so legally under the same premise, why are they different? Can you yell “bomb” or”fire” in an airport or crowded room? Can we freely use profanity on TV or in meeting with government officials, How about the press?
Freedoms we have must be respected and exercised using personal responsibility with respect to all without creating chaos.
American liberty and law are achieved and maintained by furthering liberty by the law not to create freedom from it. Legislation must CAREFULLY and CONSCIOUSLY be created to preserve liberty for future generations and God’s law, not man’s law is the principle that guarantees this freedom.
Laws to control pornography further liberty not destroy or obstruct it because it protects families and prevents social decay because it begs the utilization of personal responsibility through Godly, moral and ethical behaviors.
Pornography is, in fact, more of an enemy to the law rather than an element of liberty because it demands a society of moral anarchy where people break laws to prove they are free.
Today, while people compare pornography to freedom of the press, it is much different in that it breeds moral irresponsibility, destroys families, creates bitterness, sadness resentment and anger when combined lead to anything but a civil society where children are lost and made wards of the state, parents are lost and looking for ways to mask the pain, “on the rebound” perpetuating the pain, the children are neglected, become angry, hostile and allows for the government to have to take care of all of them, resulting in the endless creation of physical and psychological disorders and medications to treat them.
Our Founding fathers were quoted as saying “Our constitution was written for a moral and religious people and wholly inadequate for any other form of government” ( Did I see religion and government in the same sentence?)
What happens to our law and our liberty when we become a people whom are neither?
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Life and the Law
Again, as the previous post, this was another chapter in the book “Law and Liberty” by RJ Rushdoony. The more I read it , the more I appreciate it and my desire was to share it with those would also find interest in it. Again, the credit goes to the author as I try to paraphrase this wonderful chapter in a truly awesome book!
Most people, if not all of them will say they have a “reverence and respect for life.” Some believe that life is equally revered whether they are animals, humans, insects or plants. They believe that killing anything is an act of murder without any difference in what is moral and what is not but somehow believing “what is Biblical is restrictive and oppressive.”
Christianity, through Gods inspired word in scripture provides clear and concise definitions and boundaries. Thou shalt not murder” defines God to be the giver and taker of life for life is a gift from God and to be lived according to His law.
If one man kills another, is it murder and unbiblical? In Genesis 9:6 it states “Who sheds a mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed”, In Exodus 21:12 it states “Smite a man and he shall be put to death.” And in Numbers 35:16-18 it calls capital punishment, the punishment for murder.
It is God that has the right “to kill” not man but as the church’s ministry is discipline, the government’s ministry is justice, BOTH under God’s law. These positions are like God’s for they have the authority over laws to protect life.
“ If God’s justice is perverted, they shall die like men.” Psalms 82:7
Capital punishment by “the state” is not subject to the interpretation by man’s law because it puts the life in the hands of man but required under God’s law which clearly needs no interpretation and secures life in that the decisions do not evolve over time and become arbitrary according to who you are or what you may believe.
Biblically, man should be presumed innocent until found guilty (if this sounds familiar, it is proof yet again of God’s foundation in American law) but once a man is found guilty he should not be an object of pity (If this sounds familiar, it is because the American rule of law now denies Gods law) because it then puts the power of God into the hands of man and again becomes subject to man’s arbitrary nature.
“Those that forsake the law praise the wicked.” Proverbs 28:4
“He that turns his ear from the law, his prayers shall be an abomination.” Proverbs 28:9
Humanists believe that freedom is life beyond the law, beyond good and evil which is both the abandonment of Law and morality.
Christians believe God’s law is a condition of life, like water to a fish or soil to a tree and believe that the abandonment of law results in oppression by man, leading to chaos, disorder, lawlessness and death.
“Hatred for God id hatred of life” Proverbs 8:36
“Those who despise the law are guilty of the sin of presumption.” 2 Peter 2:10
“Humanists believe in presumption to take for themselves the authority for which they have no right, whether it be from God on their own terms, to reframe and reorganize their world where they will rule rather than God.” Without the belief in God, man is free to govern as he pleases without accountability, or so he thinks.
It is only under God’s law where life is protected. Under His law humans whether unborn or elderly it is left to God and God alone, who giveth life and taketh away.
Interestingly enough, It is the Humanists who claim to value life, equally in all forms, while they abandon God’s law, legalize the death of 5000 unborn babies and allow the government to withhold food and drink from the elderly and infirmed, These Humanists kill plants and animals for food to sustain themselves while praising the environment, planning on the death of the elderly, maintaining the executions of babies all in the name of overpopulation, yet somehow they fail to live by example? Now who’s hypocritical?
It is clearly God’s law to protect life and freedom, to become good stewards of the earth we have been given while it is man’s law that is inconsistent, arbitrary and irrational that has always resulted in anarchy, tyranny or death.
One thing to keep in mind the next time you hear someone say "God bless America" remember what scripture says...then ask youself, If we turn from his law, Should he?
“He that turns his ear from the law, his prayers shall be an abomination.” Proverbs 28:9
Most people, if not all of them will say they have a “reverence and respect for life.” Some believe that life is equally revered whether they are animals, humans, insects or plants. They believe that killing anything is an act of murder without any difference in what is moral and what is not but somehow believing “what is Biblical is restrictive and oppressive.”
Christianity, through Gods inspired word in scripture provides clear and concise definitions and boundaries. Thou shalt not murder” defines God to be the giver and taker of life for life is a gift from God and to be lived according to His law.
If one man kills another, is it murder and unbiblical? In Genesis 9:6 it states “Who sheds a mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed”, In Exodus 21:12 it states “Smite a man and he shall be put to death.” And in Numbers 35:16-18 it calls capital punishment, the punishment for murder.
It is God that has the right “to kill” not man but as the church’s ministry is discipline, the government’s ministry is justice, BOTH under God’s law. These positions are like God’s for they have the authority over laws to protect life.
“ If God’s justice is perverted, they shall die like men.” Psalms 82:7
Capital punishment by “the state” is not subject to the interpretation by man’s law because it puts the life in the hands of man but required under God’s law which clearly needs no interpretation and secures life in that the decisions do not evolve over time and become arbitrary according to who you are or what you may believe.
Biblically, man should be presumed innocent until found guilty (if this sounds familiar, it is proof yet again of God’s foundation in American law) but once a man is found guilty he should not be an object of pity (If this sounds familiar, it is because the American rule of law now denies Gods law) because it then puts the power of God into the hands of man and again becomes subject to man’s arbitrary nature.
“Those that forsake the law praise the wicked.” Proverbs 28:4
“He that turns his ear from the law, his prayers shall be an abomination.” Proverbs 28:9
Humanists believe that freedom is life beyond the law, beyond good and evil which is both the abandonment of Law and morality.
Christians believe God’s law is a condition of life, like water to a fish or soil to a tree and believe that the abandonment of law results in oppression by man, leading to chaos, disorder, lawlessness and death.
“Hatred for God id hatred of life” Proverbs 8:36
“Those who despise the law are guilty of the sin of presumption.” 2 Peter 2:10
“Humanists believe in presumption to take for themselves the authority for which they have no right, whether it be from God on their own terms, to reframe and reorganize their world where they will rule rather than God.” Without the belief in God, man is free to govern as he pleases without accountability, or so he thinks.
It is only under God’s law where life is protected. Under His law humans whether unborn or elderly it is left to God and God alone, who giveth life and taketh away.
Interestingly enough, It is the Humanists who claim to value life, equally in all forms, while they abandon God’s law, legalize the death of 5000 unborn babies and allow the government to withhold food and drink from the elderly and infirmed, These Humanists kill plants and animals for food to sustain themselves while praising the environment, planning on the death of the elderly, maintaining the executions of babies all in the name of overpopulation, yet somehow they fail to live by example? Now who’s hypocritical?
It is clearly God’s law to protect life and freedom, to become good stewards of the earth we have been given while it is man’s law that is inconsistent, arbitrary and irrational that has always resulted in anarchy, tyranny or death.
One thing to keep in mind the next time you hear someone say "God bless America" remember what scripture says...then ask youself, If we turn from his law, Should he?
“He that turns his ear from the law, his prayers shall be an abomination.” Proverbs 28:9
Law, religion and morality
I just finished a great book called “Law and Liberty”, by RJ Rushdoony. I enjoyed the book so much I wanted to buy everyone a copy. Due to lack of funds I tried my hand at paraphrasing what I had read about. All credit should go to the author and not me.
People say that you can’t “legislate morality,” is this true or are all laws ,in fact, based on morality?
Should people be made to be moral “by force” or would it create some kind of social rebellion? Should the laws of morality be imposed fully or only to various degrees and, if so, how exactly would that degree be determined?
What few realize, especially those that state the above, is that upon close examination all laws are based on morality. Laws against murder, adultery, stealing, slander, perjury, traffic, police and courts are all created based on this principle. Isn’t it amazing the stark familiarity to the Ten Commandments? It is interesting considering so many today absolutely refuse to believe that religion should have anything to do with “the state?”
Law provides clear boundaries between right and wrong, it punishes what is wrong while protecting what is good. If the defining boundaries of law, of good or wrong are skewed does law, what is good and what is wrong become skewed as well? How would society appear if such words had multiple meanings or no clear definition?
It is my understanding that it is impossible to have morality in a society without religion as its foundation. “Law is based in morality and morality is based on religion and when one is weakened, it tends to weaken the others” resulting in a breakdown in society and an eventual collapse.
It is no surprise to anyone that searches for the truth to know that the American legal system was founded on Biblical law and because of this “our system was not a system to save men by the law” but to maintain and adhere to a system that mimic’s a Godly society.
American Biblical laws were not established to “save men” or to fulfill some ill concerned utopian ideology but ONLY to be grounded in faith, again, to punish wrong and protect what is right as Biblical law, the constitution, declaration and Founders “original intent” define to protect life, liberty and property and to provide justice for all, not for the government to create equality but to understand we were all Created that way.
It seems today that we have been condition to believe that it is the duty of our government to make decisions for us, as if they are more qualified, to save us from ourselves, “to save man.” Only God can do this and only through His grace. Reality is that man can only be restrained through government but cannot be saved.
It is my belief that the problem is the clash between worldviews.
First Humanism, that denies God and the reality of absolutes, that all is relative, including law, where everyone is entitled to their own version of truth of what is right and what is wrong. The problem with this theory is that it can only result in chaos, no order and instead of purely black and white, a full spectrum of grey areas which then makes law impossible to define because of its relativity and continual evolution.
The irony here is although they believe that they are free to define their own truth and what is right for them, they also believe “the state” and its increasing laws will perfect man somehow without restriction, not to mention that the simple fact that truth is not person relative.
Second, Christianity, that understands that it is absolutes that maintain order and that everything created has a purpose. Absolutes define clear boundaries of right and wrong, create strictly black and white areas with no shades of grey, that law, in fact, does not evolve but is consistent, “set in stone” because it is the law of God rather than the law of man. Law when left to be interpreted by man only leads to arbitrariness and inconsistencies which undermine the foundational purpose of law.
Christians believe God created us to be free men, as our Founding fathers agreed and the founding documents guaranteed, God has given us Rights that were inalienable, that could not be taken away by man. It is also believed that if society followed Gods law, and not that of “the state”( if contrary to it) free man would be most free without the continual increase in laws of man which have resulted in either Anarchy or some form of totalitarianism, as history has taught us.
Christians believe in “salvation by grace” through faith in Jesus Christ not by “salvation by the law” or “the state” by the continual increase of legislative enactments.
Is it possible to deny God and claim to be free? Is freedom not subject to whom you look to for it? Is it not simply that you are Created by God, with God given rights, given your freedom from Him, that cannot be taken away or you deny God, believe that you spontaneously came into existence with the understanding that your rights come from the government man created that have always been taken away?
In communicating these two theories, it should be rather obvious that there is really only one clear choice that makes logical and rational sense. The very idea that our culture today believes that God should be separated from the state, isn’t because they actually believe it, it is because they want to abandon their conscience, being held accountable and to escape the reality of judgment, after all, it isn’t really the judgment of man they are angry about or afraid of, it is the judgment of God for scripture says we all know Him.
People say that you can’t “legislate morality,” is this true or are all laws ,in fact, based on morality?
Should people be made to be moral “by force” or would it create some kind of social rebellion? Should the laws of morality be imposed fully or only to various degrees and, if so, how exactly would that degree be determined?
What few realize, especially those that state the above, is that upon close examination all laws are based on morality. Laws against murder, adultery, stealing, slander, perjury, traffic, police and courts are all created based on this principle. Isn’t it amazing the stark familiarity to the Ten Commandments? It is interesting considering so many today absolutely refuse to believe that religion should have anything to do with “the state?”
Law provides clear boundaries between right and wrong, it punishes what is wrong while protecting what is good. If the defining boundaries of law, of good or wrong are skewed does law, what is good and what is wrong become skewed as well? How would society appear if such words had multiple meanings or no clear definition?
It is my understanding that it is impossible to have morality in a society without religion as its foundation. “Law is based in morality and morality is based on religion and when one is weakened, it tends to weaken the others” resulting in a breakdown in society and an eventual collapse.
It is no surprise to anyone that searches for the truth to know that the American legal system was founded on Biblical law and because of this “our system was not a system to save men by the law” but to maintain and adhere to a system that mimic’s a Godly society.
American Biblical laws were not established to “save men” or to fulfill some ill concerned utopian ideology but ONLY to be grounded in faith, again, to punish wrong and protect what is right as Biblical law, the constitution, declaration and Founders “original intent” define to protect life, liberty and property and to provide justice for all, not for the government to create equality but to understand we were all Created that way.
It seems today that we have been condition to believe that it is the duty of our government to make decisions for us, as if they are more qualified, to save us from ourselves, “to save man.” Only God can do this and only through His grace. Reality is that man can only be restrained through government but cannot be saved.
It is my belief that the problem is the clash between worldviews.
First Humanism, that denies God and the reality of absolutes, that all is relative, including law, where everyone is entitled to their own version of truth of what is right and what is wrong. The problem with this theory is that it can only result in chaos, no order and instead of purely black and white, a full spectrum of grey areas which then makes law impossible to define because of its relativity and continual evolution.
The irony here is although they believe that they are free to define their own truth and what is right for them, they also believe “the state” and its increasing laws will perfect man somehow without restriction, not to mention that the simple fact that truth is not person relative.
Second, Christianity, that understands that it is absolutes that maintain order and that everything created has a purpose. Absolutes define clear boundaries of right and wrong, create strictly black and white areas with no shades of grey, that law, in fact, does not evolve but is consistent, “set in stone” because it is the law of God rather than the law of man. Law when left to be interpreted by man only leads to arbitrariness and inconsistencies which undermine the foundational purpose of law.
Christians believe God created us to be free men, as our Founding fathers agreed and the founding documents guaranteed, God has given us Rights that were inalienable, that could not be taken away by man. It is also believed that if society followed Gods law, and not that of “the state”( if contrary to it) free man would be most free without the continual increase in laws of man which have resulted in either Anarchy or some form of totalitarianism, as history has taught us.
Christians believe in “salvation by grace” through faith in Jesus Christ not by “salvation by the law” or “the state” by the continual increase of legislative enactments.
Is it possible to deny God and claim to be free? Is freedom not subject to whom you look to for it? Is it not simply that you are Created by God, with God given rights, given your freedom from Him, that cannot be taken away or you deny God, believe that you spontaneously came into existence with the understanding that your rights come from the government man created that have always been taken away?
In communicating these two theories, it should be rather obvious that there is really only one clear choice that makes logical and rational sense. The very idea that our culture today believes that God should be separated from the state, isn’t because they actually believe it, it is because they want to abandon their conscience, being held accountable and to escape the reality of judgment, after all, it isn’t really the judgment of man they are angry about or afraid of, it is the judgment of God for scripture says we all know Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)