← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · confederate_commando
Thread ID: 18977 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2005-07-04
2005-07-04 10:59 | User Profile
Mourn on the 4th of July
Independence Day
On "Independence Day," July 4th, the Empire honors those who volunteered to kill other people in order to avoid paying taxes. The Revolution began with a lawless hoard who did not want to pay taxes, so they used deceit, dressed up like Indians and went to some captains boat and dumped all his tea in the Boston Harbor, committing a criminal offense. This article examines the presuppositions behind America's decision to kill men from Britain. Were the deaths worth it?
Our taxes are ten times what they were under Britain;
Our rulers are ten times more corrupt than the British.
Contrasting Then and Now
Thus far, the last decade of the 20th century America has been characterized by the senseless destruction of a country (Yugoslavia) and over one million of its inhabitants (Iraq), and the outrageous murder of human beings and destruction of nearly a billion dollars' worth of property by racists in Los Angeles. This is keeping with the rest of the century - the most atheistic and the most violent in human history.
In contrast, the first decades of America were characterized by the drafting of legal penal codes which were taken verbatim from the Bible, such as the Body of Liberties adopted in 1641 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which explicitly provided that no law was to be prescribed contrary to the Word of God, and was annotated with appropriate Scripture references by John Cotton. Crime was low; the country prospered. [It's fascinating the way our recent "bicentennial" erased nearly two centuries of prior Christian society. The Puritans were explicitly dedicated to making America a "city upon a hill," by concretely putting God's Law into effect. By saying America is only 200+ years old, instead of more like 400, Christian Theocratic history is sent down the "Orwellian Memory Hole"].
Sandwiched between these two contrasting decades is the Revolutionary War against Great Britain, which resulted in the formation of the United States of America as a rival "power." Our nation celebrates this event every Fourth of July.
The Declaration of Independence (published July 4, 1776) and the new Constitution (written a few years later) were part of America's repudiation of Biblical authority. The Constitution never mentions "God". The Declaration, which never mentions Jesus Christ, focuses on "Independence" and "rights," and by losing sight of the Suffering Servant, helped change the official character of the nation from the evangelical to the materialistic, and thus helped create the selfish, violent nation in which we now live. America covenanted with God to be a "light to the world." America has instead shown a light of secularism and violence over the globe. A substantial proportion of the 200 million government-inflicted deaths in the 20th century were capitalized by American financial and technological interests, with the approval of America's politicians. America's exports of weapons are substantially greater than her exports of Bibles. America has been a missionary for the wrong side.
Which America was greater?
Which America was greater; that which existed on July 4, 1776, or the America of today?
In our day, taxes are ten times as great as they were in 1776, illiteracy is also about ten times as great (compare an 8th grade final exam from 1776 with an exam from today's public schools), and the State is incomparably more ungodly. Can anyone seriously maintain that America under George XI (or whoever the king might have been had we remained British) could have been any worse than America under the current President?
Clearly, what matters most is the virtue of the people. The system of government really doesn't matter at all. A three percent tax rate and an abstract political theory certainly didn't justify the killing that took place in the war that began July 4, 1776.
Many Christians are very patriotic, and support the Declaration of Independence and America's Revolutionary War for Independence. How can this be? The War for Independence was so plainly unbiblical.
The Declaration of Independence [comments in brackets]
The following breakdown will show that the Declaration of Independance was not only a declaration of independance from the king of England, but a declaration of independance from God as well.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, [When does the Bible say it becomes "necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"? (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2)]ââ¬Â¦
and to assume, [In Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 122, assume is defined as: "to pretend...or to put on deceitfully."
among the powers of the earth, [Is it the goal of the followers of Christ to be "equal" with "the powers"? (Jude 8-10, 2 Peter 2:10-12, Ephesians 6:12, Romans 13.]
the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, [The terms "Law of Nature" and "Nature's God" are not found in scripture. The laws of nature have nothing to do with the laws of God. It only governs the outward acts of man (secular), not the spiritual.]
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. [Do we live according to the opinions of mankind? Or do we live according to God's Truth? We are not to respect the opinions of mankind, because scripture considers that a sin (Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19, Proverbs 24:23, Proverbs 28:21, James 2:1-4, 9).]
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, [Do we have a "right to life"? The Bible says man has the "right to death" (Romans 3:23; 6:23; 1 Peter 2:21; Luke 17:7-10). Only one who sojourns in Christ has the right to the Tree of Life (Revelation 22:14). Unbelievers have no such right]...
liberty, [If we have a right to "liberty," why does the Bible command us to work for our slave-masters as if we were working for Christ Himself? (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-24; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-21). We are not at liberty to do as we please, we are only at liberty to do Godââ¬â¢s Will (Romans 8:21, 1 Corinthians 8:9, 2 Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 2:4; 5:1,13, James 1:25; 2:12, 1 Peter 2:16)ââ¬Â¦
and the pursuit of happiness. [1 Peter 3:14, "But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled"].
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, [Are governments really instituted by and among men to secure our ââ¬Ërightsââ¬â¢? (Romans 13). Why does the term ââ¬Ërightsââ¬â¢ not appear anywhere in the Scriptures? Governments are created by Him and for Him (Colossians 1:16), not by "the people," and not for "the people." The Scriptures say that earthly governments are created to sit on Christââ¬â¢s shoulder (Isaiah 9:6). Governments are created to follow God's Law and serve Jesus (Psalm 2:10-12). Governments are created for the glory of God, not for our enjoyment, not for our wants, not for our rights]ââ¬Â¦
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; [According to the Bible, governments derive their "just powers" from God, not from the consent of the governed (Romans 13). According to the Constitution, they have the power to tax, and to declare war. Are these powers made just on the mere say-so of those who voted for the exercise of this "power to destroy"?]ââ¬Â¦
that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, [Does the Bible say we have a right to "abolish" the government? If this is so, why didnââ¬â¢t the servants of Christ in the first century exercise this right and abolish the tyrannical Roman government? Do slaves have a right to "abolish" their masters?]ââ¬Â¦
and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. [If we were instituting a new government, upon which principles should we build? Should we not build upon the principles of God? Then why does the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution go contrary to Godââ¬â¢s Will? If it goes contrary to Godââ¬â¢s Will, is America really a Godly country?].
Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves [If we are suffering under harsh masters or tyrants, does the Bible say we should "right ourselves" (I Peter 2, Romans 12, Matthew 5)?]ââ¬Â¦
by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpationââ¬â¢s, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, [Scholars estimate that the total of taxes imposed by the British government upon the colonists was less than 3% of their income. Today, the post-revolutionary government takes 30% of income each year, and up to 90% upon death. Was the British government really the "absolute despotism" that warranted an armed revolution?]ââ¬Â¦
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such as been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpationââ¬â¢s, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. [Imagine a young man about 23 years old. As an agent of the British Empire, he wears a red coat. He believes that the colonies face a situation of "anarchy" and chaos. For generations, the British government has maintained law and order, and he has been told that this stability is threatened by lawless hoards who vandalize tax-paying merchants while dressed as Indians. Based on reports of a large cache of arms in Lexington and threats of armed revolution, he has been sent away from his family in Liverpool to help maintain order in the colonies. Oh dear. This nice young man has just had a large part of his face and shoulders blown away by the musket fire of an outraged tax-resister. This colonist (and others like him) apparently believed that this young soldier evinced "a design to reduce them under absolute despotism." As the officer lies dying in a pool of his own blood, the revolutionary "minute-man" rejoices (Proverbs 24:17) in his victory over this red-coat's objective of the "establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states." Is this a loving (1 Corinthians 13:5-7) or righteous (John 7:24; Exodus 23:2; Prov. 24:21) judgment of this man? Was this soldier an Adolph Hitler, or a "Godly family man"? Was this revolutionary killing the beginning, or the end, of a Godly nation?].
To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. [History of "repeated injuries and oppressions" omitted] [The Declaration of Independence lists many political acts which are said to justify armed revolution. Many of these abuses are rampant in our day, yet no one who waves a flag on the 4th of July is taking up arms to spill the blood of government agents. If the killing of government agents was justifiable in 1776, why isn't it mandatory now?].
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. [Where does the Bible say that servants of Christ are a "free people"? The term "servant" of Christ indicates we are not free, but slaves. We are bondservants of Christ, slaves of Christ].
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. [Did Nero have a "warrantable jurisdiction" over Jewish converts to Christ when the Apostle Paul penned his letter to the Romans, or when he banished the Apostle John to the Island of Patmos?].
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpationââ¬â¢s, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends [What is our duty toward our enemies? (Matthew 5; Romans 12; Luke 17). It is true that, in the Old Testament, God commanded His people to kill entire nations, which were idolatrous and made a public practice of committing capital crimes, such as infant sacrifice (Leviticus 18:24). These "Holy Wars" were a form of national capital punishment. Is there any such justification for war after the Priestly work of Christ? (Matthew 20:28, 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, Isaiah 53:12)].
We, therefore, the representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, [In Whose Name did the Apostles do the things they did (Acts 4:7,10)? Jesus Christ, not the ââ¬Ëpeople.ââ¬â¢ Whoever does anything in the name of, or under the authority of, anyone but Jesus Christ, then they are not acting in the name of, and by the authority of, Jesus Christ. If these founding fathers were acting under Jesus Christ, they would have said so. The truth is, they were acting in the name of, and under the authority of, someone outside of Christ, by their own admission in their own documents]ââ¬Â¦
solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do. [Would the BATF or the FBI be alarmed if some sizable Christian group declared that it had these powers: the power to levy war, contract alliance (with foreign nations), and challenge the authority of the Federal Reserve Board and the Interstate Commerce Commission? Is it any surprise that the British government was alarmed? If you were a king, would you be alarmed at militias and revolutionary pamphleteers? If you were President, what powers would you exercise if armed "extremists" threatened to declare their state a separate nation and exercise all those governmental powers? Did Jesus and His Apostles claim these powers? No. And if they did not claim these powers, how can anyone else?].
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour. [Is the Declaration of Independence a document that can be supported by a follower of Christ committed to "submission to the powers" (Romans 13) and the "Ministry of Reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)? God's Law shouldn't be too controversial, but it is -- for two reasons: (1) God's Law is found even in the Old Testament; (2) God's Law does not leave "neutral zones" in which we can "be as gods" (Genesis 3:5) and decide for ourselves what constitutes good and evil. Many government officials are leery of such Christians taking the revolutionary rhetoric of the Founding Fathers too seriously. Some do: they store arms. Others don't: they claim to be followers of the Founders, who took up arms against a tax rate of less than 3%, but do nothing in the face of the current rate ten times greater].
Final Thoughts The Declaration of Independence is just a piece of paper with signatures on it. And you know what a piece of paper with signatures is: a contract! Something that can be re-negotiated and altered at any time.
[url]http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/mourn.html[/url]
2005-07-04 22:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=confederate_commando]Mourn on the 4th of July
Independence Day
On "Independence Day," July 4th, the Empire honors those who volunteered to kill other people in order to avoid paying taxes. The Revolution began with a lawless hoard who did not want to pay taxes, so they used deceit, dressed up like Indians and went to some captains boat and dumped all his tea in the Boston Harbor, committing a criminal offense. This article examines the presuppositions behind America's decision to kill men from Britain. Were the deaths worth it?
Our taxes are ten times what they were under Britain;
Our rulers are ten times more corrupt than the British. [/QUOTE]Interesting piece of work. I haven't heard much anti-independence, anti-liberal/republican talk, even from theonomists like those of the Chalcedon Institute.
Whatever. Moeller said "a revolution can never be undone" and this seems to apply first of all to our revolution. We went the route we did today, and if we'd gone a different route and not seceeded, but gone the Canadian route, our country certainly would have been a very much different place than it is today. And the history of Canada suggests, obviously, certainly not an any better one IMO.
(Definitely wouldn't have had a civil war over or reputedly over the slavery question. The British empire abolished slavery in the early 1800's).
For better or worse, those that advocate a Massachusetts Bay type constitution today are considered at best extreme reactionaries. Its intersting to ponder, but little practical chance exists at best of it ever being adopted.
Just curious - who links to this? Does little Geneva?
2005-07-07 01:24 | User Profile
"Just curious - who links to this? Does little Geneva?"
Not that I know of. It's a useful read for those brought up in dumbed-down gubmint indoctrination centres which are the Temples of the State Religion of Secular Humanism. There are Biblical justifications for Secession/Seperation, and/or Interposition by a Magistrate, but not Revolution...
Re-establishing Godly Government IS the only answer, however impractical or unlikely. The latter can be said for any solution to the current mess we're in. Do nothing, and that's probably what you'll git, if not worse.
[QUOTE]Ezekiel 33 NIV (New International Version)
Ezekiel a Watchman
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, speak to your countrymen and say to them: 'When I bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land choose one of their men and make him their watchman, 3 and he sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, 4 then if anyone hears the trumpet but does not take warning and the sword comes and takes his life, his blood will be on his own head. 5 Since he heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning, his blood will be on his own head. If he had taken warning, he would have saved himself. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.'
7 "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 8 When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for [a] his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 9 But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself.
10 "Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of ** them. How then can we live?" ' 11 Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'
12 "Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.' 13 If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done. 14 And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right- 15 if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. 16 None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live.
17 "Yet your countrymen say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' But it is their way that is not just. 18 If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, he will die for it. 19 And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by doing so. 20 Yet, O house of Israel, you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' But I will judge each of you according to his own ways."
Jerusalem's Fall Explained
21 In the twelfth year of our exile, in the tenth month on the fifth day, a man who had escaped from Jerusalem came to me and said, "The city has fallen!" 22 Now the evening before the man arrived, the hand of the LORD was upon me, and he opened my mouth before the man came to me in the morning. So my mouth was opened and I was no longer silent.
23 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 24 "Son of man, the people living in those ruins in the land of Israel are saying, 'Abraham was only one man, yet he possessed the land. But we are many; surely the land has been given to us as our possession.' 25 Therefore say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Since you eat meat with the blood still in it and look to your idols and shed blood, should you then possess the land? 26 You rely on your sword, you do detestable things, and each of you defiles his neighbor's wife. Should you then possess the land?'
27 "Say this to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: As surely as I live, those who are left in the ruins will fall by the sword, those out in the country I will give to the wild animals to be devoured, and those in strongholds and caves will die of a plague. 28 I will make the land a desolate waste, and her proud strength will come to an end, and the mountains of Israel will become desolate so that no one will cross them. 29 Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I have made the land a desolate waste because of all the detestable things they have done.'
30 "As for you, son of man, your countrymen are talking together about you by the walls and at the doors of the houses, saying to each other, 'Come and hear the message that has come from the LORD.' 31 My people come to you, as they usually do, and sit before you to listen to your words, but they do not put them into practice. With their mouths they express devotion, but their hearts are greedy for unjust gain. 32 Indeed, to them you are nothing more than one who sings love songs with a beautiful voice and plays an instrument well, for they hear your words but do not put them into practice.
33 "When all this comes trueââ¬âand it surely willââ¬âthen they will know that a prophet has been among them."
Footnotes:
Ezekiel 33:8 Or in ; also in verse Ezekiel 33:10 Or away in [/QUOTE]
2005-07-07 23:28 | User Profile
Curious. Have you invested in stock and pillory companies, in anticipation of the rise and conquest by the Theocracy? You'd make some dough. :)
[QUOTE=confederate_commando]"Just curious - who links to this? Does little Geneva?"
Not that I know of. It's a useful read for those brought up in dumbed-down gubmint indoctrination centres which are the Temples of the State Religion of Secular Humanism. There are Biblical justifications for Secession/Seperation, and/or Interposition by a Magistrate, but not Revolution...
Re-establishing Godly Government IS the only answer, however impractical or unlikely. The latter can be said for any solution to the current mess we're in. Do nothing, and that's probably what you'll git, if not worse.[/QUOTE]
2005-07-08 00:27 | User Profile
We already live in a Theocracy, with the State Religion being Secular Humanism and its High Priests being the Pubic Education establishment...
:smoke:
2005-07-08 01:19 | User Profile
We already live in a Theocracy, with the State Religion being Secular Humanism and its High Priests being the Pubic Education establishment...
Bravo! Good post. Good comments.
The secular materialists also have a vow to the state which is recited over and over again, call the "The Pledge of Allegiance". Allegiance to the state, which has nothing to do with loving a country and everything to do with socialistic empowerment and control.
2005-07-08 01:28 | User Profile
Yeah the pledge of alligence is about psuedo-patriotism.
2005-07-08 02:01 | User Profile
Yeah the pledge of alligence is about psuedo-patriotism.
That, too, but mostly about worshipping the state. I didn't see a sarcasm tag, so I assume you agree.
2005-07-08 02:15 | User Profile
I do, buddy. Really patriotism is about loving your people. Pseudo-patriotism is about loving your Government.