Greetings Fellow Citizen of the Cosmos.
By authority of the Ancients of Days
You are hereby commanded to appear for jury duty.
Your services are required as the case Gabriel versus Lucifer draws to a close. As of the date of this notice, three of the alleged perpetrators are in custody. You may be needed for any one of the remaining trials. Be advised the celestial broadcast networks will carry each case in this series for what has come to be known as the Lucifer Rebellion.
The Court has carefully considered the question of venue in this series of high profile, highly publicized cases. Regretfully we have been unable to locate anyone not affected in some way, real or imagined, by the matter before us. You will be questioned about your ability to remain unbiased. You will be required to exercise your highest concepts of fairness and objectivity throughout these proceedings even if the Defendant’s alleged actions may have had a direct or indirect effect on your own life or the life of someone known to you.
Please report for duty, ready to stay for the full length of the trial. Time-space coordinates are provided on the attached set of credentials.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
THE LAW
"How are you fallen from heaven? O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cast down, you who dared to confuse the worlds!" (Isaiah)
Closing Arguments:
This jury has seen the results of Lucifer's folly. We've traced it for you from its birth through its effect on the popular culture native to each of the rebellion-torn worlds. Now it's time to move on, on to the issue of responsibility and accountability. As you withdraw from this courtroom for deliberations, we would like for you to ask yourselves the following three questions: One; what exactly was Lucifer's transgression? Two; what was the effect on those in his care? And three; even if he ran afoul of the law unintentionally, once he realized that his actions were having a harmful effect on those in his care, did he have sufficient opportunity to recognize the error and take corrective steps?
Now we believe we have demonstrated that Lucifer did not simply err, but that he willfully and deliberately undermined the best interests of his younger siblings during the time he had been entrusted with their nurture and care. He did this in three ways: First, he denied the reality as well as the authority of the Father. Second, he betrayed the trust vested in him while challenging the authority and veracity of those who remained faithful to that trust. Finally, he actively sought to thwart Gods' purpose with respect to the progressive development and ascendancy of human kind.
Lucifer's technique involved a cruel, sometimes subtle deception as a means of encroaching on his fellows. Now what exactly do we mean by encroachment? The local lexicon defines the word as a gradual invasion by stealth, an infringement or an intrusion. Though this is a workable definition, in this case there is also a sophistry component that we will term "self-aggrandizement." This latter concept describes the means whereby Lucifer's victims become willingly self-deceived.
Throughout these arguments we will also make frequent use of the term iniquity to mean that Lucifer did not, as defense counsel suggests, just stumble into his transgression. The idea at the heart of iniquity is a bit complex. So, to build a conceptual framework, we must first underscore what we already know, that we are not a race of automatons. We possess free will and along with this choice endowment comes responsibility and the potential for error, evil, sin and iniquity.
While we are free to choose, there are certain preconditions. Though we are the final arbiters of our own destiny; pre-destination and fore-ordination are reality factors. To put it another way, each child of destiny has the power to accept or reject the divine plan. Whether we achieve our first, best destiny is entirely up to us.
Within our wide range of choices are contrastive perfection and imperfection, the mature and the immature, the complete and the incomplete. Between life and death stand the committed and the uncommitted. To every race on every inhabited planet across a far flung universe of universes, Our Creator's message is consistent; "I set before you life and death, therefore choose life."
The first point of law is life, "therefore choose life." We are, first and foremost, commanded to live. Evil, the reverse, would run contrary to survival. Now we often have problems thrust upon us or difficulty letting go of certain things, attitudes and patterns of thought that tend to eclipse or impair an abundant life. Anything that prevents us from living the most abundant life possible is actual or potential evil by this definition. Figuring out what's good and what's evil is part of the growth process, right? Is experience a necessary part of life? Yes! Is there the potential for error? Yes! Are you responsible for your decisions? Of course! Are you unjustly held accountable for everything that goes wrong in your life? Hardly! This case is not so much about the things beyond our control or programmed responses, as it is about gaining control through our free will choices.
Our Father did not create evil although he did create the gift of free will. In so doing he created the potential for evil. Evil did not originate with Lucifer either, though we would maintain that he orchestrated a wholesale conversion of potential evil to actual evil through his persistent choice and promotion of evil.
Although this case is not just about evil, we will review its effects. Learning to prove all things and adhering to that which is good is an essential part of life. There will undoubtedly be errors, bad habits and perhaps even compulsion to overcome. But once we've identified actual or potential evil and continue to choose it, or refuse to let go of it, well, that's sin. I'm afraid we've all engaged in a little of that.
You've heard or read that all have sinned. You've also heard it said that the wages of sin is death. So why aren't we all dead? If justice reigned supreme throughout this universe we probably would be. Fortunately, for all of us, true justice is tempered with mercy and divine justice will not destroy what mercy can save. Mercy takes into account the fact of our weaknesses as growing, imperfect beings. This case is not just about sin either, though we will also consider this phenomenon.
Iniquity, that's what this case is about. It's not about addiction, compulsive behavior or bad habits. It's not something you stumble into, get goaded into or lured into. It's not something we reluctantly choose or are forced to accept in a time of weakness or out of ignorance. It is not an attempt at choosing the lesser of two evils. Iniquity is willful defiance. It is when evil or sin is deliberately chosen because it is contrary to the law. It is the central issue in this case.
Lucifer engaged in iniquity through a deliberate and direct assault on the organizing principle of the universes. He attacked the unifying and coordinating qualities we've come to know as truth, beauty and goodness. Where Our Father sows love, Lucifer would have us sow hatred. Where we would reap love, Lucifer would have us reap ill will. Where our rightful inheritance is family unity, Lucifer advanced chaos.
Some believe that unity is purchased through uniformity. Others hold that unity is only achieved at the expense of honest deliberation. And so I put these questions to you in light of these historical considerations: Was the Lucifer Rebellion quashed? No! Was any effort made to suppress? No! That's not the way we do things here. From the start of the Lucifer rebellion it has been the policy of this government that each individual would be left free and unmolested in his or her choice.
The rebellion was permitted to run its full course. Or, as they say on the planet we are about to consider, "The dragon was loosed for awhile." Why? Because we are dealing with a universe full of free-willed individuals who must be afforded every opportunity to make an informed, deliberate, wholehearted and final choice. Again you may ask, why? It is because the Father desires only the devotion that is voluntary and sophistry proof.
Now that all of the evidence is currently before you, we will review with a special emphasis on one small evolving sphere. Of all the worlds that were quarantined as a result of the Lucifer Rebellion, the clearest example by far of its harmful effect is the planet we have used as our case study throughout this trial. I would again direct your attention to a tiny evolving planet on the back-road to infinity, known to its inhabitants as Earth.
Our Beloved Sovereign's bestowal upon Earth served to augment his Divine Right with Supreme Authority. He became wholly and unreservedly dependent on Our Father and the Family of Man. He lived such a life as he imposes upon the children of His Creation. And His Administration is now the embodiment of Universe Wisdom. It was in this voluntarily assumed humble estate, and upon a confused and disordered planet that the Son of God, as the Son of Man, confronted the forces of darkness.
While to us Earth is known as the world of the cross, it is more than just a marker in space. It has profound meaning to an entire universe. Though it's also more than just a marker in time, to the people of the planet, time is reckoned from the days of Our Lord. Some groups on earth think of it as the fulcrum of time. And, the oldest language in use on the planet is Chinese where the word symbol for Earth is a cross on the horizon. From the time this prophetic element was first introduced to the language of the realm, through present day, the lessons of the cross continue.
We have seen the evidence and we're all aware of what has happened throughout the turbulent history of Earth. Certain megalomanic clergy, royalty and military leaders have jockeyed for position, often in an attempt to exercise total control over human kind. Such struggles for domination continue and most, but not all, are easy to recognize as such. In these arguments though, we will focus our attention on the fleeting shadow of insurrection, the hidden sophistry and the subtle deception.
To accomplish this, we will indulge in a somewhat circumscribed world view. I now direct your attention to a point in time on the planet's western hemisphere where, for the most part, issues of personal freedom are freely debated. The European dark ages are giving way as new opportunities emerge. You may also recall there was a struggle on the North American continent where we witnessed a man by the name of Patrick Henry shouting "Give me liberty or give me death." Following this rallying cry, there was a much-heralded triumph of liberty over oppression that resulted in the birth of a promising new nation. Since that time, within the very same nation, we have seen the concept of liberty take quite a beating, usually in the very name of liberty.
This is where sophistry comes into play. This is where we must learn to recognize the subtle deception we spoke of earlier in these arguments. Look, we each have a pretty basic understanding of liberty. We think of freedom, independence, emancipation, self-determination, autonomy, etc. All very good concepts and each related, in its own way, to the gift of free will. This is fertile ground for quality growth and a testing ground for us all.
With respect to the sophistry, to the subtle deception, this is where it all begins. And this is also where it ends. For at the very heart of iniquity stands Lucifer, the self-proclaimed "God of Liberty." For his cause and for these proceedings the true meaning of liberty is pivotal. As he promoted and claimed credit for liberty, the idea of gratefully receiving God's gift of true liberty was eclipsed by Lucifer's insatiable appetite, and his propensity for taking license in the name of liberty.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, at what point does responsibility kick in? To put it another, more personal way, has another individual ever violated you? If so, wasn't that person just exercising their freedom? At what point does their exercise of freedom adversely impact you and violate your rights? At what point should another person's freedom be conditioned or curtailed?
On Earth the concept of freedom is treasured. And yet there is so much confusion concerning this very concept that liberty is in serious jeopardy. And this is largely because of a gradual and unrecognized encroachment made possible through an adulterated concept of liberty featuring the routine divorce of rights and responsibility. It is often overlooked due to the failure to make a distinction between liberty and license.
On Earth that population's inability, combined with its unwillingness to recognize and expose certain sophistries, led to a definite retrograde motion where societal evolution is concerned. The most basic human institutions have been destabilized to the point that they are widely regarded as untrustworthy. Much of what was once foundational is no longer deemed desirable. An impetuous leadership has dismissed mature and dependable systems of values in favor of poorly defined, baser sets.
That's the broad sketch, ladies and gentlemen. There will be a lot of clarifying detail offered as we proceed throughout this presentation. But first, I want to say a few words about the special mandate guiding my team.
In this, the argument phase of Lucifer's trial, we have been asked by the court to represent the interests of, and advocate for, the innocent children of a vast universe. That is precisely what we intend to do with special emphasis on the consequential damages. This will take some time, so make yourselves comfortable.
As it is with the breakup of any family, it is the children who have suffered the most. It is the children who are often used for leverage by unscrupulous and self-indulgent elders. These children emerge out of balance as victims of process and control. They have so much taken from them because they are too young, too inexperienced, and lack the power to protect themselves.
Ours is a serious mandate. Though we will take you through many of the same issues reviewed by the other parties to this case, we are concerned with the flow downs, the fallout and we are re-examining these issues to understand the effect on the innocent child. Our beloved Sovereign addressed this issue on Earth two thousand years ago when he said, "As for he who causes these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were tied about his neck and he were cast into the sea."
We will focus on the children and their increased likelihood of stumbling as a result of Lucifer's self-indulgent behavior. We will leave the question of Lucifer's punishment for the remedy phase.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to truly advocate for children without considering the plight of those engaged in, and charged with, responsibility for their care. We're telling you this now so you will understand why this review will often venture into areas that seem to be more about the adults than the children. Just remember that we must view the problem in the context of nurture and parenting. And that it takes healthy informed parents to best serve the interests of their children.
Closing Arguments:
This jury has seen the results of Lucifer's folly. We've traced it for you from its birth through its effect on the popular culture native to each of the rebellion-torn worlds. Now it's time to move on, on to the issue of responsibility and accountability. As you withdraw from this courtroom for deliberations, we would like for you to ask yourselves the following three questions: One; what exactly was Lucifer's transgression? Two; what was the effect on those in his care? And three; even if he ran afoul of the law unintentionally, once he realized that his actions were having a harmful effect on those in his care, did he have sufficient opportunity to recognize the error and take corrective steps?
Now we believe we have demonstrated that Lucifer did not simply err, but that he willfully and deliberately undermined the best interests of his younger siblings during the time he had been entrusted with their nurture and care. He did this in three ways: First, he denied the reality as well as the authority of the Father. Second, he betrayed the trust vested in him while challenging the authority and veracity of those who remained faithful to that trust. Finally, he actively sought to thwart Gods' purpose with respect to the progressive development and ascendancy of human kind.
Lucifer's technique involved a cruel, sometimes subtle deception as a means of encroaching on his fellows. Now what exactly do we mean by encroachment? The local lexicon defines the word as a gradual invasion by stealth, an infringement or an intrusion. Though this is a workable definition, in this case there is also a sophistry component that we will term "self-aggrandizement." This latter concept describes the means whereby Lucifer's victims become willingly self-deceived.
Throughout these arguments we will also make frequent use of the term iniquity to mean that Lucifer did not, as defense counsel suggests, just stumble into his transgression. The idea at the heart of iniquity is a bit complex. So, to build a conceptual framework, we must first underscore what we already know, that we are not a race of automatons. We possess free will and along with this choice endowment comes responsibility and the potential for error, evil, sin and iniquity.
While we are free to choose, there are certain preconditions. Though we are the final arbiters of our own destiny; pre-destination and fore-ordination are reality factors. To put it another way, each child of destiny has the power to accept or reject the divine plan. Whether we achieve our first, best destiny is entirely up to us.
Within our wide range of choices are contrastive perfection and imperfection, the mature and the immature, the complete and the incomplete. Between life and death stand the committed and the uncommitted. To every race on every inhabited planet across a far flung universe of universes, Our Creator's message is consistent; "I set before you life and death, therefore choose life."
The first point of law is life, "therefore choose life." We are, first and foremost, commanded to live. Evil, the reverse, would run contrary to survival. Now we often have problems thrust upon us or difficulty letting go of certain things, attitudes and patterns of thought that tend to eclipse or impair an abundant life. Anything that prevents us from living the most abundant life possible is actual or potential evil by this definition. Figuring out what's good and what's evil is part of the growth process, right? Is experience a necessary part of life? Yes! Is there the potential for error? Yes! Are you responsible for your decisions? Of course! Are you unjustly held accountable for everything that goes wrong in your life? Hardly! This case is not so much about the things beyond our control or programmed responses, as it is about gaining control through our free will choices.
Our Father did not create evil although he did create the gift of free will. In so doing he created the potential for evil. Evil did not originate with Lucifer either, though we would maintain that he orchestrated a wholesale conversion of potential evil to actual evil through his persistent choice and promotion of evil.
Although this case is not just about evil, we will review its effects. Learning to prove all things and adhering to that which is good is an essential part of life. There will undoubtedly be errors, bad habits and perhaps even compulsion to overcome. But once we've identified actual or potential evil and continue to choose it, or refuse to let go of it, well, that's sin. I'm afraid we've all engaged in a little of that.
You've heard or read that all have sinned. You've also heard it said that the wages of sin is death. So why aren't we all dead? If justice reigned supreme throughout this universe we probably would be. Fortunately, for all of us, true justice is tempered with mercy and divine justice will not destroy what mercy can save. Mercy takes into account the fact of our weaknesses as growing, imperfect beings. This case is not just about sin either, though we will also consider this phenomenon.
Iniquity, that's what this case is about. It's not about addiction, compulsive behavior or bad habits. It's not something you stumble into, get goaded into or lured into. It's not something we reluctantly choose or are forced to accept in a time of weakness or out of ignorance. It is not an attempt at choosing the lesser of two evils. Iniquity is willful defiance. It is when evil or sin is deliberately chosen because it is contrary to the law. It is the central issue in this case.
Lucifer engaged in iniquity through a deliberate and direct assault on the organizing principle of the universes. He attacked the unifying and coordinating qualities we've come to know as truth, beauty and goodness. Where Our Father sows love, Lucifer would have us sow hatred. Where we would reap love, Lucifer would have us reap ill will. Where our rightful inheritance is family unity, Lucifer advanced chaos.
Some believe that unity is purchased through uniformity. Others hold that unity is only achieved at the expense of honest deliberation. And so I put these questions to you in light of these historical considerations: Was the Lucifer Rebellion quashed? No! Was any effort made to suppress? No! That's not the way we do things here. From the start of the Lucifer rebellion it has been the policy of this government that each individual would be left free and unmolested in his or her choice.
The rebellion was permitted to run its full course. Or, as they say on the planet we are about to consider, "The dragon was loosed for awhile." Why? Because we are dealing with a universe full of free-willed individuals who must be afforded every opportunity to make an informed, deliberate, wholehearted and final choice. Again you may ask, why? It is because the Father desires only the devotion that is voluntary and sophistry proof.
Now that all of the evidence is currently before you, we will review with a special emphasis on one small evolving sphere. Of all the worlds that were quarantined as a result of the Lucifer Rebellion, the clearest example by far of its harmful effect is the planet we have used as our case study throughout this trial. I would again direct your attention to a tiny evolving planet on the back-road to infinity, known to its inhabitants as Earth.
Our Beloved Sovereign's bestowal upon Earth served to augment his Divine Right with Supreme Authority. He became wholly and unreservedly dependent on Our Father and the Family of Man. He lived such a life as he imposes upon the children of His Creation. And His Administration is now the embodiment of Universe Wisdom. It was in this voluntarily assumed humble estate, and upon a confused and disordered planet that the Son of God, as the Son of Man, confronted the forces of darkness.
While to us Earth is known as the world of the cross, it is more than just a marker in space. It has profound meaning to an entire universe. Though it's also more than just a marker in time, to the people of the planet, time is reckoned from the days of Our Lord. Some groups on earth think of it as the fulcrum of time. And, the oldest language in use on the planet is Chinese where the word symbol for Earth is a cross on the horizon. From the time this prophetic element was first introduced to the language of the realm, through present day, the lessons of the cross continue.
We have seen the evidence and we're all aware of what has happened throughout the turbulent history of Earth. Certain megalomanic clergy, royalty and military leaders have jockeyed for position, often in an attempt to exercise total control over human kind. Such struggles for domination continue and most, but not all, are easy to recognize as such. In these arguments though, we will focus our attention on the fleeting shadow of insurrection, the hidden sophistry and the subtle deception.
To accomplish this, we will indulge in a somewhat circumscribed world view. I now direct your attention to a point in time on the planet's western hemisphere where, for the most part, issues of personal freedom are freely debated. The European dark ages are giving way as new opportunities emerge. You may also recall there was a struggle on the North American continent where we witnessed a man by the name of Patrick Henry shouting "Give me liberty or give me death." Following this rallying cry, there was a much-heralded triumph of liberty over oppression that resulted in the birth of a promising new nation. Since that time, within the very same nation, we have seen the concept of liberty take quite a beating, usually in the very name of liberty.
This is where sophistry comes into play. This is where we must learn to recognize the subtle deception we spoke of earlier in these arguments. Look, we each have a pretty basic understanding of liberty. We think of freedom, independence, emancipation, self-determination, autonomy, etc. All very good concepts and each related, in its own way, to the gift of free will. This is fertile ground for quality growth and a testing ground for us all.
With respect to the sophistry, to the subtle deception, this is where it all begins. And this is also where it ends. For at the very heart of iniquity stands Lucifer, the self-proclaimed "God of Liberty." For his cause and for these proceedings the true meaning of liberty is pivotal. As he promoted and claimed credit for liberty, the idea of gratefully receiving God's gift of true liberty was eclipsed by Lucifer's insatiable appetite, and his propensity for taking license in the name of liberty.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, at what point does responsibility kick in? To put it another, more personal way, has another individual ever violated you? If so, wasn't that person just exercising their freedom? At what point does their exercise of freedom adversely impact you and violate your rights? At what point should another person's freedom be conditioned or curtailed?
On Earth the concept of freedom is treasured. And yet there is so much confusion concerning this very concept that liberty is in serious jeopardy. And this is largely because of a gradual and unrecognized encroachment made possible through an adulterated concept of liberty featuring the routine divorce of rights and responsibility. It is often overlooked due to the failure to make a distinction between liberty and license.
On Earth that population's inability, combined with its unwillingness to recognize and expose certain sophistries, led to a definite retrograde motion where societal evolution is concerned. The most basic human institutions have been destabilized to the point that they are widely regarded as untrustworthy. Much of what was once foundational is no longer deemed desirable. An impetuous leadership has dismissed mature and dependable systems of values in favor of poorly defined, baser sets.
That's the broad sketch, ladies and gentlemen. There will be a lot of clarifying detail offered as we proceed throughout this presentation. But first, I want to say a few words about the special mandate guiding my team.
In this, the argument phase of Lucifer's trial, we have been asked by the court to represent the interests of, and advocate for, the innocent children of a vast universe. That is precisely what we intend to do with special emphasis on the consequential damages. This will take some time, so make yourselves comfortable.
As it is with the breakup of any family, it is the children who have suffered the most. It is the children who are often used for leverage by unscrupulous and self-indulgent elders. These children emerge out of balance as victims of process and control. They have so much taken from them because they are too young, too inexperienced, and lack the power to protect themselves.
Ours is a serious mandate. Though we will take you through many of the same issues reviewed by the other parties to this case, we are concerned with the flow downs, the fallout and we are re-examining these issues to understand the effect on the innocent child. Our beloved Sovereign addressed this issue on Earth two thousand years ago when he said, "As for he who causes these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were tied about his neck and he were cast into the sea."
We will focus on the children and their increased likelihood of stumbling as a result of Lucifer's self-indulgent behavior. We will leave the question of Lucifer's punishment for the remedy phase.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to truly advocate for children without considering the plight of those engaged in, and charged with, responsibility for their care. We're telling you this now so you will understand why this review will often venture into areas that seem to be more about the adults than the children. Just remember that we must view the problem in the context of nurture and parenting. And that it takes healthy informed parents to best serve the interests of their children.
LICENSE MASQUERADING AS LIBERTY
"Just as every cop is a criminal and all the sinners, saints. When heads is tails just call me Lucifer. I'm in need of some restraint." (The Rolling Stones)
When Lucifer turned his back on divine obligations he came to embrace a peculiar, self-motivated variation on liberty that is unintelligent, unconditioned and uncontrolled.
It is unintelligent because where basic intelligence and true liberty are progressively related to reality; Lucifer's approach ignored the inevitable consequence of building foundations on a plane of unreality. He denied the simple truth that sin is a technique of self-obliteration, and that within each sin is concealed the seed of its own destruction.
It is unconditioned because where true liberty is tempered, ever mindful and respectful of the rights of others; Lucifer's brand would invariably lead to abject bondage. Pride of self, self-deception, self-assertion, self-determination and self-motivation yield a selfish desire to crave and possess and, if left unchecked, lead to the eventual exploitation of others.
It is uncontrolled because as true liberty is the reward for progress; impatience and self-indulgence short circuit the time required for growth thereby making self-control and self-mastery ever elusive goals.
An experiential universe does not operate independently of time, or in a way that is unmindful of time, at least not for long. To circumvent time would eventuate in the large-scale theft of personal liberty as it would serve to deprive each individual of the opportunity for meaningful growth. It stands as the greatest threat to freewill choice, and the opportunity to participate in one's own creation, just to the extent that it creates victims of circumstance.
No parent would allow an infant to cross a busy road, to play with matches or to follow just any pleasing stranger. Adolescents too, while quick to assert adult status, need the wisdom, judgment and experience of parents. Two eyes are essential to depth of perspective. Two complementary parents can give the child a superior understanding of those things, meanings and values that are the essential building blocks of true character. While adversity may be occasioned on families, only that child deprived of challenges through meaningful diversity is truly impoverished.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the human races of Earth are at a stage of relative infancy despite assertions to the contrary. It is clear because it is only a child that evaluates every experience almost exclusively in accordance with its pleasure content. That's why Lucifer's personal liberty package was such an easy sell. It appealed to certain debased tendencies of the immature races and excited those who found themselves under the rule of oppressors and tyrants operating within an immature evolutionary framework.
Working for and sowing seeds of self-denial for the attainment of a worthy goal, societal or personal, is the mark of maturity. Look beyond the false pretenses of the self-proclaimed "God of Liberty" to the confusion in his wake. It is easy to understand the broad appeal of rights without responsibility, of perks without consequences. What chance did the young races of Earth ever have in the face of such temptation?
Even those of the higher orders who've enjoyed a more refined nurturing environment and insight from the time of their creation were not immune to the seduction. There were tremendous losses among the untested orders of life as quantified by the Revelator's statement, "and his tail drew a third part of the stars of heaven and cast them down in darkness."
On Earth, in John's day, the dragon had long since become the symbol of the Lucifer Rebellion. And what's with the dragon's head or heads? It seems that with every written account on Earth, the beast grows more heads. When you cut off the head of a dragon does it grow another? Is the dragon also the beast? Do multiple heads suggest multiple personalities in the syndrome sense, modes in the modal sense or separate distinct personalities in the individual sense? When scholars, through footnotes recently added to Earth's historical record, state that the devil, Satan and Lucifer are one and the same, do they really know? What is the basis for such "knowledge"?
Sojourners on the planet are understandably confused about the beast. Such symbolic representations at face value would seem to have been outgrown. After all, if they only serve to confuse they should be discarded. But they were chosen because they represent an ongoing struggle with a morphing, shape-shifting adversary whose very nature is difficult to comprehend. The caricature is not only a correct one, it is a serviceable one.
The first three heads of the dragon, Lucifer, Satan and the so-called Devil are now in custody. Abbadon, Beelzebub and their rebel associates are still on Earth. Once again, it begs the question, why? Why would we delay the apprehension and adjudication of these and other lesser deceivers? Why not fully eradicate the demonic influence altogether for the good of the planet's general population?
Why? Because the knowledge of good and evil is not something to simply be contained once the issues have been raised. Such an insurrection cannot be contained through a cowardly suppression or other arbitrary method. It would never be fully and finally settled absent discourse.
In addition to the issues concerning free will mentioned earlier in these arguments, the situation demands the fullest, most exhaustive examination and debate. An infection is not to be ignored and sunlight is, after all, still the best disinfectant. If, while on Earth, the person Jesus referred to as "the prince of this world" is also the "prince of darkness" what does that highly concentrated statement mean to the people of the planet? Does it imply some sort of spiritual doomsday shroud ala Dr. Strangelove? Would such a shroud prevent the disinfecting sunlight from penetrating the minds and hearts of those infected?
Chicago Mobster Sam Giancana, while reflecting upon the death of his wife and of his father, said; "Ever notice how the sunlight and the shadows make a cemetery look like rows of piano keys?" He went on to tell his brother "no matter how you play, this …, this is where you end up."
It must be understood that just as the hope of divine character and the wellspring of spiritual attainment are found deep within each of us, so it is for the people of Earth. For those who must evolve, faith must be born from within. If this faith is permitted to grow strong, it becomes an effective shield against the sophistries of sin. Light dispels darkness and even when all about them is in darkness, people of faith enjoy a Great Spirit luminosity that emanates from within. They exude a light of Truth that is capable of penetrating any shroud of darkness except, perhaps, the one that is self-imposed. As the prophet said: "when the light of the eyes is darkness, how great is that darkness."
When Lucifer turned his back on divine obligations he came to embrace a peculiar, self-motivated variation on liberty that is unintelligent, unconditioned and uncontrolled.
It is unintelligent because where basic intelligence and true liberty are progressively related to reality; Lucifer's approach ignored the inevitable consequence of building foundations on a plane of unreality. He denied the simple truth that sin is a technique of self-obliteration, and that within each sin is concealed the seed of its own destruction.
It is unconditioned because where true liberty is tempered, ever mindful and respectful of the rights of others; Lucifer's brand would invariably lead to abject bondage. Pride of self, self-deception, self-assertion, self-determination and self-motivation yield a selfish desire to crave and possess and, if left unchecked, lead to the eventual exploitation of others.
It is uncontrolled because as true liberty is the reward for progress; impatience and self-indulgence short circuit the time required for growth thereby making self-control and self-mastery ever elusive goals.
An experiential universe does not operate independently of time, or in a way that is unmindful of time, at least not for long. To circumvent time would eventuate in the large-scale theft of personal liberty as it would serve to deprive each individual of the opportunity for meaningful growth. It stands as the greatest threat to freewill choice, and the opportunity to participate in one's own creation, just to the extent that it creates victims of circumstance.
No parent would allow an infant to cross a busy road, to play with matches or to follow just any pleasing stranger. Adolescents too, while quick to assert adult status, need the wisdom, judgment and experience of parents. Two eyes are essential to depth of perspective. Two complementary parents can give the child a superior understanding of those things, meanings and values that are the essential building blocks of true character. While adversity may be occasioned on families, only that child deprived of challenges through meaningful diversity is truly impoverished.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the human races of Earth are at a stage of relative infancy despite assertions to the contrary. It is clear because it is only a child that evaluates every experience almost exclusively in accordance with its pleasure content. That's why Lucifer's personal liberty package was such an easy sell. It appealed to certain debased tendencies of the immature races and excited those who found themselves under the rule of oppressors and tyrants operating within an immature evolutionary framework.
Working for and sowing seeds of self-denial for the attainment of a worthy goal, societal or personal, is the mark of maturity. Look beyond the false pretenses of the self-proclaimed "God of Liberty" to the confusion in his wake. It is easy to understand the broad appeal of rights without responsibility, of perks without consequences. What chance did the young races of Earth ever have in the face of such temptation?
Even those of the higher orders who've enjoyed a more refined nurturing environment and insight from the time of their creation were not immune to the seduction. There were tremendous losses among the untested orders of life as quantified by the Revelator's statement, "and his tail drew a third part of the stars of heaven and cast them down in darkness."
On Earth, in John's day, the dragon had long since become the symbol of the Lucifer Rebellion. And what's with the dragon's head or heads? It seems that with every written account on Earth, the beast grows more heads. When you cut off the head of a dragon does it grow another? Is the dragon also the beast? Do multiple heads suggest multiple personalities in the syndrome sense, modes in the modal sense or separate distinct personalities in the individual sense? When scholars, through footnotes recently added to Earth's historical record, state that the devil, Satan and Lucifer are one and the same, do they really know? What is the basis for such "knowledge"?
Sojourners on the planet are understandably confused about the beast. Such symbolic representations at face value would seem to have been outgrown. After all, if they only serve to confuse they should be discarded. But they were chosen because they represent an ongoing struggle with a morphing, shape-shifting adversary whose very nature is difficult to comprehend. The caricature is not only a correct one, it is a serviceable one.
The first three heads of the dragon, Lucifer, Satan and the so-called Devil are now in custody. Abbadon, Beelzebub and their rebel associates are still on Earth. Once again, it begs the question, why? Why would we delay the apprehension and adjudication of these and other lesser deceivers? Why not fully eradicate the demonic influence altogether for the good of the planet's general population?
Why? Because the knowledge of good and evil is not something to simply be contained once the issues have been raised. Such an insurrection cannot be contained through a cowardly suppression or other arbitrary method. It would never be fully and finally settled absent discourse.
In addition to the issues concerning free will mentioned earlier in these arguments, the situation demands the fullest, most exhaustive examination and debate. An infection is not to be ignored and sunlight is, after all, still the best disinfectant. If, while on Earth, the person Jesus referred to as "the prince of this world" is also the "prince of darkness" what does that highly concentrated statement mean to the people of the planet? Does it imply some sort of spiritual doomsday shroud ala Dr. Strangelove? Would such a shroud prevent the disinfecting sunlight from penetrating the minds and hearts of those infected?
Chicago Mobster Sam Giancana, while reflecting upon the death of his wife and of his father, said; "Ever notice how the sunlight and the shadows make a cemetery look like rows of piano keys?" He went on to tell his brother "no matter how you play, this …, this is where you end up."
It must be understood that just as the hope of divine character and the wellspring of spiritual attainment are found deep within each of us, so it is for the people of Earth. For those who must evolve, faith must be born from within. If this faith is permitted to grow strong, it becomes an effective shield against the sophistries of sin. Light dispels darkness and even when all about them is in darkness, people of faith enjoy a Great Spirit luminosity that emanates from within. They exude a light of Truth that is capable of penetrating any shroud of darkness except, perhaps, the one that is self-imposed. As the prophet said: "when the light of the eyes is darkness, how great is that darkness."
THE MOST CRUCIAL STRUGGLE
"The devil made me do it!" (Geraldine)
Human beings exhibit a natural tendency to blame shift, to avoid accountability. The "Devil" thereby receives much credit that he doesn't deserve. We, as growing individuals, each have a lot of sorting and sifting ahead of us and we all share the tendency to be misled by too much self-contemplation. That is not to say that seduction by others should not be considered as a mitigating factor, but the apostate princes have been largely impotent since the days of the cross. Those individual humans ensnared by sophistry since that time cannot deny that personal choice was a contributing, if not the controlling factor.
If Lucifer's folly was to act in ways unintelligent, unconditioned and uncontrolled then what's to keep each of us, as individuals, from the same indiscretions? How can we be sure that our own intelligence, conditioning and controls are solidly in place, in accordance with the grand design, the Creator's will for us? Amidst all the noise and confusion, is there a reliable rule of thumb for determining God's will?
There is! But first, we must recognize just who the Father is, and that it's not enough to simply accept the Fatherhood of God. The Father is the first source and center of all reality. He is the one and only uncaused cause. And, while his dwelling place is the geographic center of Infinity he is, at the same time, omnipresent. But, there is a concurrent truth that must also be embraced.
Fatherhood implies offspring. God is first and foremost a divine parent. Our Father's children must also be recognized and loved. Any Earthly movement that has tried to rejoice in the fatherhood of God without also accepting the brotherhood and sisterhood of human kind has fallen far short of what the Father expects. Religious groups that operate as islands unto themselves have only contributed to a world of misery.
Lucifer knew that to deny the person and the will of God is to flirt with cosmic psychosis. To be fully compatible with the cosmos, God-knowing persons exercising their personal liberties must be reality centered, operate in accordance with the golden rule and at the same time make allowances for individual growth. Experiential growth is always dependant upon diminishing external restraints linked to augmenting internal restraints. Moving from the state of being controlled to self-control and self-mastery depends on these and other factors of growth.
Maintaining self-control in an unchanging, static environment is one thing; exercising self-mastery through a series of challenges in an ever-changing environment is the true test. If getting reality centered is prerequisite to intelligence, then by all means, call upon God. It would also be helpful, in this case, to further examine the evolution of the subject world and phenomena associated with its unique reality presentation.
So much of what constitutes disappointment to the Earth bound can be traced to faith problems. The tendency towards misplaced faith must be understood, and to be understood must be seen in the context of those numerous dependencies and other problems associated with growth. We begin our examination with, what has come to be known on Earth as, the dependency cycle.
Humans cycle through many things, including what they call dependence, co-dependence, independence and interdependence, to what we will now term utter-dependence. Just when they think they have achieved control, have grown out of dependency or co-dependency relationships, their horizons are broadened and their perspective changes. They are reminded of the interrelated larger family. As their much sought after independence turns into a hollow loneliness and gets traded for interdependence they move God ward. This is contrary to what the popular culture would lead them to believe. The height of maturity is achieved when, as cosmic citizens, they recognize the Creator, Controller and Upholder while realizing they are utterly and completely dependent on God as well as the things and beings of God.
Now you may be wondering, what does this have to do with, or how does this mesh with, self-control? Let me answer that with another question or two. Is a rudderless ship in control? Could an individual attempting to navigate without the benefit of rudder, charts, sextant, knowledge of atmospheric and sea conditions or familiarity with the craft truly be called its master? Or, would the graduating class of fourteen ninety two vote such a person "most likely to fall off the edge of the Earth?"
To achieve any form of mastery one must not only know where they are going, but how to get there. They must also develop a healthy respect for the obstacles, physical and psychological, along the way.
Individual humans will, as a normal part of growth, continue to experience new centricities and eccentricities not unlike the paradigm shift that took place as a result of the Copernican revolution on Earth. For example, the egocentric infant is acutely aware of the mother's revolutions about him. From his perceptual standpoint or lay-point, he is the center of infinity, but only until such time as he is challenged.
Like the child, whole societies must trade childlike perceptions for larger realities if they are to grow. The egocentric is traded for the family-centric. Geocentric planetary systems are traded for heliocentric ones and now, thanks to space telescopes orbiting Earth, great spiral galaxies are seen to be moving about some unseen universe center. The olden prophet described this center as obscured by light, and behold, from the modern Earth astronomer's viewpoint it has been revealed, the prophet was right. But there's so much more to the cosmos than astrophysics. And it takes more than three dimensional thinking to comprehend what is far more than holographic paradigm.
But, as a direct consequence of the Lucifer insurrection, the human masses have been conditioned for disbelief. Like fleas in a closed jar, humans have practiced thought under a conceptual ceiling. Once the lid is removed the fleas can't jump out of the jar due to muscle conditioning. Likewise individual humans have limited their leaps of faith as well as their flights of fancy for reasons directly traceable to an unhealthy conditioning that yields in turn a variety of cognitive distortions obscuring truth as well as fact. This holds for the wage slave, the abused spouse or even whole societies.
As they do with a series of love affairs gone bad, humans oftentimes feel they can avoid the frustrations associated with misplaced faith simply by giving up. Often, upon considering their disillusionment and general skepticism, those resident on the planet at the beginning of the third millennium point to some major personal or historical event as a significant factor contributing to a so called "loss of faith." We will examine just a few of these factors.
According to much of the Western Hemisphere's conventional and contemporary wisdom, the most popular justification cited for losing faith is a once childlike enchantment with Santa Claus. Many adults as well as adolescents, for reasons not carefully considered, equate the belief in God to believing in Santa.
North American adults embracing the tradition of Santa generally acknowledge commercial embellishments by a certain beverage maker. They trace the symbol back through the ad campaign of a retail store chain, back through the Dutch tradition of Sinter Klaas (Saint Nicholas), to the fourth century and certain facts surrounding the life of the Bishop of Myra.
There, in what is now modern day Turkey was an unpretentious, kind-hearted man who took impish delight in brightening up the lives of those less fortunate. Whether it was by tossing a coin purse through an open window or leaving a goose by the front door, this man exemplified giving.
Now even some Christians object to the tradition of Santa because, after all, the Christmas season is supposed to be about the birth of Jesus. Of course, after they are seriously vested in this line of argument, they discover it was Christian society that moved the feast of Saint Nicholas from December sixth to December twenty fifth. On further investigation, they find no historical record supporting December twenty fifth as the day of incarnation.
The facts suggest that Paul, in extending the franchise, attached a tradition that was very much in vogue throughout his home province of Tarsus. That tradition was an annual celebration by the Mithraic cult. Their holiday focused on the steadily increasing daylight hours following the winter solstice, seen as heralding the triumph of the god of light over the god of darkness.
Almost overnight Jesus, as the Light of the World and the Light of Truth, displaced the Mithraic tradition much as greatly enhanced value often displaces fact. Of course this creates even greater problems for those unable to discern, or unwilling to accept, the difference.
There are those of us who are, to use the vernacular, simply hell bent, whose light of truth is refracted to the point where its spectral array is almost imperceptible. There are some whose concept of beauty is selectively filtered and so contextualized that the gift itself is never beheld. And there are others of us to whom goodness is systematically disqualified so that our own righteousness may never be challenged and our rightful inheritance is never enjoyed.
As for a benevolent Santa Clause, if, despite commercialization, the modern tradition finds its roots in the life of this good man from Myra, we submit that while the story of Santa as handed down may not be altogether factual, it is in the larger sense true. And we pray that the tradition will be sustained to the extent that it appeals to a spirit of generosity.
One can not compensate for lost truth with mere facts, especially questionable facts. For those not inclined to faith there will always be reasons aplenty to support faithlessness. To those who cultivate faith or who possess a strong faith there can still be problems. Humans who place their faith in humans and human institutions are courting disappointment. From assassinations to inquisitions, from the first examples of genocide to the twentieth century holocaust to the problem of pedophile priests and bad faith bishops, there is no shortage of man made disillusionment.
There is no reason to expect that the most basic human institutions are immune to such maladies. And this is evidenced by the erosion of civilized standards. Certain devotees of Lucifer and his values have been highly successful at redefining virtue. Mercy is rejected with increasing contempt and disdain. Some continue to choose blindness to cosmic relationships. Chruchianity continues to sell indulgences. Divorcing parents indulge their anger at the expense of their children. Powerful simpletons in government interpret freedom of religion as meaning freedom from religion.
Until such time as those embracing sin have made the full choice of their own moral bankruptcy and spiritual extinction, things will get worse, not better, for the people of Earth.
Enduring justice will always be predicated on the laws that God himself has established. Although unlimited in potential and while certainly not under the law, God is limited by his own volition as expressed through His laws, and as they pertain to the physical universe, life and interpersonal relationships. Lucifer did not have to violate the law to understand the outcome of his rebellion any more than an Earth scientist must continually retest for the presence of gravity. The results are and were clearly foreseeable in each case.
Human beings exhibit a natural tendency to blame shift, to avoid accountability. The "Devil" thereby receives much credit that he doesn't deserve. We, as growing individuals, each have a lot of sorting and sifting ahead of us and we all share the tendency to be misled by too much self-contemplation. That is not to say that seduction by others should not be considered as a mitigating factor, but the apostate princes have been largely impotent since the days of the cross. Those individual humans ensnared by sophistry since that time cannot deny that personal choice was a contributing, if not the controlling factor.
If Lucifer's folly was to act in ways unintelligent, unconditioned and uncontrolled then what's to keep each of us, as individuals, from the same indiscretions? How can we be sure that our own intelligence, conditioning and controls are solidly in place, in accordance with the grand design, the Creator's will for us? Amidst all the noise and confusion, is there a reliable rule of thumb for determining God's will?
There is! But first, we must recognize just who the Father is, and that it's not enough to simply accept the Fatherhood of God. The Father is the first source and center of all reality. He is the one and only uncaused cause. And, while his dwelling place is the geographic center of Infinity he is, at the same time, omnipresent. But, there is a concurrent truth that must also be embraced.
Fatherhood implies offspring. God is first and foremost a divine parent. Our Father's children must also be recognized and loved. Any Earthly movement that has tried to rejoice in the fatherhood of God without also accepting the brotherhood and sisterhood of human kind has fallen far short of what the Father expects. Religious groups that operate as islands unto themselves have only contributed to a world of misery.
Lucifer knew that to deny the person and the will of God is to flirt with cosmic psychosis. To be fully compatible with the cosmos, God-knowing persons exercising their personal liberties must be reality centered, operate in accordance with the golden rule and at the same time make allowances for individual growth. Experiential growth is always dependant upon diminishing external restraints linked to augmenting internal restraints. Moving from the state of being controlled to self-control and self-mastery depends on these and other factors of growth.
Maintaining self-control in an unchanging, static environment is one thing; exercising self-mastery through a series of challenges in an ever-changing environment is the true test. If getting reality centered is prerequisite to intelligence, then by all means, call upon God. It would also be helpful, in this case, to further examine the evolution of the subject world and phenomena associated with its unique reality presentation.
So much of what constitutes disappointment to the Earth bound can be traced to faith problems. The tendency towards misplaced faith must be understood, and to be understood must be seen in the context of those numerous dependencies and other problems associated with growth. We begin our examination with, what has come to be known on Earth as, the dependency cycle.
Humans cycle through many things, including what they call dependence, co-dependence, independence and interdependence, to what we will now term utter-dependence. Just when they think they have achieved control, have grown out of dependency or co-dependency relationships, their horizons are broadened and their perspective changes. They are reminded of the interrelated larger family. As their much sought after independence turns into a hollow loneliness and gets traded for interdependence they move God ward. This is contrary to what the popular culture would lead them to believe. The height of maturity is achieved when, as cosmic citizens, they recognize the Creator, Controller and Upholder while realizing they are utterly and completely dependent on God as well as the things and beings of God.
Now you may be wondering, what does this have to do with, or how does this mesh with, self-control? Let me answer that with another question or two. Is a rudderless ship in control? Could an individual attempting to navigate without the benefit of rudder, charts, sextant, knowledge of atmospheric and sea conditions or familiarity with the craft truly be called its master? Or, would the graduating class of fourteen ninety two vote such a person "most likely to fall off the edge of the Earth?"
To achieve any form of mastery one must not only know where they are going, but how to get there. They must also develop a healthy respect for the obstacles, physical and psychological, along the way.
Individual humans will, as a normal part of growth, continue to experience new centricities and eccentricities not unlike the paradigm shift that took place as a result of the Copernican revolution on Earth. For example, the egocentric infant is acutely aware of the mother's revolutions about him. From his perceptual standpoint or lay-point, he is the center of infinity, but only until such time as he is challenged.
Like the child, whole societies must trade childlike perceptions for larger realities if they are to grow. The egocentric is traded for the family-centric. Geocentric planetary systems are traded for heliocentric ones and now, thanks to space telescopes orbiting Earth, great spiral galaxies are seen to be moving about some unseen universe center. The olden prophet described this center as obscured by light, and behold, from the modern Earth astronomer's viewpoint it has been revealed, the prophet was right. But there's so much more to the cosmos than astrophysics. And it takes more than three dimensional thinking to comprehend what is far more than holographic paradigm.
But, as a direct consequence of the Lucifer insurrection, the human masses have been conditioned for disbelief. Like fleas in a closed jar, humans have practiced thought under a conceptual ceiling. Once the lid is removed the fleas can't jump out of the jar due to muscle conditioning. Likewise individual humans have limited their leaps of faith as well as their flights of fancy for reasons directly traceable to an unhealthy conditioning that yields in turn a variety of cognitive distortions obscuring truth as well as fact. This holds for the wage slave, the abused spouse or even whole societies.
As they do with a series of love affairs gone bad, humans oftentimes feel they can avoid the frustrations associated with misplaced faith simply by giving up. Often, upon considering their disillusionment and general skepticism, those resident on the planet at the beginning of the third millennium point to some major personal or historical event as a significant factor contributing to a so called "loss of faith." We will examine just a few of these factors.
According to much of the Western Hemisphere's conventional and contemporary wisdom, the most popular justification cited for losing faith is a once childlike enchantment with Santa Claus. Many adults as well as adolescents, for reasons not carefully considered, equate the belief in God to believing in Santa.
North American adults embracing the tradition of Santa generally acknowledge commercial embellishments by a certain beverage maker. They trace the symbol back through the ad campaign of a retail store chain, back through the Dutch tradition of Sinter Klaas (Saint Nicholas), to the fourth century and certain facts surrounding the life of the Bishop of Myra.
There, in what is now modern day Turkey was an unpretentious, kind-hearted man who took impish delight in brightening up the lives of those less fortunate. Whether it was by tossing a coin purse through an open window or leaving a goose by the front door, this man exemplified giving.
Now even some Christians object to the tradition of Santa because, after all, the Christmas season is supposed to be about the birth of Jesus. Of course, after they are seriously vested in this line of argument, they discover it was Christian society that moved the feast of Saint Nicholas from December sixth to December twenty fifth. On further investigation, they find no historical record supporting December twenty fifth as the day of incarnation.
The facts suggest that Paul, in extending the franchise, attached a tradition that was very much in vogue throughout his home province of Tarsus. That tradition was an annual celebration by the Mithraic cult. Their holiday focused on the steadily increasing daylight hours following the winter solstice, seen as heralding the triumph of the god of light over the god of darkness.
Almost overnight Jesus, as the Light of the World and the Light of Truth, displaced the Mithraic tradition much as greatly enhanced value often displaces fact. Of course this creates even greater problems for those unable to discern, or unwilling to accept, the difference.
There are those of us who are, to use the vernacular, simply hell bent, whose light of truth is refracted to the point where its spectral array is almost imperceptible. There are some whose concept of beauty is selectively filtered and so contextualized that the gift itself is never beheld. And there are others of us to whom goodness is systematically disqualified so that our own righteousness may never be challenged and our rightful inheritance is never enjoyed.
As for a benevolent Santa Clause, if, despite commercialization, the modern tradition finds its roots in the life of this good man from Myra, we submit that while the story of Santa as handed down may not be altogether factual, it is in the larger sense true. And we pray that the tradition will be sustained to the extent that it appeals to a spirit of generosity.
One can not compensate for lost truth with mere facts, especially questionable facts. For those not inclined to faith there will always be reasons aplenty to support faithlessness. To those who cultivate faith or who possess a strong faith there can still be problems. Humans who place their faith in humans and human institutions are courting disappointment. From assassinations to inquisitions, from the first examples of genocide to the twentieth century holocaust to the problem of pedophile priests and bad faith bishops, there is no shortage of man made disillusionment.
There is no reason to expect that the most basic human institutions are immune to such maladies. And this is evidenced by the erosion of civilized standards. Certain devotees of Lucifer and his values have been highly successful at redefining virtue. Mercy is rejected with increasing contempt and disdain. Some continue to choose blindness to cosmic relationships. Chruchianity continues to sell indulgences. Divorcing parents indulge their anger at the expense of their children. Powerful simpletons in government interpret freedom of religion as meaning freedom from religion.
Until such time as those embracing sin have made the full choice of their own moral bankruptcy and spiritual extinction, things will get worse, not better, for the people of Earth.
Enduring justice will always be predicated on the laws that God himself has established. Although unlimited in potential and while certainly not under the law, God is limited by his own volition as expressed through His laws, and as they pertain to the physical universe, life and interpersonal relationships. Lucifer did not have to violate the law to understand the outcome of his rebellion any more than an Earth scientist must continually retest for the presence of gravity. The results are and were clearly foreseeable in each case.
FROM HERESY TO MANIFEST DESTINY
"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was flat and fifteen minutes ago you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." (Agent K)
Can a study of the physical universe reveal things spiritual by analogy? Let's take a look at an example that may be useful. On Earth, in the late 20th century, a trial took place on the Western Hemisphere to determine the actual inventor of the electronic digital computer. A United States District Court found that the two individuals generally credited with the invention did not in fact invent the machine but derived their fundamental design from one John Vincent Atanasoff.
Atanasoff, a Bulgarian Immigrant, was a physics professor at Iowa State University. He and his assistant, Clifford Berry, built the Atanasoff Berry Computer, the (ABC) to free the students in the good doctor's physics class from the tedium of long algebraic equations. According to Atanasoff, these math problems were so complex, his students were simply missing the point of the physics lesson.
Unlike the later Electronic Numerical Integrator and Calculator (ENIAC), a large scale computer formerly thought to be the first and built to support the Allied effort during World War II, the ABC was built to facilitate discovery. During the trial, Atanasoff displayed his gift and commitment as a teacher, and he taught much about how physical reality is increasingly understood. Here, again, is his testimony in part.
We have a physically objective world, and then after a while we learn to measure in this world, and we gain experience with this world, through our senses. That is the objective world, and then we pass in to the mathematical world. In the mathematical world there are mathematical entities - "x", "y", numbers, and things of that kind. And we bring this mathematical world into isomorphism, or equality in structure with the objective world, so we can manipulate the mathematics and tell what the objective world is going to do; or, as Dirac - a great theoretical physicist - said, to calculate numbers which can be compared with experience, and such is the meaning of all mathematics.
The theoretical physicist, or the mathematical physicist, or the physicist, in the more elementary sense, is merely an artist and he's attempting to depict the external world in terms of these formulations of which I speak, and the question is, if the theory is real. Take Newton, Newton did this; he was a great painter and he painted the field of mechanics for us in certain equational form. Now, the interesting thing is, and the powerful thing is that if you manipulate these equations, they behave in an analogy with the physical world so that by examining these equations, you can tell what the physical world is doing or should do.
Now, suppose it doesn't do it? Why then you have a case where the theory in question has broken down. And when I spoke of Einstein, I was speaking of certain slight deficiencies in Newton's world. Newton did it first, then along came Einstein and Einstein noticed certain discrepancies in the world described by Newton, so he tried a new formulation, generated a new formulation for the theory of relativity, and his theory also is subject to criticism as time goes on.
So much of what Dr. Atanasoff said in those three highly concentrated paragraphs makes perfect sense. But we have again put this testimony before you because it raises three important questions that have a direct bearing on this trial.
First, we will look at the ideal, the process of learning and what Atanasoff referred to as the theory "subject to criticism as time goes on." Second, we will examine this nexus of the arts and sciences whereby the human scientist becomes an artist "attempting to depict the external world." And third, we will attempt to apply, to things spiritual, the sort of reasoning a scientist uses in understanding the physical world. We will also examine the crossover whereby they "behave in an analogy."
While the human view of the physical universes continues to mature, certain theories come to be viewed as law. If the doctor is correct, though the laws have been in effect since the beginning of time, human understanding of them is gained incrementally. Once understood however, the law of gravity can be depended upon throughout the observable universes. God is not like Lucy, pulling the football away just as Charlie Brown is about to kick. Our Father is consistent and his nurture is exemplary while his nursery is all that one would expect from its designer.
Lucifer would have us believe that science is the enemy of faith or that mindless causation could somehow evolve the refined and the complex from the crude and the simple. On Earth two diametrically opposed warring camps blindly perpetuate both ignorance and skepticism. Where one denies evolution, the other denies evolutionary over-control.
Though the skeptic may view life as a cruel hoax, the child of faith grows to appreciate the evolving universes not only as benevolent, but teeming with potential friends. In fact, the whole of finite reality favors growth and can therefore be viewed correctly as nurturing infrastructure.
The skeptic is correct however in pointing out certain aspects of cruelty along the way. As with any schoolyard on Earth, post rebellion life on that planet has an over-abundance of bullies. And throughout Earth history many of these have operated in the name of Christ. When Atanasoff spoke of Einstein's theory as subject to criticism; he did not address the great peril under which scientist's sometimes operate while advancing their theories in the face of a well entrenched priesthood of science or religion, an intolerant, dominant establishment.
On the screen again before you is the written abjuration of Galileo. Please follow along with me as I read it aloud.
I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei of Florence, being 70 years old, swear that I have always believed, believe now and, with God's help, will in the future believe all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach and teach. But since, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the sun is the centre of the Universe and immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the same and that it moves, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatsoever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I wrote and published a book in which I treat this condemned doctrine and bring forward very persuasive arguments in its favour without answering them: I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is of having held and believed that the Sun is at the centre of the Universe and immovable, and that the Earth is not at the centre and that it moves. Therefore, wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith these errors and heresies, and I curse and detest them as well as any other error, heresy or sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. And I swear that for the future I shall neither say nor assert orally or in writing such things as may bring upon me similar suspicions; and if I know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place in which I may be.
Of course, neither the Earth nor its sun is the center of the universe, but the Galileo experience underscores a much bigger concern. Here the man was not even free to advance a theory and was forced to deny his highest conception of truth and fact or lose his mortal life. He did this at the hand of a corrupt authority, in this case a morally bankrupt and spiritually insecure church. Where the Father gave us the right to accept or reject the divine plan, the church engaged in intimidation and coercion. It was a vein attempt to usurp the authority of the Spirit of Truth.
Earlier in these arguments we said that unity is not to be confused with uniformity. Where God bestowed a questioning mind through which we may discover, consider and freely embrace the divine attributes, the institutional church retarded progress through its threats and the demand for lockstep conformity. The Church was never supposed to be the equivalent of Marshall McLuhan's Mechanical Bride.
Let's rephrase the apocryphal question. Does the physical universe foreshadow something higher?
Are academic institutions, with their own entrenched priesthood, better equipped to answer this question? Or are they, like the church of the dark ages, top heavy with dead intellectualism? It is not a question of being an educated fool versus a religious one, for ignorance of the true nature of religion is highly pervasive. The earth bound should ask if lockstep conformity with the fleeting standards of political correctness is somehow superior to such conformity with some other dogma? At some point they will ask; Where is the freedom in either case?
Even on earth true academic freedom always favors God consciousness and eventually yields faith. When the New York Times ran a headline declaring, "God is Dead," there was no adverse effect on the true scientist or the true religionist, for it was only the planet's un-intelligencia, pop-academia and institutional church that had actually coded. As they say in the tuned out generation, it was the right time for karma to run over the dogma. At that time there were those who followed the instructions on a popular bumper sticker that read "Stamp out Reality." Some of these never returned.
To trace the loss of freedom we must examine the values held and the de-facto avoidance of sound value judgments. "If it feels good do it! Do it now! Never delay a moment's pleasure! You owe it to yourself! Someone else is responsible!" These statements constitute the code of pop culture, the creed of the modern pleasure mania and one direct consequence of Lucifer's folly. Not only is this debauched wisdom deified on Earth, but it is firmly embraced and protected by those high in authority on what has now come to be joked about by many of that world's inhabitants as God's goof ball. Rather than characterize every unfortunate circumstance as an "act of God," human beings need to remember that, as they enjoy the gift of self-governance, they must also accept responsibility for it.
The moral and ethical deficiencies of dead intellectual and pseudo-religious hucksterism do not absolve us of individual responsibility for knowing what's what. After all, the consequences are ours as well as Gods.
The entertainment industry on the subject planet defines anything that appeals to baser instincts as "adult material." intended for "mature audiences." Reaching the delusional has thereby become the first promotional consideration for, as we have seen, it is only the immature that evaluate every experience in strict accordance with its pleasure content. And it is an acquiescent citizenry that has allowed the glandular elite to command the attention of children for hours each day.
It should be easy for parents to recognize unwholesome influences. For parents, steering their children away from a "King of Pop," that would engage in public masturbation through videos that target youth is relatively easy. But in a realm where confusion reigns, the correct path isn't always so apparent. And the institutions they do trust aren't always so transparent.
Even at the dawn of the third millennium it became necessary for the Roman Catholic Church to feel the heat of outraged parishioners because it had refused to act on the light of truth. Only when faced with widespread exposure of its dirty little secret with respect to pedophile priests, did the institution finally purge itself of its sick lower echelon. But what happened to the leadership in this case?
The church leadership having lost its moral authority, still enjoys excessive prominence. It has long demanded that children look upon the priest as "father." And so the unconscionable conduct of the "church" in this case included the defamation of fatherhood thus serving to nullify the Fatherhood of God for a great number of young victims.
The unmitigated selfishness of those in authority that placed the image of the leadership above the welfare of innocent children is still apparent. It was popes, bishops and cardinals that not only facilitated the Father impersonation, but also the spiritual equivalent of incest. In the final analysis, the Roman Catholic Church paid the hush money and never acted to stop the deception until it was compelled to do so, when its cover was simply blown.
Is it the quagmire, as some would suggest? It would certainly seem so to the people of that hot-wired planet. Most parents have neither the time nor the ability to preview or monitor every human relationship, activity or piece of information that is fed to their children by others. These parents can, assuming they are consistent in their own values, instill superior values in their children. Sincerity is key, for both the parent and the child. And the adult must be ever ready to learn as well as teach. No one this side of Paradise possesses a monopoly on wisdom. And no one possesses a more finely tuned hypocrisy detector than a child.
Who among us has not, at one time or another, flirted with death? Who has not been tempted to touch the fire, to ignore economics in favor of the flashy toy, to ignore content of character when searching for the hottest beau, to abandon fairness in favor of self-indulgence or to view faith as an exemption from that misery attendant upon indiscretion? How many have wrecked their faith on the shoals of hypocrisy?
Are there primary values? Again, is there a rule of thumb? Let me ask you just one more question before we get to the heart of the matter. In all of Earth's historical record is there an instance where the Son of Man and the Son of God prefaced his remarks in such a way as to signal that one particular teaching was of special significance? Need help? Ok, I am referring to one particular scriptural admonition where Jesus begins with "This is my command …"
Here's another hint. With this statement the perfect man forever upgraded the Golden Rule. Do you remember the golden rule? It stated: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Of course interpreting this statement in light of the current debauchery on the planet is seriously problematic. For it invariably leads to the "Do one another" mantra of an immature society ala Beavis.
Jesus was and is the best example of self-mastery that has ever existed on Earth. If the conquest of self with self-control is deemed to be of societal and individual value, then such intelligent conditioning and control properly motivated may also be an effective antidote to the spirit poison administered by Lucifer and consumed by sin addicts. The command Jesus gave clearly addresses the motive as well as the act.
The master said: "This is my command; that you love one another as I have loved you." With this statement Jesus forever stands as the gold standard for the golden rule. His love is sometimes tough as when he cleansed the temple or rebuked his apostles. His nurturing style, while loving and tender, lacks that misguided human propensity for condoning sin or raising children to expect every indulgence. And, as for those that would cause the little ones to stumble, he certainly addressed that.
Jesus left Earth confident that the values he had instilled in his younger siblings and his apostles would endure. There was nothing wimpy about his life as a Galilean and likewise there is much expected of us. As for this conditioning that we now define as the practice of the golden rule, the centermost principle is to love unselfishly. The cosmic equity we are admonished to advance is easy to understand in light of this guiding principle. But, just to be sure, since this is so important, we will seek further definition.
The Master-Teacher favored the use of parabolic analogies. He called them parables and he would often conclude his lessons with a special phrase addressed to "He who has ears to hear." When we employ this teaching technique, when we say "think about it," we know that you have as much chance of avoiding the central point as a coin rolling around the center of a funnel. Like the parabolic mirror of a telescope or the concentrator used as a satellite dish, each Parable of Jesus has a directing arc as well as a focus.
Jesus is the light of the world. The light analogy is a serviceable one for our purposes. Let's start with love's pure light. God relates to us just as Jesus illuminated the way of salvation. And we are admonished to relate to one another in this same light. Does the light of love have component parts?
Let's return our attention again to the physical world of our case study. On Earth the painter, printer, photographer and videographer attempt to depict truth through their work with a factual knowledge of the primary colors as they apply to both refraction and reflection. The names of these primaries and the rules are different depending upon whether you are adding components of light together or whether you are selectively subtracting them from what would be termed whole light. In either case the goal is to produce or reproduce a true representation of some objective reality or the artists imagination, which hopefully foreshadows a higher reality in accordance with the high mission of art. Concurrent objectives would include producing something beautiful or, what is termed, a good work.
Ultimately the quality of the work depends more on the quality of the light on the artist's canvas than it does the suitability of the inks, dyes, paints, phosphors and crystals. Like the relationship between the motive and the act, no amount of tinkering with the spectral rendition of the latter will effectively compensate for the impurities of the former. And, the quality of each is measurable.
Since Jesus worked with wood, we'll fold in a carpentry analogy or two. In the interest of sound construction a carpenter must also have good light and always make sure that things fit together in a way that is plumb and true. In fact, the carpenter spends most of his time on insuring accuracy and proper alignment. "Measure twice, cut once" is the carpenter's credo. The guide in this case is a rule, the accuracy of which is essential. The carpenter's square, level and the chalk line are also used to insure that alignment is "true."
The carpenter has some important reference within the larger creation and uses visual clues to "true up" or align his own creation with that larger truth, all in accordance with a plan. Only then can the craftsman create a thing of beauty that provides good and faithful service. To anyone building a life, the same principles apply.
For the musicians among you, we will consider Jesus in the role of first violin. The musician must also be concerned with performance true to the score. And, in order to work in a harmonious way with the other musicians, the musical instrument must be tuned or aligned with concert pitch, on earth this is known as A-440. The first violin provides the truth for the orchestra, or what's also known as the reference standard.
The musician must work with the component parts of sound to build a soul satisfying connection with the audience. The individual notes that comprise the chord are not unlike the color combinations used by the visual artist, and like the latter the overall effect on any good work will be consonant, dissonant, diminished, augmented and ultimately balanced in ways that are pleasing to the listener. Without taking the time to tune however, the individual musician cannot contribute much to the creation of beauty or give what would be termed a good performance.
What the true Lover, Painter, Carpenter and Musician have in common is high motivation. Through their commitment to the high mission of art, they foreshadow a higher reality. When Jesus said "Love one another as I have loved you" he was underscoring the fact that his life was lived in accordance with an overarching commitment to that which is true, beautiful and good.
The act, in accordance with the Golden Rule yields good habits, the conditioning we have been seeking. The Divine Son who admonished us to love as he loved had redefined and upgraded this rule. For his love has always been in accordance with the highest concepts of Truth, Beauty and Goodness comprehensible by us. While it is true that the prophets who walked before him always taught in accordance with the light of their day, Jesus is the whole light, the rule, the standard reference, the first violin, A-440, the Truth.
So now we have considered various aspects of the intelligence, conditioning and control that will counteract Lucifer's legacy. But, in the context of ongoing spiritual warfare, what can fragile human beings on Earth do to regain some control over their own lives and within their respective sphere's of influence? What can we do when we are later assigned to some isolated, rebellion torn world and are similarly tested? What lessons can we take from the world of the cross to enhance a career of service in eternity?
First, we must focus the Love admonition with its component colors of Truth, Beauty and Goodness on our hearts and in our minds as the will of God. Spirit luminosity is a gift of God and was foretold by Jesus just prior to his departure from Earth in physical form. He identified this helper as the Spirit of Truth and promised that we would thereby be led into all Truth. Take the Master at his word. Trust the Spirit ministry that indwells and envelopes us. And by all means, learn to recognize true motivations and act in accordance with this divine leading.
Can a study of the physical universe reveal things spiritual by analogy? Let's take a look at an example that may be useful. On Earth, in the late 20th century, a trial took place on the Western Hemisphere to determine the actual inventor of the electronic digital computer. A United States District Court found that the two individuals generally credited with the invention did not in fact invent the machine but derived their fundamental design from one John Vincent Atanasoff.
Atanasoff, a Bulgarian Immigrant, was a physics professor at Iowa State University. He and his assistant, Clifford Berry, built the Atanasoff Berry Computer, the (ABC) to free the students in the good doctor's physics class from the tedium of long algebraic equations. According to Atanasoff, these math problems were so complex, his students were simply missing the point of the physics lesson.
Unlike the later Electronic Numerical Integrator and Calculator (ENIAC), a large scale computer formerly thought to be the first and built to support the Allied effort during World War II, the ABC was built to facilitate discovery. During the trial, Atanasoff displayed his gift and commitment as a teacher, and he taught much about how physical reality is increasingly understood. Here, again, is his testimony in part.
We have a physically objective world, and then after a while we learn to measure in this world, and we gain experience with this world, through our senses. That is the objective world, and then we pass in to the mathematical world. In the mathematical world there are mathematical entities - "x", "y", numbers, and things of that kind. And we bring this mathematical world into isomorphism, or equality in structure with the objective world, so we can manipulate the mathematics and tell what the objective world is going to do; or, as Dirac - a great theoretical physicist - said, to calculate numbers which can be compared with experience, and such is the meaning of all mathematics.
The theoretical physicist, or the mathematical physicist, or the physicist, in the more elementary sense, is merely an artist and he's attempting to depict the external world in terms of these formulations of which I speak, and the question is, if the theory is real. Take Newton, Newton did this; he was a great painter and he painted the field of mechanics for us in certain equational form. Now, the interesting thing is, and the powerful thing is that if you manipulate these equations, they behave in an analogy with the physical world so that by examining these equations, you can tell what the physical world is doing or should do.
Now, suppose it doesn't do it? Why then you have a case where the theory in question has broken down. And when I spoke of Einstein, I was speaking of certain slight deficiencies in Newton's world. Newton did it first, then along came Einstein and Einstein noticed certain discrepancies in the world described by Newton, so he tried a new formulation, generated a new formulation for the theory of relativity, and his theory also is subject to criticism as time goes on.
So much of what Dr. Atanasoff said in those three highly concentrated paragraphs makes perfect sense. But we have again put this testimony before you because it raises three important questions that have a direct bearing on this trial.
First, we will look at the ideal, the process of learning and what Atanasoff referred to as the theory "subject to criticism as time goes on." Second, we will examine this nexus of the arts and sciences whereby the human scientist becomes an artist "attempting to depict the external world." And third, we will attempt to apply, to things spiritual, the sort of reasoning a scientist uses in understanding the physical world. We will also examine the crossover whereby they "behave in an analogy."
While the human view of the physical universes continues to mature, certain theories come to be viewed as law. If the doctor is correct, though the laws have been in effect since the beginning of time, human understanding of them is gained incrementally. Once understood however, the law of gravity can be depended upon throughout the observable universes. God is not like Lucy, pulling the football away just as Charlie Brown is about to kick. Our Father is consistent and his nurture is exemplary while his nursery is all that one would expect from its designer.
Lucifer would have us believe that science is the enemy of faith or that mindless causation could somehow evolve the refined and the complex from the crude and the simple. On Earth two diametrically opposed warring camps blindly perpetuate both ignorance and skepticism. Where one denies evolution, the other denies evolutionary over-control.
Though the skeptic may view life as a cruel hoax, the child of faith grows to appreciate the evolving universes not only as benevolent, but teeming with potential friends. In fact, the whole of finite reality favors growth and can therefore be viewed correctly as nurturing infrastructure.
The skeptic is correct however in pointing out certain aspects of cruelty along the way. As with any schoolyard on Earth, post rebellion life on that planet has an over-abundance of bullies. And throughout Earth history many of these have operated in the name of Christ. When Atanasoff spoke of Einstein's theory as subject to criticism; he did not address the great peril under which scientist's sometimes operate while advancing their theories in the face of a well entrenched priesthood of science or religion, an intolerant, dominant establishment.
On the screen again before you is the written abjuration of Galileo. Please follow along with me as I read it aloud.
I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei of Florence, being 70 years old, swear that I have always believed, believe now and, with God's help, will in the future believe all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach and teach. But since, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the sun is the centre of the Universe and immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the same and that it moves, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatsoever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I wrote and published a book in which I treat this condemned doctrine and bring forward very persuasive arguments in its favour without answering them: I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is of having held and believed that the Sun is at the centre of the Universe and immovable, and that the Earth is not at the centre and that it moves. Therefore, wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith these errors and heresies, and I curse and detest them as well as any other error, heresy or sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. And I swear that for the future I shall neither say nor assert orally or in writing such things as may bring upon me similar suspicions; and if I know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place in which I may be.
Of course, neither the Earth nor its sun is the center of the universe, but the Galileo experience underscores a much bigger concern. Here the man was not even free to advance a theory and was forced to deny his highest conception of truth and fact or lose his mortal life. He did this at the hand of a corrupt authority, in this case a morally bankrupt and spiritually insecure church. Where the Father gave us the right to accept or reject the divine plan, the church engaged in intimidation and coercion. It was a vein attempt to usurp the authority of the Spirit of Truth.
Earlier in these arguments we said that unity is not to be confused with uniformity. Where God bestowed a questioning mind through which we may discover, consider and freely embrace the divine attributes, the institutional church retarded progress through its threats and the demand for lockstep conformity. The Church was never supposed to be the equivalent of Marshall McLuhan's Mechanical Bride.
Let's rephrase the apocryphal question. Does the physical universe foreshadow something higher?
Are academic institutions, with their own entrenched priesthood, better equipped to answer this question? Or are they, like the church of the dark ages, top heavy with dead intellectualism? It is not a question of being an educated fool versus a religious one, for ignorance of the true nature of religion is highly pervasive. The earth bound should ask if lockstep conformity with the fleeting standards of political correctness is somehow superior to such conformity with some other dogma? At some point they will ask; Where is the freedom in either case?
Even on earth true academic freedom always favors God consciousness and eventually yields faith. When the New York Times ran a headline declaring, "God is Dead," there was no adverse effect on the true scientist or the true religionist, for it was only the planet's un-intelligencia, pop-academia and institutional church that had actually coded. As they say in the tuned out generation, it was the right time for karma to run over the dogma. At that time there were those who followed the instructions on a popular bumper sticker that read "Stamp out Reality." Some of these never returned.
To trace the loss of freedom we must examine the values held and the de-facto avoidance of sound value judgments. "If it feels good do it! Do it now! Never delay a moment's pleasure! You owe it to yourself! Someone else is responsible!" These statements constitute the code of pop culture, the creed of the modern pleasure mania and one direct consequence of Lucifer's folly. Not only is this debauched wisdom deified on Earth, but it is firmly embraced and protected by those high in authority on what has now come to be joked about by many of that world's inhabitants as God's goof ball. Rather than characterize every unfortunate circumstance as an "act of God," human beings need to remember that, as they enjoy the gift of self-governance, they must also accept responsibility for it.
The moral and ethical deficiencies of dead intellectual and pseudo-religious hucksterism do not absolve us of individual responsibility for knowing what's what. After all, the consequences are ours as well as Gods.
The entertainment industry on the subject planet defines anything that appeals to baser instincts as "adult material." intended for "mature audiences." Reaching the delusional has thereby become the first promotional consideration for, as we have seen, it is only the immature that evaluate every experience in strict accordance with its pleasure content. And it is an acquiescent citizenry that has allowed the glandular elite to command the attention of children for hours each day.
It should be easy for parents to recognize unwholesome influences. For parents, steering their children away from a "King of Pop," that would engage in public masturbation through videos that target youth is relatively easy. But in a realm where confusion reigns, the correct path isn't always so apparent. And the institutions they do trust aren't always so transparent.
Even at the dawn of the third millennium it became necessary for the Roman Catholic Church to feel the heat of outraged parishioners because it had refused to act on the light of truth. Only when faced with widespread exposure of its dirty little secret with respect to pedophile priests, did the institution finally purge itself of its sick lower echelon. But what happened to the leadership in this case?
The church leadership having lost its moral authority, still enjoys excessive prominence. It has long demanded that children look upon the priest as "father." And so the unconscionable conduct of the "church" in this case included the defamation of fatherhood thus serving to nullify the Fatherhood of God for a great number of young victims.
The unmitigated selfishness of those in authority that placed the image of the leadership above the welfare of innocent children is still apparent. It was popes, bishops and cardinals that not only facilitated the Father impersonation, but also the spiritual equivalent of incest. In the final analysis, the Roman Catholic Church paid the hush money and never acted to stop the deception until it was compelled to do so, when its cover was simply blown.
Is it the quagmire, as some would suggest? It would certainly seem so to the people of that hot-wired planet. Most parents have neither the time nor the ability to preview or monitor every human relationship, activity or piece of information that is fed to their children by others. These parents can, assuming they are consistent in their own values, instill superior values in their children. Sincerity is key, for both the parent and the child. And the adult must be ever ready to learn as well as teach. No one this side of Paradise possesses a monopoly on wisdom. And no one possesses a more finely tuned hypocrisy detector than a child.
Who among us has not, at one time or another, flirted with death? Who has not been tempted to touch the fire, to ignore economics in favor of the flashy toy, to ignore content of character when searching for the hottest beau, to abandon fairness in favor of self-indulgence or to view faith as an exemption from that misery attendant upon indiscretion? How many have wrecked their faith on the shoals of hypocrisy?
Are there primary values? Again, is there a rule of thumb? Let me ask you just one more question before we get to the heart of the matter. In all of Earth's historical record is there an instance where the Son of Man and the Son of God prefaced his remarks in such a way as to signal that one particular teaching was of special significance? Need help? Ok, I am referring to one particular scriptural admonition where Jesus begins with "This is my command …"
Here's another hint. With this statement the perfect man forever upgraded the Golden Rule. Do you remember the golden rule? It stated: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Of course interpreting this statement in light of the current debauchery on the planet is seriously problematic. For it invariably leads to the "Do one another" mantra of an immature society ala Beavis.
Jesus was and is the best example of self-mastery that has ever existed on Earth. If the conquest of self with self-control is deemed to be of societal and individual value, then such intelligent conditioning and control properly motivated may also be an effective antidote to the spirit poison administered by Lucifer and consumed by sin addicts. The command Jesus gave clearly addresses the motive as well as the act.
The master said: "This is my command; that you love one another as I have loved you." With this statement Jesus forever stands as the gold standard for the golden rule. His love is sometimes tough as when he cleansed the temple or rebuked his apostles. His nurturing style, while loving and tender, lacks that misguided human propensity for condoning sin or raising children to expect every indulgence. And, as for those that would cause the little ones to stumble, he certainly addressed that.
Jesus left Earth confident that the values he had instilled in his younger siblings and his apostles would endure. There was nothing wimpy about his life as a Galilean and likewise there is much expected of us. As for this conditioning that we now define as the practice of the golden rule, the centermost principle is to love unselfishly. The cosmic equity we are admonished to advance is easy to understand in light of this guiding principle. But, just to be sure, since this is so important, we will seek further definition.
The Master-Teacher favored the use of parabolic analogies. He called them parables and he would often conclude his lessons with a special phrase addressed to "He who has ears to hear." When we employ this teaching technique, when we say "think about it," we know that you have as much chance of avoiding the central point as a coin rolling around the center of a funnel. Like the parabolic mirror of a telescope or the concentrator used as a satellite dish, each Parable of Jesus has a directing arc as well as a focus.
Jesus is the light of the world. The light analogy is a serviceable one for our purposes. Let's start with love's pure light. God relates to us just as Jesus illuminated the way of salvation. And we are admonished to relate to one another in this same light. Does the light of love have component parts?
Let's return our attention again to the physical world of our case study. On Earth the painter, printer, photographer and videographer attempt to depict truth through their work with a factual knowledge of the primary colors as they apply to both refraction and reflection. The names of these primaries and the rules are different depending upon whether you are adding components of light together or whether you are selectively subtracting them from what would be termed whole light. In either case the goal is to produce or reproduce a true representation of some objective reality or the artists imagination, which hopefully foreshadows a higher reality in accordance with the high mission of art. Concurrent objectives would include producing something beautiful or, what is termed, a good work.
Ultimately the quality of the work depends more on the quality of the light on the artist's canvas than it does the suitability of the inks, dyes, paints, phosphors and crystals. Like the relationship between the motive and the act, no amount of tinkering with the spectral rendition of the latter will effectively compensate for the impurities of the former. And, the quality of each is measurable.
Since Jesus worked with wood, we'll fold in a carpentry analogy or two. In the interest of sound construction a carpenter must also have good light and always make sure that things fit together in a way that is plumb and true. In fact, the carpenter spends most of his time on insuring accuracy and proper alignment. "Measure twice, cut once" is the carpenter's credo. The guide in this case is a rule, the accuracy of which is essential. The carpenter's square, level and the chalk line are also used to insure that alignment is "true."
The carpenter has some important reference within the larger creation and uses visual clues to "true up" or align his own creation with that larger truth, all in accordance with a plan. Only then can the craftsman create a thing of beauty that provides good and faithful service. To anyone building a life, the same principles apply.
For the musicians among you, we will consider Jesus in the role of first violin. The musician must also be concerned with performance true to the score. And, in order to work in a harmonious way with the other musicians, the musical instrument must be tuned or aligned with concert pitch, on earth this is known as A-440. The first violin provides the truth for the orchestra, or what's also known as the reference standard.
The musician must work with the component parts of sound to build a soul satisfying connection with the audience. The individual notes that comprise the chord are not unlike the color combinations used by the visual artist, and like the latter the overall effect on any good work will be consonant, dissonant, diminished, augmented and ultimately balanced in ways that are pleasing to the listener. Without taking the time to tune however, the individual musician cannot contribute much to the creation of beauty or give what would be termed a good performance.
What the true Lover, Painter, Carpenter and Musician have in common is high motivation. Through their commitment to the high mission of art, they foreshadow a higher reality. When Jesus said "Love one another as I have loved you" he was underscoring the fact that his life was lived in accordance with an overarching commitment to that which is true, beautiful and good.
The act, in accordance with the Golden Rule yields good habits, the conditioning we have been seeking. The Divine Son who admonished us to love as he loved had redefined and upgraded this rule. For his love has always been in accordance with the highest concepts of Truth, Beauty and Goodness comprehensible by us. While it is true that the prophets who walked before him always taught in accordance with the light of their day, Jesus is the whole light, the rule, the standard reference, the first violin, A-440, the Truth.
So now we have considered various aspects of the intelligence, conditioning and control that will counteract Lucifer's legacy. But, in the context of ongoing spiritual warfare, what can fragile human beings on Earth do to regain some control over their own lives and within their respective sphere's of influence? What can we do when we are later assigned to some isolated, rebellion torn world and are similarly tested? What lessons can we take from the world of the cross to enhance a career of service in eternity?
First, we must focus the Love admonition with its component colors of Truth, Beauty and Goodness on our hearts and in our minds as the will of God. Spirit luminosity is a gift of God and was foretold by Jesus just prior to his departure from Earth in physical form. He identified this helper as the Spirit of Truth and promised that we would thereby be led into all Truth. Take the Master at his word. Trust the Spirit ministry that indwells and envelopes us. And by all means, learn to recognize true motivations and act in accordance with this divine leading.
ON FAITH
"You hold the key to love and fear, all in your trembling hand." (Jesse Colin Young)
For many of us faith is taken for granted. We have been favored by circumstance in such a way as to make faith something we don't have to think about much, we've always had it. For others, it may be a little harder to come by.
We have considered the results of misplaced faith. We have also considered how the scientist on Earth would go about systematically understanding the physical universe and by analogy we have seen how high art foreshadows things Spiritual. Now we will see what constitutes a healthy faith even a new faith and we will continue to apply the lessons learned from the physical universe to further increase our understanding of Spiritual things, meanings and values.
The faintest flicker of faith is serviceable. And, just as the human concept of faith is multifaceted, living faith has many dimensions. As you might expect, each of the terms commonly used to describe the various aspects of faith has a transcendent quality of its own. To fully define faith, or any of its component parts, would be like attempting to calculate the value of pi to the last decimal place.
Faith implies assurances, certitude, loyalty, fidelity and so much more. It is not only difficult to define, it is impossible to dissect because, unless it is vibrantly alive, it is not faith. Faith is easier to differentiate than to define because it picks up where mere belief leaves off. Belief may be static, but it represents a spark with tremendous potential. It says "Ok, you've convinced me, now what?"
Faith is belief in action. To act on one's belief is to step out in faith. Faith is the primary ingredient in the making of a great actor. It is also the final determinant between a weak act and a great witness. Faith cannot be fully understood through some crystallized, conceptual model. It is inseminated, propagated, variegated, perpetuated and disseminated through actual experience.
Somewhere between the slumber of dead intellectualism on the one hand, and a frenzy of rampant emotionalism on the other, stands the believer. Through the act of intelligent self-surrender, unreserved consecration and unfailing responsiveness to the divine leading, the believer moves to join the ranks of the faithful and is thereby transformed into an effective minister of the Gospel of Jesus.
Any understanding of an effectual working of Divine Power presupposes a relatedness, as with the vine to the branches. The Gospel of Jesus, as taught by Jesus, centers on the great Truth of the parent/child relationship. The Gospel about Jesus, as taught by His apostles, focuses on the facts associated with His death and resurrection.
These facts make no sense whatsoever unless the Truth concerning the relationship is first understood. The absence of this prerequisite is a great impediment to many due to their confusion about the Only Begotten Son and those of us who must be "re-born" to even see the Kingdom within.
"Path, follow path. Gate, open gate, through gate, close gate." While a programmer's sterile approach to instruction may often fail to inspire, learners have come to welcome the emphasis upon foundations, structure and logical sequence.
A good teacher is a builder. A good conceptual framework always rests on a solid foundation and great care must be taken to insure that growth can be supported without being restricted. Such growth should be anticipated and any framework should serve as a platform rather than an enclosure.
Inspiration is not a process of reverse engineering. It is rather an unleashing of potential. It uses seemingly inadequate resources as springboards. It sees reputedly outworn models as stepping stones. And, it recognizes that generational energy always has the advantage of incumbent DNA.
Recall the testimony of C.S. Lewis and specifically the Whit-Sunday sermon that he preached at Mansfield College Chapel in Oxford. He gave this address the title "Transposition" as he worked to illustrate what we know as the sub-spiritual disadvantage in comprehending the Spiritual. I quote the lecturer;
"If the richer system is to be represented in the poorer at all, this can only be by giving each element in the poorer system more than one meaning. The transposition of the richer into the poorer must, so to speak, be algebraical, not arithmetical. If you are to translate from a language which has a large vocabulary, into a language that has a small vocabulary, then you must be allowed to use several words in more than one sense. If you are to write a language with twenty two vowel sounds in an alphabet with only five vowel characters then you must be allowed to give each of those five characters more than one value. If you are making a piano version of a piece originally scored for an orchestra, then the same piano notes which represent flutes in one passage must also represent violins in another.
As the examples show we are all quite familiar with this kind of transposition or adaptation from a richer to a poorer medium. The most familiar example of all is the art of drawing. The problem here is to represent a three-dimensional world on a flat sheet of paper. The solution is perspective, and perspective means that we must give more than one value to a two-dimensional shape. Thus in a drawing of a cube we use an acute angle to represent what is a right angle in the real world. But elsewhere an acute angle on the paper may represent what was already an acute angle in the real world: for example, the point of a spear on the gable of a house. The very same shape which you must draw to give the illusion of a straight road receding from the spectator is also the shape you draw for a dunces' cap. As with the lines, so with the shading. Your brightest light in the picture is, in literal fact, only plain white paper: and this must do for the sun, or a lake in evening light, or snow, or human flesh.
It is clear that in each case what is happening in the lower medium can be understood only if we know the higher medium. The instance where this knowledge is most commonly lacking is the musical one. The piano version means one thing to the musician who knows the original orchestral score and another thing to the man who hears it simply as a piano piece. But the second man would be at an even greater disadvantage if he had never heard any instrument but a piano and even doubted the existence of other instruments. Even more, we understand pictures only because we know and inhabit the three-dimensional world.
If we can imagine a creature who perceived only two dimensions and yet could somehow be aware of the lines as he crawled over them on the paper, we shall easily see how impossible it would be for him to understand. At first he might be prepared to accept on authority our assurance that there was a world in three dimensions. But when we pointed to the lines on the paper and tried to explain, say, that "This is a road," would he not say that the shape which we were asking him to accept as a revelation of our mysterious other world was the very same shape which, on our own showing, elsewhere meant nothing but a triangle. And soon, I think, he would say, "You keep on telling me of this other world and its unimaginable shapes which you call solid. But isn't it very suspicious that all the shapes which you offer me as images or reflections of the solid ones turn out on inspection to be simply the old two-dimensional shapes of my own world as I have always known it? Is it not obvious that your vaunted other world, so far from being the archetype, is a dream which borrows all its elements from this one?"
I have asked you to reconsider this testimony to remind you of the difficulties attending an approach to understanding from below, as from a sub-spiritual realm. Quarantined earth is such a realm. Lucifer was clearly in a position to exploit, for his own purposes, the perceptual disadvantage of an immature, sub-spiritual humanity. And he was almost successful in extinguishing those few monotheistic religions on earth existing at the time of Our Beloved Sovereign's Incarnation.
Lewis' "creature" lacked depth perception and thereby was unable to comprehend just one more dimension in a material world. How then is the materialist to comprehend the multidimensional simultaneity of progressive ascendancy? How do human beings adjust to Infinity and Eternity? Certainly they don't by relying upon the hop-skippety-jump logic of some early twenty-first century scholars. Statements of higher purpose are intended for "he who has ears to hear," those inclined to be appreciative and thereby responsive to divine leading. There is no reaction more psychotic than to deny the very source of all reality, no belief system more idiotic than that psycho-gumbo called atheism.
Even the lowliest of creatures enjoy the gift of depth perception, a benefit that flows from possessing and interpreting information gained from two distinct vantage points. Of course human beings are favored with more than two eyes just to the extent that they can communicate with one another in a meaningful way. The Incarnation reveals a technique of divine parenting. It is the spiritual equivalent of getting on the floor to see things from your child's perspective. It places great emphasis on understanding by the experiential viewpoint of one with imperfect or immature understanding. Understanding our brothers and sisters in this way is an important part of what Jesus meant when he said, "Love one another as I have loved you."
Jesus, while on earth, taught using a series of short stories. In every case, Jesus laid a proper foundation for his teachings. As the earlier example shows, Atanasoff and Hamilton have clearly adopted the same teaching style for the benefit of sincere truth seekers.
Of course it has always been much more than just a question of where to place emphasis. The Apostles walked with the Master. They had the benefit of a foundational teaching. They understood their relationship with Our Creator Father as Jesus revealed it. Yet, in their preaching and teaching some of the Apostles chose to lead with the lessons of the cross whereas Jesus always emphasized the Love of God the Father along with the Brotherhood and Sisterhood of human kind. The shift in emphasis is understandable given the special circumstances as viewed through the apostolic experience.
Following the death and resurrection of Jesus, the frightened apostles after weeks of seclusion and now conscious of a new spiritual endowment of insight and power, emerged to proclaim that which vindicated their devotion to the Master. As Peter stood up to preach what is now known as The Pentecost Sermon, the good news, the best news he could think of was the news of the risen Messiah. And this new gospel had great persuasive power. While it was not the Gospel of Jesus, it expressed the feelings of triumph over forces that sought to destroy Jesus and His message.
The Atonement Doctrine, uncoupled from the foundational teachings concerning the character of God, risks portraying the Father as an offended monarch who must be persuaded to show mercy through the substitution of an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender. Humanity was never sold into slavery, was never the property of Lucifer, Satan, the Devil or any of the other fallen personalities. Jesus never suggested that salvation must be purchased or that any ransom must be paid. To the contrary, in his story of the Lost Sheep, the shepherd went out looking for the lost. In his story of the Prodigal Son, Jesus spoke of a father who was overjoyed by his son's desire to return and there were no other conditions attached.
Just as the prodigal concluded on his own that he would assume the status of a hired hand, it was the immature races that assumed virgins, young animals and precious metals as sacrificed would somehow buy favor with God. These material offerings, as presented, have had about as much use to God as they did to the Sinai volcano. And the base motivation behind many sacrifices throughout Earth history has often been unworthy, little more than attempts at bribery and the purchase of self-righteous exclusivity.
These sacrifices were of no use to God though man grew to crave them. With the latter's long history of sin and violence there has been a need for closure in some form, to pay the fine or do the time. Even the non-believer of today will acknowledge, if ever there was a perfect sacrifice, Jesus was undoubtedly it. Born in Bethlehem, where the chief agricultural activity of the time was the breeding of Passover lambs, he lay in a manger that was likely used for the birthing of these same lambs. He was presented for death in virtually the same crossbeam position as the burnt offerings of Jewish tradition. Jesus was truly the Lamb of God dying for, and by the hand of, sinful man.
However misguided the impulse for this type of sacrifice, great persuasive power flows from a sincere mind and heart. The gospel about Jesus was successful despite its shift in emphasis because Jesus is genuine and the enthusiasm of his followers is also genuine. His faith in Our Father never faltered, although his recitation on the cross, of the twenty second, psalm has been used to portray him as doubting.
The new gospel about Jesus was not the Gospel of Jesus but it was also not inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus. Close examination reveals that the great volitional horsepower of the early church was derived from a sincere desire to serve in accordance with the Divine Will. Experience has shown that the Father will grant the desire of our hearts unless this desire runs contrary to His will, contrary to truth, beauty and goodness as they emanate from His character.
Human beings have long been taught that faith without works is dead. The flip side of the faith equation yields "unclean" works or things not readily useful in the grand scheme of things. Many humans are disheartened to find that the fruits of intense labor are seemingly composted even before they are ripened. After all, they thought they were acting in accordance with the will of God and now it appears that their efforts are not appreciated.
Why such a disconnect? Why? Because the Father's love for you is best understood in the context of the larger family. And, because it is not enough to yield, perhaps grudgingly, to His will. Many pray as if resigning "Thy will be done if Thou must." Indeed, the most popular prayer on Earth at the time of these presentations is expressed in one word; "Whatever."
In contrast, the most potent prayer is born of the union of wills between God and human kind through the superimposition of Divinity upon Supreme Desire. This is the secret of applied volition. It is enthusiasm personified where enthusiasm is defined as en Theos, God within. It joyfully declares "It is my will that your will be done."
For many of us faith is taken for granted. We have been favored by circumstance in such a way as to make faith something we don't have to think about much, we've always had it. For others, it may be a little harder to come by.
We have considered the results of misplaced faith. We have also considered how the scientist on Earth would go about systematically understanding the physical universe and by analogy we have seen how high art foreshadows things Spiritual. Now we will see what constitutes a healthy faith even a new faith and we will continue to apply the lessons learned from the physical universe to further increase our understanding of Spiritual things, meanings and values.
The faintest flicker of faith is serviceable. And, just as the human concept of faith is multifaceted, living faith has many dimensions. As you might expect, each of the terms commonly used to describe the various aspects of faith has a transcendent quality of its own. To fully define faith, or any of its component parts, would be like attempting to calculate the value of pi to the last decimal place.
Faith implies assurances, certitude, loyalty, fidelity and so much more. It is not only difficult to define, it is impossible to dissect because, unless it is vibrantly alive, it is not faith. Faith is easier to differentiate than to define because it picks up where mere belief leaves off. Belief may be static, but it represents a spark with tremendous potential. It says "Ok, you've convinced me, now what?"
Faith is belief in action. To act on one's belief is to step out in faith. Faith is the primary ingredient in the making of a great actor. It is also the final determinant between a weak act and a great witness. Faith cannot be fully understood through some crystallized, conceptual model. It is inseminated, propagated, variegated, perpetuated and disseminated through actual experience.
Somewhere between the slumber of dead intellectualism on the one hand, and a frenzy of rampant emotionalism on the other, stands the believer. Through the act of intelligent self-surrender, unreserved consecration and unfailing responsiveness to the divine leading, the believer moves to join the ranks of the faithful and is thereby transformed into an effective minister of the Gospel of Jesus.
Any understanding of an effectual working of Divine Power presupposes a relatedness, as with the vine to the branches. The Gospel of Jesus, as taught by Jesus, centers on the great Truth of the parent/child relationship. The Gospel about Jesus, as taught by His apostles, focuses on the facts associated with His death and resurrection.
These facts make no sense whatsoever unless the Truth concerning the relationship is first understood. The absence of this prerequisite is a great impediment to many due to their confusion about the Only Begotten Son and those of us who must be "re-born" to even see the Kingdom within.
"Path, follow path. Gate, open gate, through gate, close gate." While a programmer's sterile approach to instruction may often fail to inspire, learners have come to welcome the emphasis upon foundations, structure and logical sequence.
A good teacher is a builder. A good conceptual framework always rests on a solid foundation and great care must be taken to insure that growth can be supported without being restricted. Such growth should be anticipated and any framework should serve as a platform rather than an enclosure.
Inspiration is not a process of reverse engineering. It is rather an unleashing of potential. It uses seemingly inadequate resources as springboards. It sees reputedly outworn models as stepping stones. And, it recognizes that generational energy always has the advantage of incumbent DNA.
Recall the testimony of C.S. Lewis and specifically the Whit-Sunday sermon that he preached at Mansfield College Chapel in Oxford. He gave this address the title "Transposition" as he worked to illustrate what we know as the sub-spiritual disadvantage in comprehending the Spiritual. I quote the lecturer;
"If the richer system is to be represented in the poorer at all, this can only be by giving each element in the poorer system more than one meaning. The transposition of the richer into the poorer must, so to speak, be algebraical, not arithmetical. If you are to translate from a language which has a large vocabulary, into a language that has a small vocabulary, then you must be allowed to use several words in more than one sense. If you are to write a language with twenty two vowel sounds in an alphabet with only five vowel characters then you must be allowed to give each of those five characters more than one value. If you are making a piano version of a piece originally scored for an orchestra, then the same piano notes which represent flutes in one passage must also represent violins in another.
As the examples show we are all quite familiar with this kind of transposition or adaptation from a richer to a poorer medium. The most familiar example of all is the art of drawing. The problem here is to represent a three-dimensional world on a flat sheet of paper. The solution is perspective, and perspective means that we must give more than one value to a two-dimensional shape. Thus in a drawing of a cube we use an acute angle to represent what is a right angle in the real world. But elsewhere an acute angle on the paper may represent what was already an acute angle in the real world: for example, the point of a spear on the gable of a house. The very same shape which you must draw to give the illusion of a straight road receding from the spectator is also the shape you draw for a dunces' cap. As with the lines, so with the shading. Your brightest light in the picture is, in literal fact, only plain white paper: and this must do for the sun, or a lake in evening light, or snow, or human flesh.
It is clear that in each case what is happening in the lower medium can be understood only if we know the higher medium. The instance where this knowledge is most commonly lacking is the musical one. The piano version means one thing to the musician who knows the original orchestral score and another thing to the man who hears it simply as a piano piece. But the second man would be at an even greater disadvantage if he had never heard any instrument but a piano and even doubted the existence of other instruments. Even more, we understand pictures only because we know and inhabit the three-dimensional world.
If we can imagine a creature who perceived only two dimensions and yet could somehow be aware of the lines as he crawled over them on the paper, we shall easily see how impossible it would be for him to understand. At first he might be prepared to accept on authority our assurance that there was a world in three dimensions. But when we pointed to the lines on the paper and tried to explain, say, that "This is a road," would he not say that the shape which we were asking him to accept as a revelation of our mysterious other world was the very same shape which, on our own showing, elsewhere meant nothing but a triangle. And soon, I think, he would say, "You keep on telling me of this other world and its unimaginable shapes which you call solid. But isn't it very suspicious that all the shapes which you offer me as images or reflections of the solid ones turn out on inspection to be simply the old two-dimensional shapes of my own world as I have always known it? Is it not obvious that your vaunted other world, so far from being the archetype, is a dream which borrows all its elements from this one?"
I have asked you to reconsider this testimony to remind you of the difficulties attending an approach to understanding from below, as from a sub-spiritual realm. Quarantined earth is such a realm. Lucifer was clearly in a position to exploit, for his own purposes, the perceptual disadvantage of an immature, sub-spiritual humanity. And he was almost successful in extinguishing those few monotheistic religions on earth existing at the time of Our Beloved Sovereign's Incarnation.
Lewis' "creature" lacked depth perception and thereby was unable to comprehend just one more dimension in a material world. How then is the materialist to comprehend the multidimensional simultaneity of progressive ascendancy? How do human beings adjust to Infinity and Eternity? Certainly they don't by relying upon the hop-skippety-jump logic of some early twenty-first century scholars. Statements of higher purpose are intended for "he who has ears to hear," those inclined to be appreciative and thereby responsive to divine leading. There is no reaction more psychotic than to deny the very source of all reality, no belief system more idiotic than that psycho-gumbo called atheism.
Even the lowliest of creatures enjoy the gift of depth perception, a benefit that flows from possessing and interpreting information gained from two distinct vantage points. Of course human beings are favored with more than two eyes just to the extent that they can communicate with one another in a meaningful way. The Incarnation reveals a technique of divine parenting. It is the spiritual equivalent of getting on the floor to see things from your child's perspective. It places great emphasis on understanding by the experiential viewpoint of one with imperfect or immature understanding. Understanding our brothers and sisters in this way is an important part of what Jesus meant when he said, "Love one another as I have loved you."
Jesus, while on earth, taught using a series of short stories. In every case, Jesus laid a proper foundation for his teachings. As the earlier example shows, Atanasoff and Hamilton have clearly adopted the same teaching style for the benefit of sincere truth seekers.
Of course it has always been much more than just a question of where to place emphasis. The Apostles walked with the Master. They had the benefit of a foundational teaching. They understood their relationship with Our Creator Father as Jesus revealed it. Yet, in their preaching and teaching some of the Apostles chose to lead with the lessons of the cross whereas Jesus always emphasized the Love of God the Father along with the Brotherhood and Sisterhood of human kind. The shift in emphasis is understandable given the special circumstances as viewed through the apostolic experience.
Following the death and resurrection of Jesus, the frightened apostles after weeks of seclusion and now conscious of a new spiritual endowment of insight and power, emerged to proclaim that which vindicated their devotion to the Master. As Peter stood up to preach what is now known as The Pentecost Sermon, the good news, the best news he could think of was the news of the risen Messiah. And this new gospel had great persuasive power. While it was not the Gospel of Jesus, it expressed the feelings of triumph over forces that sought to destroy Jesus and His message.
The Atonement Doctrine, uncoupled from the foundational teachings concerning the character of God, risks portraying the Father as an offended monarch who must be persuaded to show mercy through the substitution of an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender. Humanity was never sold into slavery, was never the property of Lucifer, Satan, the Devil or any of the other fallen personalities. Jesus never suggested that salvation must be purchased or that any ransom must be paid. To the contrary, in his story of the Lost Sheep, the shepherd went out looking for the lost. In his story of the Prodigal Son, Jesus spoke of a father who was overjoyed by his son's desire to return and there were no other conditions attached.
Just as the prodigal concluded on his own that he would assume the status of a hired hand, it was the immature races that assumed virgins, young animals and precious metals as sacrificed would somehow buy favor with God. These material offerings, as presented, have had about as much use to God as they did to the Sinai volcano. And the base motivation behind many sacrifices throughout Earth history has often been unworthy, little more than attempts at bribery and the purchase of self-righteous exclusivity.
These sacrifices were of no use to God though man grew to crave them. With the latter's long history of sin and violence there has been a need for closure in some form, to pay the fine or do the time. Even the non-believer of today will acknowledge, if ever there was a perfect sacrifice, Jesus was undoubtedly it. Born in Bethlehem, where the chief agricultural activity of the time was the breeding of Passover lambs, he lay in a manger that was likely used for the birthing of these same lambs. He was presented for death in virtually the same crossbeam position as the burnt offerings of Jewish tradition. Jesus was truly the Lamb of God dying for, and by the hand of, sinful man.
However misguided the impulse for this type of sacrifice, great persuasive power flows from a sincere mind and heart. The gospel about Jesus was successful despite its shift in emphasis because Jesus is genuine and the enthusiasm of his followers is also genuine. His faith in Our Father never faltered, although his recitation on the cross, of the twenty second, psalm has been used to portray him as doubting.
The new gospel about Jesus was not the Gospel of Jesus but it was also not inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus. Close examination reveals that the great volitional horsepower of the early church was derived from a sincere desire to serve in accordance with the Divine Will. Experience has shown that the Father will grant the desire of our hearts unless this desire runs contrary to His will, contrary to truth, beauty and goodness as they emanate from His character.
Human beings have long been taught that faith without works is dead. The flip side of the faith equation yields "unclean" works or things not readily useful in the grand scheme of things. Many humans are disheartened to find that the fruits of intense labor are seemingly composted even before they are ripened. After all, they thought they were acting in accordance with the will of God and now it appears that their efforts are not appreciated.
Why such a disconnect? Why? Because the Father's love for you is best understood in the context of the larger family. And, because it is not enough to yield, perhaps grudgingly, to His will. Many pray as if resigning "Thy will be done if Thou must." Indeed, the most popular prayer on Earth at the time of these presentations is expressed in one word; "Whatever."
In contrast, the most potent prayer is born of the union of wills between God and human kind through the superimposition of Divinity upon Supreme Desire. This is the secret of applied volition. It is enthusiasm personified where enthusiasm is defined as en Theos, God within. It joyfully declares "It is my will that your will be done."
THE MOST BASIC HUMAN INSTITUTION
"The family is the parent not the child of society." (Maryland Superior Court)
The Gospel, as Jesus taught it, is predicated on a relationship. The Son of Man did not present this relationship as one between creature and creator. Neither did the Son of God portray Our Father as a distant relative such as a Great, to some power of ten, Grandfather.
The great truth that Jesus went about preaching and teaching is that God is your Father. He is not just some Supreme, Absolute, Ultimate, Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent Deity as impressive as that might be. He is the person with whom you can enjoy the most intimate, loving relationship possible, because His Spirit dwells at the nucleus of your mind.
From the universe perspective the Trinity is The Nuclear Family. Our triune God of three separate and distinct personalities is further revealed through a sevenfold manifestation that includes the Trinity as a whole, each of the separate individuals and every combination of two. This is the creative original, the family pattern whereby the "Only Begotten Son" is the divine offspring.
There are still those on Earth who somehow maintain that social issues are peripheral to the Gospel. We maintain that the Gospel and everything of true value has its roots in the family. We ask, how is the Gospel to be understood by human beings who depend upon analogy to human relationships and institutions if those very relationships and institutions are so sick that they are no longer even minimally attractive or illustrative?
Societal attitudes about the family are not likely to change until society overcomes its ignorance concerning the value of family relationships. Despite the dysfunctionality of some, the family is unrivaled in its ability to produce healthy, balanced persons who maintain high standards of conduct and who respect the integrity of relationships. It is true that only upon the conquest of self can one reasonably set about to cure, in a meaningful way, the larger social ills. But it is also true that the family is the first great civilizer and the greatest hope of human kind. As such, we must never miss an opportunity to help strengthen and protect it.
The human family is like the rock tumbler grinding away our rough edges, and the gem polisher producing a luster through its mildly abrasive action. Individuals learn to adjust antagonisms and tensions by means of the family dynamic. The family teaches cosmic perspective hand in hand with the art of compromise. It is within this context that the child is impressed with our most sincerely held values. It is by this experience-based spirituality that we help to create character, and through which we fulfill that most sacred trust, child rearing.
A loving family provides the momentum that thrusts us ever God-ward. It is therefore the greatest single threat to the plans of Lucifer and his followers. From their point of view, if the primacy of the parent/child relationship can be somehow minimized, marginalized or eulogized, then the Gospel message can be effectively neutralized. If a Schutzstaffel can no longer remove parents from the home as the routine part of a failed "final solution" then something much more subtle can be employed.
In either case the process maps directly to Lucifer's manifesto. First, attack the parent/child relationship through matrimonial, societal, legal and political disease thereby depriving the child of balance in nurture and more. Second, defame fatherhood and motherhood thereby minimizing and breeding suspicion about all parents including the First Person of Deity. Third, and finally, destroy the family. Put it asunder, thereby making our place within the family of God that much more difficult, if not impossible to fully comprehend.
To the human child the family provides the nurturing infrastructure that favors meaningful growth. Through the exploitation of certain fundamental differences between men and women, the forces of darkness have displaced complementary relationships in favor of competitive ones and have brought instability to all that a child deems to be real. As their support environments collapse, children give up on life itself at twice the rate of children from intact families.
Children from broken homes often emerge severely out of balance, often unwilling to accept the vulnerabilities associated with love. To them, love is not a verb but seen rather as happenstance, ethereal and something in and out of which one occasionally falls. There is no rhyme or reason, just the fickle finger of fate.
Love and hate must be understood in the context of their inward or outward focus. Love that is both internalized and directed towards others finds resonance with all that is divine. Divinity is the characteristic unifying and coordinating quality of Deity. And Deity, the Creator, Controller and Upholder, is the source of all reality.
Sustained self-loathing and outwardly manifest hatred is always accompanied by an array of cognitive distortions that cycle the range of negative emotions. Hatred is spirit poison. When it reaches a level that exceeds human tolerance, it invariably yields suicide or murder.
Of course, I'm telling you nothing new. You already know about hatred. But here we will examine various cognitive distortions to understand how they serve to selectively amplify the negative emotions and attenuate positive ones in direct support of Lucifer's cause.
Human science has identified certain perceptual patterns that, to some degree, accompany an affective disorder known to its sufferers as depression. Much research has been conducted in an effort to identify precisely why persons thus afflicted tend to disqualify anything positive that happens to them
Friends and relatives close to those with the disease are often at a loss to explain why a good thing happening is internally processed to support a bleak outlook and low self-esteem. This mental filtering is quite the opposite of the legendary rose-colored glasses. It is rather a seemingly impenetrable shroud of doom and gloom. No clinical approach to correcting the problem has consistently produced lasting results. Where and whenever the spark of life has not been fully extinguished, there remains a faint flicker of faith that contains the only true antidote. But, within the circumscribed realm of those depressed, there is also a wide variety of forces arrayed in opposition to anything positive.
To understand this on an academic level is one thing. But to feel what a depressed person feels is quite another. A seasonal or situational depression may affect anyone. For example, the cycle of grief associated with the loss of a loved one usually includes a depression phase. Now imagine extending that phase to the point where you can't see the light at the end of the tunnel and you can begin to understand the feeling of hopelessness experienced by those who suffer from chronic depression.
Now add this twist, suppose the "dearly departed" is alive and well following the failure of a relationship. And suppose there are children in the mix to insure that the other's departure is never really complete. How exactly does one ever "get on with life" in situations such as this? How does one overcome?
While there are many noble compensations and variations on the human family, disintegrating families often fail to teach the essential curriculum. For at the latter's core is an unrecognized action word. Love is a verb! The isolated love of a domineering parent, aside from being less than ideal is, if possessive, also less than altruistic. Possessive parenting is selfish parenting.
The admonition to love one another was not conditional. Feeling the love was never a prerequisite. And expecting something in return for love betrays the motive and debases the act. The children of disintegrating families are often made to feel disloyal to each parent simply for loving them both. This loyalty bind has a direct and adverse bearing on the child's attitude towards love and faith.
The extent to which a supposedly loving parent would deny a child equal access to, opportunity with and the enjoyment of the other parent is more often a measure of self-indulgence rather than protective parenting. Whether by possession in the guise of protection, or retribution in the form of familial substitutions, these are the games people play at the expense of children. These are just a few of the ways that children are routinely deprived of a continuing, meaningful relationship with one of their parents.
If you truly love the children, love both of their parents. The earliest societies of Earth taught children to honor father and mother. Since those times, civilizations characterizing themselves as advanced have perverted this simple precept into honor thy mother or father. This is not to say that divorcing parents cannot be genuinely supportive of their children's relationship with the "other" parent. But, in light of the prevailing culture and the attitude towards religion, it takes uncommon benevolence and maturity. And, it takes something else.
The Gospel, as Jesus taught it, is predicated on a relationship. The Son of Man did not present this relationship as one between creature and creator. Neither did the Son of God portray Our Father as a distant relative such as a Great, to some power of ten, Grandfather.
The great truth that Jesus went about preaching and teaching is that God is your Father. He is not just some Supreme, Absolute, Ultimate, Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent Deity as impressive as that might be. He is the person with whom you can enjoy the most intimate, loving relationship possible, because His Spirit dwells at the nucleus of your mind.
From the universe perspective the Trinity is The Nuclear Family. Our triune God of three separate and distinct personalities is further revealed through a sevenfold manifestation that includes the Trinity as a whole, each of the separate individuals and every combination of two. This is the creative original, the family pattern whereby the "Only Begotten Son" is the divine offspring.
There are still those on Earth who somehow maintain that social issues are peripheral to the Gospel. We maintain that the Gospel and everything of true value has its roots in the family. We ask, how is the Gospel to be understood by human beings who depend upon analogy to human relationships and institutions if those very relationships and institutions are so sick that they are no longer even minimally attractive or illustrative?
Societal attitudes about the family are not likely to change until society overcomes its ignorance concerning the value of family relationships. Despite the dysfunctionality of some, the family is unrivaled in its ability to produce healthy, balanced persons who maintain high standards of conduct and who respect the integrity of relationships. It is true that only upon the conquest of self can one reasonably set about to cure, in a meaningful way, the larger social ills. But it is also true that the family is the first great civilizer and the greatest hope of human kind. As such, we must never miss an opportunity to help strengthen and protect it.
The human family is like the rock tumbler grinding away our rough edges, and the gem polisher producing a luster through its mildly abrasive action. Individuals learn to adjust antagonisms and tensions by means of the family dynamic. The family teaches cosmic perspective hand in hand with the art of compromise. It is within this context that the child is impressed with our most sincerely held values. It is by this experience-based spirituality that we help to create character, and through which we fulfill that most sacred trust, child rearing.
A loving family provides the momentum that thrusts us ever God-ward. It is therefore the greatest single threat to the plans of Lucifer and his followers. From their point of view, if the primacy of the parent/child relationship can be somehow minimized, marginalized or eulogized, then the Gospel message can be effectively neutralized. If a Schutzstaffel can no longer remove parents from the home as the routine part of a failed "final solution" then something much more subtle can be employed.
In either case the process maps directly to Lucifer's manifesto. First, attack the parent/child relationship through matrimonial, societal, legal and political disease thereby depriving the child of balance in nurture and more. Second, defame fatherhood and motherhood thereby minimizing and breeding suspicion about all parents including the First Person of Deity. Third, and finally, destroy the family. Put it asunder, thereby making our place within the family of God that much more difficult, if not impossible to fully comprehend.
To the human child the family provides the nurturing infrastructure that favors meaningful growth. Through the exploitation of certain fundamental differences between men and women, the forces of darkness have displaced complementary relationships in favor of competitive ones and have brought instability to all that a child deems to be real. As their support environments collapse, children give up on life itself at twice the rate of children from intact families.
Children from broken homes often emerge severely out of balance, often unwilling to accept the vulnerabilities associated with love. To them, love is not a verb but seen rather as happenstance, ethereal and something in and out of which one occasionally falls. There is no rhyme or reason, just the fickle finger of fate.
Love and hate must be understood in the context of their inward or outward focus. Love that is both internalized and directed towards others finds resonance with all that is divine. Divinity is the characteristic unifying and coordinating quality of Deity. And Deity, the Creator, Controller and Upholder, is the source of all reality.
Sustained self-loathing and outwardly manifest hatred is always accompanied by an array of cognitive distortions that cycle the range of negative emotions. Hatred is spirit poison. When it reaches a level that exceeds human tolerance, it invariably yields suicide or murder.
Of course, I'm telling you nothing new. You already know about hatred. But here we will examine various cognitive distortions to understand how they serve to selectively amplify the negative emotions and attenuate positive ones in direct support of Lucifer's cause.
Human science has identified certain perceptual patterns that, to some degree, accompany an affective disorder known to its sufferers as depression. Much research has been conducted in an effort to identify precisely why persons thus afflicted tend to disqualify anything positive that happens to them
Friends and relatives close to those with the disease are often at a loss to explain why a good thing happening is internally processed to support a bleak outlook and low self-esteem. This mental filtering is quite the opposite of the legendary rose-colored glasses. It is rather a seemingly impenetrable shroud of doom and gloom. No clinical approach to correcting the problem has consistently produced lasting results. Where and whenever the spark of life has not been fully extinguished, there remains a faint flicker of faith that contains the only true antidote. But, within the circumscribed realm of those depressed, there is also a wide variety of forces arrayed in opposition to anything positive.
To understand this on an academic level is one thing. But to feel what a depressed person feels is quite another. A seasonal or situational depression may affect anyone. For example, the cycle of grief associated with the loss of a loved one usually includes a depression phase. Now imagine extending that phase to the point where you can't see the light at the end of the tunnel and you can begin to understand the feeling of hopelessness experienced by those who suffer from chronic depression.
Now add this twist, suppose the "dearly departed" is alive and well following the failure of a relationship. And suppose there are children in the mix to insure that the other's departure is never really complete. How exactly does one ever "get on with life" in situations such as this? How does one overcome?
While there are many noble compensations and variations on the human family, disintegrating families often fail to teach the essential curriculum. For at the latter's core is an unrecognized action word. Love is a verb! The isolated love of a domineering parent, aside from being less than ideal is, if possessive, also less than altruistic. Possessive parenting is selfish parenting.
The admonition to love one another was not conditional. Feeling the love was never a prerequisite. And expecting something in return for love betrays the motive and debases the act. The children of disintegrating families are often made to feel disloyal to each parent simply for loving them both. This loyalty bind has a direct and adverse bearing on the child's attitude towards love and faith.
The extent to which a supposedly loving parent would deny a child equal access to, opportunity with and the enjoyment of the other parent is more often a measure of self-indulgence rather than protective parenting. Whether by possession in the guise of protection, or retribution in the form of familial substitutions, these are the games people play at the expense of children. These are just a few of the ways that children are routinely deprived of a continuing, meaningful relationship with one of their parents.
If you truly love the children, love both of their parents. The earliest societies of Earth taught children to honor father and mother. Since those times, civilizations characterizing themselves as advanced have perverted this simple precept into honor thy mother or father. This is not to say that divorcing parents cannot be genuinely supportive of their children's relationship with the "other" parent. But, in light of the prevailing culture and the attitude towards religion, it takes uncommon benevolence and maturity. And, it takes something else.
THE STATE OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE
"If we expect to be both ignorant and free,
we expect what never was and never will be." (Thomas Jefferson)
While fundamentalist movements have reinforced the view that religion is a reactionary obstacle to secular progress, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has created confusion with respect to the role of religion. And, through its lack of a viable or serviceable definition, has produced an embarrassing array of opinions and denials concerning religion's "public significance." The American family has suffered significant destabilization as a direct consequence of these high level vacillations.
The SCOTUS Justices now also fancy themselves as sociologists and psychologists. And, in their most pretentious moments, have advanced the notion that a certain class of individuals have suffered "psychological harm" whenever government has embraced the values of religion. Accordingly, they have established a new protected class. But the court's primitive notion of what constitutes psychology also promotes and bespeaks an abysmal ignorance. While psychiatry is a branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental and emotional disorders, the word psychology, correctly translated from its Greek origins, means "the science of the soul."
Any competent psychiatrist will acknowledge that mind is an endowment separate and distinct from that electrochemical mechanism upon which it gently rests. And, because the Justices don't know what they're talking about, they have been unable to explain to their subjects just how a moment of silence causes harm to the human soul. It is largely because the Justices have so clearly and consistently demonstrated ignorance of both science and religion that the extra-constitutional nature of their policy-making has been brought to intense light.
Indulging those who are somehow embarrassed by or uncomfortable with their own thoughts during a moment of silence deprives such individuals, and everyone else of healthy socialization challenges. And, on the sociological scale, the SCOTUS policies serve to impair an entire nation, for they attack the spiritual idealism the justices already lack. It was this very idealism that took that young earthly nation from one level of attainment to the next. And, unless the citizenry takes its nation back, as world competition heats up historians will likely have to account for the nation's loss of spiritual idealism during a near-term post-mortem phase.
Nowhere on Earth was the great experiment with freedom and democracy better exemplified than in the United States of America (USA). The country was cobbled together by the most diverse collection of individuals ever assembled for an uncommon cause. Fewer than half of the passengers traveling to the North American continent on the Mayflower were actually separatists seeking religious freedom in a new land. The rest - including such famous names as Myles Standish and John Alden - were economic emigrants who had signed onto the voyage in hopes of finding a better life for themselves in far-off "Virginia."
Initially neither group was large enough to form a colony on its own. So, born out of necessity and in the spirit of cooperation, they joined to sign the Mayflower Compact, the first document outlining a form of self-government in the New World.
In 1635, the Puritan government demanded that its members take an oath of allegiance to church and state; a requirement opposed by prominent Puritan clergyman, Roger Williams. Williams did not think that nonbelievers should be required to take such an oath. For his stalwart opposition, he was banished. He fled south with followers to form the colony of Rhode Island.
About one hundred years prior to the American Revolution, a pragmatic Lord Baltimore took note of England's victorious Puritan Parliament. He invited the Puritans to settle in Maryland. He promised them full religious freedom and hoped thereby to secure toleration for Maryland Catholics. As about one thousand Puritans accepted and made plans, Baltimore appointed Protestant William Stone to be his Governor.
In 1649, as the Puritans made their voyage, Maryland passed the Act of Religious Toleration. It acknowledged the Trinity, reinforced laws against blasphemy, and exacted penalties for profaning the Sabbath. It also took a firm position in protecting the rights of any who may find themselves in a religious minority just so long as they professed a belief in Christ. Extracted from the historical record that was earlier placed into evidence, we would offer the following:
… noe person or persons whatsoever within this Province, or the Islands, Ports, Harbors, Creeks, or havens thereunto belonging professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall from henceforth bee any ways troubled, Molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof within this Province or the Islands thereunto belonging nor any way compelled to the belief or exercise of any other Religion against his or her consent …
Against a backdrop of heresy trials and the European Dark Ages, Maryland's Act of Religious Tolerance then stood in bold contrast to the oppressive influence of theological arrogance. Though far from perfect with respect to minority rights, it was more inclusive than anything that had gone before. It protected the free exchange of ideas, while also protecting individual believers against intimidation and coercive labeling.
The freemen of Concord passed a resolution outlining the rights and liberties they thought important, including "liberty of conscience to all Christians (Papists excepted)." This occurred in 1774, barely a year before the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord fired "the shot heard round the world."
A few years later, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson beat back an effort in Virginia to use tax money in the name of "public morality." In the context of that time the support of church activities would have funded the Church of England in its competition against the insurgent Baptists. Madison and Jefferson then fought to pass the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, which became the inspiration for the First Amendment. That amendment has been interpreted, out of context, as prohibiting the inter-mingling of religion with government-sponsored education.
In 1787, when the nation was still operating under the Articles of Confederation, Congress enacted The Northwest Ordinance. The purpose of the Ordinance was to create a temporary government for the Northwest Territory (a huge swath of land that extended from the great lakes to the Ohio River valley), and to establish a procedure by which territories could apply for admission into the Union. The Northwest Ordinance received final House and Senate approval, and was signed into law by President Washington in the summer of 1789, the same summer in which the same Congress was formulating the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Article III of the Northwest Ordinance begins with this sentence:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
George Washington, the first President, and John Adams, the second, spoke in equally strong terms concerning the importance of both religion and education.
Washington said:
"The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail. - And let us with caution indulge the opposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Adams said:
"Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, (are) necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties."
The Establishment clause of the United States Constitution was precisely worded by men who knew the language and carefully considered the initiative as well as its context. So why did SCOTUS ever have to go searching for the "intent" of the framers. And once engaged in that folly, why did they give more weight to one framer's letter to the Danbury Baptists then they gave to the collective will of Congress and the first President, as expressed through the Northwest Ordinance?
The framers understood what the justices deny, that religion is to values what science is to facts. In a world of competing ideas, Jefferson and Madison leveled the playing field by not subsidizing the Church of England over the Baptists. Specifically, the Establishment Clause is the embodiment of this particular wisdom. But such wisdom is apparently lost on the Justices of SCOTUS. Or is it something more sinister? Perhaps they don't want to acknowledge the true intent of the Establishment Clause for other reasons.
At first glance the simplistic reasoning and revisionist history proffered by SCOTUS would appear to be flawed interpretations rather than deliberate misrepresentations. That is until one recognizes that selective amplification, filtration and contextualization are the primary tools of modern day deceivers. At least one thing is painfully obvious. When the Court redefined religion in support of its secularization hypothesis, it departed from the agreed upon contract and amplified, with considerable distortion, the so-called "intent of the framers."
Clearly the "intent" is not as advertised by SCOTUS. And, by redefining religion the Justices can themselves violate the Establishment Clause to promote their pet "ism's," including humanism and moral relativism, with plausible deniability backed up by absolute judicial immunity. Where the carefully worded Establishment Clause protected the nation from any potentially domineering religion, the Supremes have formulated their own value proposition and are determined to run consistently afoul of legislative intent while driving out anything that challenges their prevailing megalomania.
This theft of religious liberty at the hands of Supreme Court Justices would have been the perfect crime were it not for the fact that they overlooked one detail. They were so caught up in their declarative constructs and pontifications that they neglected to obliterate certain historical artifacts. In a few moments we will cut through the obfuscations imposed by SCOTUS and reveal the extent to which the people were snookered by the Justices. But first we must explore further what can only be described as a power grab by one of the so-called equal branches of government.
What Jefferson described as the "wall of separation" between church and state was never intended by the other framers to be all that much greater than the separation between the three branches of government. And in this area too, SCOTUS is well afoul of constitutional imperatives. A constructionist court could not exist were it not for the weakness of the legislature with the acquiescence of, and in this case through the uninformed consent of, the governed. At this point, from the evidence placed into the record previously, I would highlight Sir Edmond Burke's Report to King George. Reading from the record:
"Permit me sir to add another circumstance in our colonies which contributes no mean part toward the growth and effect of this intractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. All who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering of that science. I've been told by an eminent book seller that in no branch of his business, after tracks of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the colonies. They have now fallen into a way of printing them for their own use. I hear they have sold as many of Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage states that all the people in his government are lawyers or smatterers in law, and that in Boston they have been enabled by successful chicane wholly to evade many parts of your capital penal constitution."
"The smartness of debate will say that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the penalties of rebellion, but my honorable and learned friend, the attorney general, will disdain that ground. He has heard as well as I that when great honors and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a considerable adversary to a government. If the spirit is not tamed by this happy means, it is stubborn and litigious. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in their attack, ready in defense, full of resources. In other countries the people are more simple and are of a less mercurial cast. They judge of an ill principle only in government, only by an actual grievance. Here they anticipate the evil and judge the pressure of the evil by the badness of the principle. They honor misgovernment from a distance and snuff out the approach of tyranny in every tainted brief."
So what happened? When did those Americans lose the ability to recognize a "tainted brief" or the "badness" of a principle? For it now seems that even when they can define good practice, it's on a purely academic level. There is some major disconnect when it comes to real world applications.
Suppose, just suppose you were called upon to investigate a murder. In our hypothetical you have been given responsibility for presiding over a team to support this effort. Would you include a person on this team that had been recently fired from his job by the decedent? Now suppose this person, in addition to having motive, had clear opportunity and the means or connections to have the victim killed. Let's say you also hold a highly prestigious position with a prominent institution. Would you lend your good name to such an investigative team? What if the institution you worked for was known for being politically independent, would political pressure be a factor?
Ok, ok, maybe this isn't the most realistic example. Such a thing could never happen because if you were the Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States, you'd be presiding over an independent judiciary. And if, in fact, the now deceased President had removed Alan Dulles from his job as Director for Central Intelligence, he'd be disqualified from holding a seat on the Commission, right? Certainly, in such an event, you would never allow the good name Warren to be associated with the appearance of impropriety, or to be placed on such a tainted work product. After all, the public would have to have the attention span of a gnat to let you get away with that.
But average citizens have been largely conditioned to behave as subjects of the state. Most of these dues paying dependants rarely participate in the democratic process, except by periodic invitation. Many see democracy as not working and their sense of ownership is diminished with each and every election cycle. Of course there are compensations for this loss of equity.
Parents and marketeers have created the current culture of indulgences. But rather than educate constituents on fundamental fairness, politicians lull the electorate into complacency or stir them up for political purposes. They have promoted unrealistic expectations of disproportionate representation even while they champion other interests. And, more often than not, they advance a sense of entitlement that is not only unsustainable, but also de-coupled from any sense of duty.
To be more specific, it is increasingly clear that the government of the United States no longer operates as three equal branches. Composed mostly of lawyers, the legislature has failed to provide a proper statutory framework for many important areas of law. Where it is unable to reach consensus, or lacks the moral courage to put closely held values on the record, it defers to case law thereby avoiding the glare of the spotlight and accountability. The same dynamic applies to the executive branch as it has also failed to provide real moral leadership on so many of the most important issues of the day.
We look to this process of unraveling the promise by first understanding the inter-dynamics of the three branches of this North American government. Politicians, be they executive, legislative or judicial, often broach major issues by stealth. Issues will of course present themselves without regard to government responsiveness. So, by default, elected officials offload controversial decisions to courts. Where Congress is expressly prohibited from making any law that abridges certain constitutional rights, the Supreme Court is more than willing to do so, through its unchecked and arbitrary assumption of ever increasing power.
Legislators usually will not criticize the courts because most are lawyers by training and no one wants to ask the career ending question. Representatives often yield their legislative responsibility to the judiciary out of convenience and because it is less visible and less vulnerable to political upheavals. After all, how many citizens entering the voting booth even know the names of their judges, much less the decision records?
While legal experience is an asset to moving ahead within the legislature, lawyer-politicians also know they are just one election away from having to practice law within the same bar and before the very same judges whose power they might otherwise curtail through properly crafted legislation. This failure to effectively bracket the sometimes esoteric and purely personal "values" of individual judges and the legal fraternity is especially dangerous in light of historical precedent and the larger democracy implications.
Voter indifference insures that the citizenry will not take control. Controlled access and the fear of being cut out of the loop compromises the media. Religious institutions have effectively disbarred themselves; their range of permissible speech and activity is now defined and circumscribed by federal regulators. Religionists are seemingly content with relative impotence as long as they are able to enjoy tax exemptions "granted" by the government.
Coercive tax policies for religionists, exclusives for the good behavior of journalists and false euphoria for the electorate combine to favor shadow government. With each clash the chasm between Church and State widens and each compromise serves to eclipse and undermine the State's internal separation of powers. As the country turns its back on founding principles, it tries to cling to a confused and narrow disintegration of Truth. This occurs, in large part through the type of re-contextualization we have witnessed.
The principles of context were introduced to the people of Earth by John Wycliffe in the fourteenth century. He outlined an approach to understanding scripture that should also prove useful to students of statecraft. He wrote:
"It shall greatly helpe ye to understand scripture if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom, and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth."
As one presidential candidate was fond of saying, "the Devil is in the details." To this we would simply add that the details are in the case law. SCOTUS, has a history of competitive, ideologically motivated jurisprudence. Their anomie initiative is largely based upon anecdotal evidence of societal change. All judges employ personal values and their own principles in making constitutional choices. The same political process that produced the secularization hypothesis produced the current class of judges. And, even though the hypothesis contains the seeds of its own misconstruction, SCOTUS still views the secularization of society as a positive long term trend that will eventually result in the elimination of religion as a public influence.
The onetime standard bearer now spends much of its time presiding over the normalization of deviance. Accordingly, the constructionist court is heavily vested in secularization and the ancient laws have been removed from courthouse walls across the nation. No doubt the judicial definition of religion will continue to morph, hiding the court's convoluted reasoning while serving an incoherent jurisprudence. By current definition however, the inalienable rights endowment described in the Declaration of Independence must, in the view of the court, be a source of psychological torment to atheists.
Squelching the "Endowed by their Creator" language would be politically problematic, even for a supposedly independent Judiciary. But SCOTUS has already shown its willingness to misrepresent the facts in supporting its abandonment of "de-facto establishment" as a guide to church/state relations. The intellectual integrity deficit is not only pervasive, but the flow-downs are traceable directly back to the nations highest court and from there map to the Lucifer Manifesto.
In the movie Devil's Advocate a young lawyer asked "why the law?"
The devil's answer: "Cause it gets us into everything, it's the ultimate back stage pass."
Post offices in Texas have been forced to remove small "In God We Trust" signs because they violate a law concerning electioneering posters. South Carolina Judge William Bertlesman ruled that license plates bearing the slogan "Choose Life" are unconstitutional. And then there was Judge Alfred Goodwin's effort to excise the phrase "One nation under God" from the United States Pledge of Allegiance.
When Roy Moore, an Alabama Circuit Judge displayed a small handmade wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall, he was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union. Shortly after his election to the Alabama Supreme Court, Chief Justice Moore installed a monument in the Rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. The monument of the Ten Commandments includes many references to God in American Law and History, like the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Motto, the National Anthem and the Oath of all Public Officials.
Moore was sued again and, in a move highly symbolic of the judiciary's obfuscation tactics, the monument was briefly walled off from public view by a plywood partition. "This is an example of what is happening in this country: the acknowledgment of God as the moral foundation of law in this nation is being hidden from us." Moore said in a statement.
As Justice Moore put his office and reputation on the line to acknowledge that the rights and freedoms we all enjoy are gifts from a loving God, SCOTUS avoided the issue and refused to hear arguments on Moore's Certiorari petition as well as his Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus. For his actions in courageously defending Alabama's right to display the Ten Commandments, Moore was removed from the bench by the unanimous decision of his cowering colleagues.
The Judicial Inquiry Commission, which filed the complaint against Moore, said that the justice violated the code of judicial ethics by failing to:
" Uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary;
" Observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary might be preserved;
" Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety;
" Respect and comply with the law;
" Conduct himself in a manner promoting public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary;
" Avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to bring the judicial office into disrepute.
Moore, though, asserted that a level of inconsistency rests in the nation's judiciary. "We've got to stop the hypocrisy in this country," he said. "We've got to stop courts that will open with 'God save the United States and this honorable court' and then say (we) can't acknowledge God. We've got to stop judges who put their hand on the Bible and say, 'So help me God,' and then go into court and deny the very Creator God upon which this nation and our laws are founded."
"The nation must stand up to the actions of courts," Moore said. "Unless we do, the public acknowledgment of God will be taken from us - 'In God We Trust' will be taken from our money and 'One Nation under God' from our pledge. - There is a basic philosophical difference in this country of what law is," Moore said. "Law is not an order of court, and we've got to get that straight. If we follow the rule of man and not the rule of law, we're disregarding everything we're sworn to uphold."
These cases underscore the Screwtape process described by C.S. Lewis as it applies in an institutional setting. As these cases slowly wind their way up to the US Supreme Court, it is expected that the fundamentals of law will again be denied unless there is a reawakening of the electorate.
The Justices will do whatever the Justices want to do.
The game we're witnessing is called Gospel Quash. It is usually played in an enclosed room that is referred to as "open court." This is worthy of note because the presiding judge not only regulates the size of the public, but also controls the viewpoint. The judge can move the jury in and out of the courtroom at will and control the use of cameras and microphones. The right to a jury trial is, at face value, protected. But the judge is the gatekeeper. Nothing reaches the hearing of the jury unless the judge authorizes it. It is the judge who determines what the jury and the public sees and hears through the highly selective amplification, filtration and contextualization we've come to recognize. Then there is the phenomenon of the directed verdict, which further diminishes the value of a jury. It all begs the question, why have a jury? The short answer is; as scenery for the public.
Back stage, in certain highly coveted low profile cases, and in accordance with any prevailing collegial spirit, fellow judges along the avenue of appeals can mask unmeritorious reasoning through an under the table transaction known as the unpublished mandate. SCOTUS has fortified this cloaking devise as one part of an array of self-serving conveniences, foremost among these, the Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunity.
This extra-constitutional doctrine is a throwback to times when elsewhere the King and the Pope regarded themselves as infallible. It also brings the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods but me," into striking relief. Where the framers of the Constitution were meticulous about acknowledging God as they went about the task of ruling, SCOTUS Justices have demonstrated an air of superiority and absolute immunity that is derived from their real god: Themselves as supported by their unconstitutional Doctrine of Infallibility.
Who's going to challenge them? The inattention of the electorate and the impotence of the congress notwithstanding, the court has dishonored itself through an inability to be integrity centered. The Wayward Supremes have held that, even in cases of malice and corruption, judges are immune from civil liability for judicial acts. In this way the court has defined the injudicious act as a judicial act and has thereby become the champion of the injudicious judicial act.
Now we know that it is painful for you to follow SCOTUS logic just as it is painful for us to subject you to it. But it is essential to any understanding of their modus operandi. The Supreme Court of the United States has actively engaged in this willful and deliberate deception through a persistent disintegration of truth. It has taken upon itself the right to decide who gets college tuition assistance, what speech is permissible in the public square and which petitions fall within the scope of a right to petition. By narrowly redefining the domain of values to suit its own purposes, it can characterize the Ten Commandments, not as the historical embodiment and foundation for law, but as a narrow tradition. In this way the Supremes have enabled and actively promoted the moral relativism and the circular references that have resulted in such disharmony and judicial inconsistency throughout the land.
At the heart of the New World opportunity were soil conditions that favored religious growth. But today that soil is so compacted; the country has no coherent definition of religion. With a tolerance for some religions and denial about a de facto preference for the ones that don't challenge individual righteousness, the country has lost its spiritual idealism through an unhealthy and distorted concept of tolerance that effectively masks a most devastating affliction.
The United States has actively courted a variety of opportunistic infections and it has attracted a disproportionate number of so-called leaders who think freedom of religion means freedom from religion. Indeed, religion is thought to have no real place in the deliberative process where mature, though imperfect, value systems are routinely dismissed in favor of no viable alternative. The now lethargic value proposition of the New World lacks the spiritual idealism that once characterized a region on the forefront of progressive religious evolution.
Religionists have been bluffed out of their place at the table, have given up much ground through a failure to engage, to work the soil and to be part of the deliberative process. As if learning nothing from the Parable of the Sower, today's retail religionist largely avoids the hard work of soil amendment and essential conditioning. Moral courage is seldom required of those who occupy a comfortable mission field, the spiritual equivalent of a low maintenance ornamental garden.
These comfort levels are often secured at the expense of the Gospel. Corporate model churches have become fashionable. This is where ministers become administrators. Truth is crystallized into creedal formulas where it speedily dies and its power to transform is effectively neutralized. The Body ceases to be a unified whole and its parts compete against, rather than complement one another. Boundary lines are drawn and procedures are put in place to support a self-righteous exclusivity that runs well afoul of the "Love one another" mandate delivered by Our Universe Sovereign.
When Gospel resources are thus redirected, their effect is seriously diminished and evil is often the result. We've previously considered the positive influence of Martin Luther as he launched the protestant reformation at Wittenberg. Now, in the current context, consider his advocacy of an exclusive State Church in light of the blueprint he left for Adolph Hitler.
Much like SCOTUS, Luther denied the early foundations of law. He wrote: "Moreover, since priesthood, worship, government - with which the greater part, indeed, almost all, of those laws of Moses deal - have been at an end for over fourteen hundred years already, it is certain that Moses' law also came to an end and lost its authority. Therefore the imperial laws must be applied to these imperial Jews. Their wish to be Mosaic Jews must not be indulged. In fact, no Jew has been that for over fourteen hundred years."
I am quoting from Luther's tract titled Concerning the Jews and Their Lies:
"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of the Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we cannot tolerate them if we do not wish to share their lies, curses and blasphemy…. We must prayerfully and reverently practice a merciful severity…. Let me give you my honest advice:
" First… to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom.
" Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.
" Third, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.
" Fourth, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
" Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesman or the like. Let them stay at home.
" Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them, and put aside for safekeeping.
" Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hand of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow."
Some four centuries later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter stated that the history of liberty is in no small part the history of procedure. Frankfurter would know. As one of three prominent Jews who helped to shape Roosevelt's New Deal policies, the Justice was early on privy to, and in apparent denial about, information concerning the treatment and pending extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. Frankfurter had a reputation for intervention behind the scenes to correct instances of bias in the United States. When confronted with gruesome detail about the situation in Germany however, Frankfurter told one young witness, in a soft voice filled with resignation, "I am unable to believe you."
Denial is not uncommon. The Nazi holocaust seems like "ancient history" to the current generation of leaders. As terrorism takes the stage, new high profile threats are everywhere. As indiscriminate bombings dominate the news, an almost imperceptible erosion of civil liberties seems barely newsworthy and goes largely unacknowledged.
A false consciousness of liberty and the illusion of representative democracy prevail. Participatory democracy cannot succeed without an informed citizenry. Those idealistic forebears, in laying the foundation for rights now largely taken for granted by current generations, possessed uncommon wisdom. Now, as the crowning insult to those who laid down their lives for their fellows, freedom secured through the blood, sweat and tears of past generations is squandered by inattentive, self-indulgent masses.
We began these arguments by saying that "Much of what was foundational is no longer deemed desirable." We made the charge that "An impetuous leadership has dismissed mature and dependable systems of values for poorly defined baser sets." We also made reference to an adulterated concept of liberty through the routine divorce of rights and responsibility. And we said we are concerned with the "flow-downs, the fallout," and the effect upon the innocent child.
Most of what we have highlighted thus far has been a broad-brush view of what's been happening on earth with continued special emphasis on one evolving democracy, the United States. I believe we have accurately represented Lucifer's strategic overview and that of Our Sovereign. Now we will get to some of the details. We will focus on Lucifer's legacy through some of the tactical moves that depend, more than anything, upon what that country's framers called the "easy emoluments of statuteable plunder."
Lucifer is no longer walking the planet. His devotees no longer have direct access to his wicked counsel though they do have his manifesto. We are now entering a theatre of operations that is the Spiritual warfare equivalent of Where's Waldo. We're going to look for that devil in the details. And you will have opportunity to decide if certain procedures are Satanic ritual derived from Luciferian thought or just innocent lapses in judgment. You will decide if Lucifer had the means, the motive and the opportunity to squelch or obfuscate constitutional questions of exceptional importance to all of humanity.
At one time Lucifer commanded great respect by means of his brilliant personality. The fact that he wore jeweled robes certainly didn't hurt his ability to overawe the material mind. Both were gifts of beauty. And both were corrupted in such a way as to support his peculiar form of persuasion. Lucifer exhibited his ingratitude, and through time the gifts of God were trampled under foot. The folly of casting one's pearls before the unappreciative is not uncommon and, as the unmitigated selfishness of this privileged son ran unabated, he was eventually seen for just what he is, unappreciative - the very personification of ugliness. Though in his wake the people of Earth were left dazed and confused, individuals on high are no longer impressed by the parade or with his adornment, only his motivation and the lack of merit within his argument.
Now the same standard must be applied to the courts of earth and the public discourse. Citizens have long accepted, at face value, a peculiar "wisdom" proffered by judges not only robed by the people, but in whom their elected representatives have vested excessive discretion. Fortunately it takes far more than prestige of office to advance, even the illusion of, integrity. To the extent that absolute power does corrupt absolutely, we need to look even more closely for the after effect of the Immunity Doctrine.
Ruling in accordance with a counterfeit wisdom depends largely upon the dumbing-down of those who would be subjects. Where fashion sits, the light is sometimes harsh. And playing mirror, mirror on the wall is just no fun at all when stark contrasts interfere with self-admiration. Who's the fairest of them all is not a question today's earthly courts want answered by any means. To them, the problems associated with their substitution of false for true wisdom is largely a matter of contrast control.
In truth the court has put every other god before Absolute Deity. There is a definite purpose behind revisionist history and the banishing of the Ten Commandments from the public enclave. We have seen the results of Martin Luther's devaluation of these in the context of the Nazi Holocaust. Accordingly, as the ancient laws are removed from courthouse walls the results are clearly foreseeable. The post-mortem on American jurisprudence has begun. And the first casualty, along with the command "You shall not bear false witness," is truth.
In judicial proceedings witnesses are sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Then they often watch helplessly as half-truth is extracted and re-contextualized to paint one falsehood after another. The first duty of a witness is to demand the opportunity to give complete answers in accordance with his or her oath. We submit that, upon being forced to run afoul of such an oath, of being denied the opportunity to tell "the whole truth" or to give complete answers, a witness has the solemn duty, even at the risk of contempt, to retroactively renounce that oath.
We've seen that trial strategies are often selected on the basis of what a jury will believe, not on what constitutes truth. What to include in pleadings, whether to play the race card or employ the insanity defense is now simply a matter of permissible spin with a wink and a nod from the bench. What is the value of a judiciary, a process of adjudication or, for that matter a judge that does not depend fully and finally upon Truth?
In light of the truth decay, the injudicious judicial acts and their highly selective intolerance of religion, we again turn our attention to the state level and the former state of religious toleration. Right now in Maryland a baser set of values has emerged to take the place of, what was once regarded as traditional values. The new values system is generally not well defined and those in power steadfastly refuse to define, or be accountable for it.
So much of what is procedural would never stand for the light of day. The courts have become a forum for the systematic disintegration of truth. And all three branches of government in that state clearly intend to keep playing this esoteric system of values close to the vest for reasons we are about to examine. Here we will consider the demise of citizen participation in one small state for the purpose of understanding what's happening all across one troubled union of states.
Before we get into the details of this unpleasant but necessary illustration we want to make clear that the average citizen of Maryland is hard working, well motivated and basically good just like those in other parts of their nation. This state is of particular interest because it was the cradle of religious toleration and is a great prize to the devotees of Lucifer.
What we will show here is the state and federal context, the principle target of the attack and also the extent to which these people have been defrauded. How perilously close they are to losing their voice. And how, in light of "you shall not steal," certain "inalienable rights" are incrementally, systematically and deliberately stolen from these citizens as they are lulled into a sense of well being by their government.
Marylanders possess a grand heritage and a keen sense of right and wrong. What they lack is quality information from their representatives and their press. It is ironic that one of the best-educated populations on the planet is treated as though they are among the most poorly educated and disinterested.
Maryland's elected officials are largely reactionary. For example, when it was revealed that a prostitute had been servicing a Montgomery County Judge in chambers, there was prolonged debate about whether he should be removed. When a Circuit Court Judge concluded a rape trial by saying "it takes two to tango," elected officials again engaged in strong rhetoric, but little more. It was only when another judge from the same circuit granted custody of a minor child, to a mother convicted of murdering that same child's sibling, that the court's statutory authority was subject to some token modifications.
Still, as we have seen in the latter case, the next higher court actually refused to disturb what it termed the "wide discretion" vested in a lower court judge. Only when the case became a national embarrassment to the state and a favorite topic among talk radio callers and hosts did the highest state court agree to review the case and opine that the first reviewing tribunal failed to use its "collective common sense."
We submit that in such an unusual custody case, state intervention was fully justified. But, we are also convinced that, had it not been for the public outcry, "collective common sense" would not have prevailed. Did the High Court in this case see the light or just feel the heat?
Religion was never an opiate to Maryland's early inhabitants. The state boasts no poppy fields but rather features an abundance of battlefields. Much of the blood that nourished Maryland gardens was given unselfishly by solders laying down their lives to establish or defend basic freedom on behalf of all people. What a pity that within just a few hundred years after so many died to establish the nation's constitution, citizen participation is just too much trouble for many descendants of these fallen heroes.
Now we will review the apathy and immunity effects in light of our most sacred trust, that of child rearing. We've seen how human society's basic organizational unit is the family and we have defined the nuclear family, for the purposes of this discussion, as the child with the two natural parents. Though there are many noble variations on the human family, these are largely compensations for failures of nature. Of course, since an advanced society does not ultimately place its faith in nature, such disadvantages can and must be overcome. Without aspiring to nature we have learned, in looking at the higher orders, to respect it in the absence of something clearly superior. All else being equal, children who have benefited from the nurture of two loving natural parents will always have a clear and distinct initial advantage over their less fortunate peers.
The Supreme Court of the United States once termed the right to rear one's child "essential" in the 1923 case Meyer vs. Nebraska. It is one of the "basic civil rights of man," So said the court in 1942 with Skinner vs. Oklahoma. And in 1953 the Supreme Court held that Child rearing constitutes a right "far more precious ... than property rights." That case was May vs. Anderson.
At one time Maryland courts also protected the bond between parent and child. For example, the same Circuit Court with the unenviable record of having advanced the custody to a murderer case, heard arguments in 1977 by the Montgomery County Department of Social Services (MCDSS) in the case Montgomery County versus Saunders.
In that case the Government was arguing against returning a child to the custody of his mother, not because of any alleged or then current parental unfitness, but because the agency was enamored with the fashionable idea of reducing custody determinations to an exercise in basic algebra.
A+T=C. Age + Time = Custody. This formula was supposed to yield greater "judicial economy." The Judge in this case, John C. Tracey, was not interested in avoiding the hard work of adjudication. The subject child, Christopher, was still calling Rebecca "mother." Tracey returned Christopher to his mother and, as expected, MCDSS appealed, but MCDSS lost. The Appeals Court included, in its published opinion, the following quote from the 1963 book Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator. I quote:
"One may illustrate the essential idea by a spider web, pull a strand here, and a complex pattern of adjustments runs through the whole web. Pull another strand from a different angle, and another complex pattern results."
Social engineering at the nuclear family level is still very much in vogue at the MCDSS, but the courts of that day exhibited true wisdom and were reluctant to intrude. Today those same courts hard sell a counterfeit wisdom as they habitually intrude, especially in divorce cases.
While divorce is an unfortunate but necessary social safety valve, Maryland has installed the equivalent of a pump, fueled with monetary incentives. The state now allows individual judges to establish religious principle in the form of judicial precedent, to elevate purely personal evaluations to the level of absolutes in accordance with circular references, moral relativism and as a matter of habit. The current judiciary has proven itself to be a malevolent, predictable force in Maryland family life condemning little ones to a mode of living where they are taught maintaining relationships is just too much trouble.
The marriage statutes call for a ceremony to be superadded upon execution of a marriage contract. The preamble for the civil ceremony prescribed by the state reads: "We are gathered here in the presence of these witnesses to join this man and this woman together in matrimony. The contract of marriage is a solemn one and not to be entered into lightly, but thoughtfully and seriously and with a deep realization of its obligations and responsibilities."
Even while these ceremonies are conducted within Maryland courts of law the same judiciary has undermined the institution of marriage. And inconsistency has become the technique for plausible deniability. While the Constitution of the United States clearly prohibits laws that impair the obligations of contract, Maryland case law equates the contractual obligations of marriage with fleeting affection and holds that there is no cause of action for what they term "alienation of affection."
Thanks to the de-facto devaluation of marriage and higher than average divorce rates, the state engages in a steady chipping away at the sacred bond between parent and child through the neglected statutory framework whereby custody decisions are made. One turn of the millennium effort for comprehensive reform, The Best Interests of Children Act of 2000, died in committee. Other important legislation has failed because the House Judiciary Committee has, at times, been unable even to produce a quorum for such important legislation. Still, deadbeat is a term somehow reserved for parents.
This is pivotal. A key example of how legislative bodies have failed to put their values on the line. By not defining and not protecting marriage as a contract, and as they pay lip service to the best interests of children, the Judiciary, the Legislature, the Executives and the unbridled divorce industry have systematically brought instability to every child's nurturing environment. Children that have not lost a parent fear losing one. And because judges arbitrarily and routinely terminate parental rights in such incrementalist fashion, the state operates well under the radar screen of most constitutional scholars and with no coherent system of values.
At this point we need to be reminded of just how the devaluation of family serves the cause of Lucifer. Gospel Quash is a continuously running game. It has many variations, though each uses reality skew to achieve its goal of eliminating at least one parent from the life of a child. This is the way it works in Maryland and several other states.
In Maryland and elsewhere the contract of marriage often leads to a union that gives rise to interested third parties, the children. Not only has the contract that best protects their interest been undermined at every opportunity by an insatiable and expansionist divorce industry, the children are almost always without representation in cases involving custody. Nevertheless, the system makes much ado about the best interests of the children and has created a best interests fiction. These interests, as defined by a mostly self-serving system, are said to govern, giving the court a "justification" for selectively setting aside parental rights while, more often than not, putting asunder the rights of children as well.
Maryland's family law article provides that "parents are joint natural guardians of their minor child" In practice however; the state and federal courts have allowed just about every Tom, Dick and Principality to intrude on the parent/child relationship. And, there is absolutely nothing to limit these intrusions to divorce cases. Why would a confusing and conflicting array of case law be preferred by anyone over well-crafted legislation? As we continue, keep asking yourself: Who benefits?
Let's briefly return our attention to the SCOTUS agenda. The second casualty in the interest of contrast control is fidelity. By eliminating the commandments against covetousness and adultery from courthouse walls, the Supreme Court of the United States and some state courts have facilitated a moral inversion. They have sent clear signals that to impair the obligations of contract and to violate or betray the integrity of relationships is now ok. In so doing, Maryland Courts have advanced their best interests fiction. Despite strenuous denials, these courts have been the great enablers of family destabilization and parental alienation.
The nation's highest court has become the supreme scofflaw, Maryland's highest court is unable to distinguish between contractual obligation and fleeting affection. In this regard the court of public opinion has rightly held they both lack the "collective common sense" of first year law students.
The third casualty of the SCOTUS mirror is familial integrity. By removing "Honor thy father and mother" from courthouse walls, the courts have helped promote the fashionable idea that relationships with parents are entirely optional. Through the introduction of additional Boolean operators to its adulterated parenting philosophy, the courts have established their own religion. Their new commandments "Honor thy mother or father," "Honor thy mother not father" and "Honor thy father not mother."
From deep within the arena of moral relativism the Ten Commandments are seen as far too absolutist. If the high court is to be operated as a den of iniquity, and thereby serve the cause of Lucifer, these "offensive" commandments must be removed.
The courts are well able to advance other doctrines that are internally inconsistent and detrimental to children. For example, with rights conferred only at birth, a child can legally be greeted with a blow to the head as it traverses the birth canal. This is regarded as a partial birth medical procedure while at the same time a father killing his wife can be charged with her murder as well as that of the unborn child. A stillbirth due to neglected pre-natal care may be considered cause for a manslaughter charge against the mother.
The defect of intellect that could produce such a confusing and conflicting array of case law is directly traceable to the accountability deficit. The framers wrote "Congress shall make no law …" because the courts were never authorized to make law. The framers, though weary of the power of judges they characterized as "foreign potentates," clearly did not anticipate that the legislature would shrink from its responsibility, just as the judiciary became more constructionist. Let's revisit the state example.
Family law in Maryland has devolved into a system of patronage composed of those who deride and those who preside. During their first visit to a divorce attorney, each parent gives their so-called advocate a sense of scope, including insight on available financial resources. The number of potential billable hours is quickly deduced. And, unknown to any steer-able parent, a course of action and the level of contention is often set at this juncture. Attorney advice and predictions are usually conditioned by the business mathematics.
In states such as Maryland, parents quickly learn that one parent can effectively veto joint custody through non-cooperation. And, depending upon whether the particular judge has a demonstrated maternal or paternal preference, the percent chance of win is predictable. What parents don't realize until after the damage is done is the extent to which trial lawyers, judges and ancillary service providers are incentivized within a system like Maryland's.
To emerge victorious in contested custody cases, the goal is to prove the other parent unfit. The court takes, what amounts to, a snapshot of the parents at their worst, least cooperative, most reactive and most competitive moment. This is usually in the context of a contested divorce where living truth is murdered in a triangulation of crossfire. As it is with quarreling children, if provocation goes unnoticed, the reactive parent appears to be the offender.
From this snapshot, snap judgments are formed and, as the courts only think they possess superior wisdom in such cases, all of their conclusions regarding such matters are suspect. Insidious maneuvers are calculated to further divide the parents and to impeach the covenant, the parent and their right to petition. Each is blunted, corrupted and distorted in a way that serves, not the interests of children, not the interests of citizens, but the insatiable appetites of a parasitic system of patronage.
The State's de-facto preference for sole custody sacrifices good results for design efficiency. It stands in stark contrast to lip service and usually results in the disenfranchisement of one otherwise "fit-and-proper parent." The initial "decision" is often capped with an award of attorney fees to the victor and designed to disadvantage the potential Appellant. Also common is the imposition of disproportionate support obligations.
With an oppressive thump on the equity scale, support enforcement occurs at the expense of the state but access enforcement occurs at the expense of the frustrated parent. Such parents often conclude that access is unenforceable or they are unable to endure sustained combat as the price of continued involvement. Beyond doubt, the state has become the de-facto enabler of parental alienation.
The vanquished is further disadvantaged through the tax code and what is known as the material change in circumstances trap. This means that unless the vanquished has substantial resources and unless some arbitrarily set threshold proving a change in circumstances is reached, once the court takes its initial snapshot and a custody decision is made, there will be little chance of success through subsequent proceedings for modification. Through so-called procedures in equity, the state has empowered judges to protect the system and to impose penalties on those seeking to protect their children from, what amounts to, a state sponsored religion. The judicial priesthood is adept at masking the results.
As those vested in the system pat themselves on the back and say "we've served the best interests of a child today," that child's nurturing infrastructure is often discarded as an empty, it's life supporting plasma having been consumed by a system that serves, first and foremost, its own interest.
The child is thus deprived of a nurturing infrastructure that is balanced and diversified in the name of a slothfulness termed "judicial economy." Such "economy" is the haven of the most ethically lazy, socially indifferent, morally unprogressive and spiritually indolent judges. These deadbeats of the highest order abandon moral values and presume to repudiate spiritual goals for whole societies as they undermine the best interests of all children. This so-called economy is also the key to profitability for divorce attorneys, for once the deal is done and there's nothing left to attach, with no time wasted it's on to the next client, the next chug-a-lug.
Now for those who don't think it could possibly be as bad as all that, we will now zoom-in further to examine this scenario, as well as more of the incentives, in even greater detail. As we do, consider the words of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, I quote: "The rights of every person are diminished when the rights of one person are threatened."
Maryland case law states that in matters of custody the court shall examine the sincerity of a parent's request, the capacity of parents to communicate and reach shared decisions affecting the child's welfare, the psychological capabilities of the parents, the potential for psychological or emotional injury to the child and the potential disruption of a child's social and school life. In divorce cases involving adultery the court must determine if the relationship has had a detrimental affect on the child. The court should examine the totality of the situation in the alternative environments and avoid focusing on any single factor.
The trial courts are also admonished to be aware of what they term lollipop and rescue syndromes. The child's own wishes may be consulted and given weight if he or she is of sufficient age and capacity to form a rational judgment. The state's high court has held that, and I quote "It is not the whim of the child that the court respects, but its feelings, attachments, reasonable preference and probable contentment."
That's quite a snapshot!
By what stretch of even the most overactive imagination, by what miracle of legal education and by what level of megalomanic delusion is a human judge competent to make these determinations? How can the State of Maryland, without regard to their personal success as parents or spouses, justify imposing the values of individual judges on children and families?
Such mandates are impractical as well as immoral, appellate opinion notwithstanding. The State Judiciary does not justify itself but rather covers its failures through unpublished mandates. And there is virtually no objective follow-up that could potentially reveal the long term detrimental affects on children or that might serve as an indicator to the quality of wisdom as it's applied. The Maryland Judiciary clearly does not favor any type of independent audit that would lead to exposure of the best interests' fiction.
In contrast to Maryland and other states that have failed to evolve joint custody, those states with a demonstrated preference for joint custody have recognized the folly of allowing one uncooperative parent to veto it. Such family friendly courts have put the children first and have clarified their intentions with respect to the child's nuclear family in no uncertain terms.
In 1992 the Court of Appeals for the State of Kentucky heard Chalupa v. Chalupa. Judge Schroder, wrote for the majority, and I quote:
"A divorce from a spouse is not a divorce from their children, nor should custody decisions be used as a punishment. Joint custody can benefit the children, the divorced parents, and society in general by having both parents involved in the children's upbringing.... The difficult and delicate nature of deciding what is in the best interest of a child leads this Court to interpret the child's best interest as requiring a trial court to consider joint custody first, before the more traumatic sole custody. In finding a preference for joint custody is in the best interest of the child, even in a bitter divorce, the Court is encouraging the parents to cooperate with each other and to stay on their best behavior. Joint custody can be modified if a party is acting in bad faith or is uncooperative. The trial court at any time can review joint custody and if a party is being uncooperative, modify the custody to sole custody in favor of the reasonable parent. Surely, with the stakes so high, there would be more cooperation, which leads to the child's best interest, the parent's best interest, fewer court appearances and judicial economy. Starting out with sole custody would deprive one parent of the vital input."
In 1993 the Court of Appeals for the State of Georgia heard a case in the interest of A.R.B., a child. In a unanimous opinion, presiding Judge Dorothy T. Beasley stated:
"Although the dispute is symbolized by a 'versus' which signifies two adverse parties at opposite poles of a line, there is in fact a third party whose interests and rights make of a line a triangle. That person, the child who is not an official party to the lawsuit but whose well being is in the eye of the controversy, has a right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it. Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child's right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parent's wisdom, judgment and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce."
In states with a rebuttable presumption of joint custody, parents get the idea early on that cooperation truly serves the best interests of their children. In contrast to Georgia and Kentucky, certain states provide the means for sole custody by contrivance. Especially where one parent has a clear advantage due to a judicial bias. When governments presume to regulate a fundamental familial relation they intrude on the natural family with so-called procedures in equity that are often far from equitable.
Compulsive tinkers have encroached in ways they are not willing to acknowledge, but clearly understand. And, they have violated the most basic tenet of sound tinkering, which is to keep all the parts. States that have failed to evolve joint custody together with gender neutrality have engaged in a systematic deprivation of rights against an entire class of citizens. In light of what is known about homes with absentee fathers or mothers, this is clearly a moral inversion, a serious offense subversive of good order.
Executives, legislators and the electorate share responsibility with a judiciary that has lost sight of its onetime role as the standard bearer. As confusion reigns, caseloads increase. Mediocre judges become senior judges who, in the opinion of the Supremes, enjoy absolute judicial immunity, the only remaining absolute in their very special world. This bears repeating again and again, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that judges are immune from civil action, even for acts of malevolence and corruption.
The wayward high court does not differentiate between the judicial act and acts that are arguably in-judicial. Justices have demonstrated a general lack of interest for the issue of judicial integrity and chose to place the interests of friends and colleagues well ahead of the fundamental rights of United States Citizens. Through summary dismissals that are a clear violation of the judicial oath, courts thereby avoid concerning themselves with annoying questions pointing to pervasive judicial corruption
These are questions you must answer. Are they simply educated fools, or do they have an overriding agenda? Does the United States enjoy equal justice for all and an independent judiciary as advertised, or are judges also just one more product of political process? Before you answer, consider again the turn of the millennium national election and the series of court decisions that fell precisely along political lines accompanied by an extraordinary amount of "justification" in the form of court opinions. Also, take note that this was a very rare, high profile case of interest to the largest public. With so much light on them, good behavior was all but assured. All of this serves to underscore the principle that sunlight remains the best disinfectant.
In low profile cases however, reviewing tribunals, both state and federal, routinely issue unpublished mandates thus denying the public the opportunity to see their courts in their most defining moments. It is these buried transactions that enable governments to pacify and sometimes to defraud citizens. Amendment One to the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In contrast, the Judiciary has granted itself the right to suppress questions of exceptional importance. Abridging the Right to Petition has become black art. Lawyers are trained to fear the career-ending question and the intemperate rage of senior judges. Petitions are routinely dismissed before any hearing, for failure to state a non-frivolous claim even when the claims are anything but frivolous. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that such questions are of little interest where maintaining the illusion of honor is involved.
Justices have used every bureaucratic device to avoid, obfuscate and cowardly suppress the petitions of an entire class of citizens. Advocates and government officials sworn to protect the general population routinely bluff citizens out of their most fundamental rights. With each new occurrence deniability becomes less plausible. No honest person, knowledgeable in this area, denies that there are lawyers engaged in conspiracies against rights and that there are judges, sworn to uphold the constitution as their first duty, that are not above imposing deprivations of rights.
The courts quash any effort to focus public attention on the judiciary's unconstitutional behaviors. It is the courts themselves that have weakened the system of judicial accountability. We have all witnessed judges that would minimize the serious and gravity of perjury as well as the subornation of perjury. Reckless indifference to the problem of corruption is pervasive and their motivations, with respect to maintaining the status quo, are clear.
Everyone understands and appreciates the Judiciary's discomfort and its reluctance to hear petitions that call into question the integrity of fellow members of the bar. Even so, it is clear the immunity doctrines do not serve the public interest.
Should a judge engaged in the slow, careful and deliberate process of adjudication enjoy absolute freedom from liability for malpractice when an over-tasked emergency room physician does not?
The only justifications offered by the federal courts clearly demonstrate that the self-interest of the court and those of career advocates govern, despite all pretenses to the contrary. The citizenry is not sympathetic to the cause of corruption. The question remains if the public, once fully informed, will be tolerant of a court that, by its own actions and dereliction, has brought such dishonor upon a once respected institution.
Petitions are dismissed for having the wrong typeface while constitutional questions are characterized as frivolous. Judges have treated the whole body of law as though it's a buffet from which they can pick and choose in a self-indulgent manner, placing their personal interests and the career interests of their colleagues ahead of their respective duties in accordance with their oaths of office. The willingness to suppress questions presented on appeal and the habit of obsessing on minutia while ignoring essential principles is not without historical precedent. The courts of ancient times were said to have strained at gnats while swallowing camels. We submit that the sophistries and motivations of those cloaked in absolute power have not changed in thousands of years.
The people of this earthly nation are just now coming to the realization that they have the duty to get focused, to correctly discern the merits of each and every proposition put forth by their public "servants." And to regain control. The electorate is just beginning to recognize that peer pressure and the current political climate are such that elected officials are mostly concerned with running afoul of political correctness standards, and that these so-called standards are often set by vocal minorities and special interest groups.
In formula politics, the moral compass is seldom, if ever, consulted. In fact, morality itself is denounced by certain constituencies as "politically incorrect." Where fashion sits, immoral decisions are characterized as "properly amoral." So-called leaders are seen by citizens as reeds in a political wind, as tripping all over themselves to avoid moral questions in a pathetic attempt to conform to these fleeting "standards."
Yates, in his poem the Second Coming, said "The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity." In accordance with this belief, the Judiciary is confident that citizens will continue to tolerate what amounts to a state sponsored religion that is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. But by this perfidy the judges have aroused the indignation of a virtuous, loyal and affectionate people.
Waiting armies of Citizen Litigators are thriving in light and see that the effects of acquiescence are not tolerable. They have rightly concluded that to accept is to deserve and are willing to go to extreme, at times self-sacrificing lengths, to expose the unmitigated selfishness of jurists who seek to suppress constitutional questions for their own purposes. There is a long line of citizen litigators in training who are unimpressed by any masquerade usurping the authority of true justice and equity.
These true citizens are not members of any bar and they serve without conflict of interest. They are therefore free to champion the true interests of their fellow citizens. They are an unruly lot and often hated by judges for such careers are not in the hands of these judges. And accordingly, the career-ending question has bounced back with an attitude. It is they who will expose the pseudo-judicial hucksterism that has so corrupted these earthly courts.
The founders did not regard themselves as God's equal and certainly did not believe their work product to be superior to His. In contrast to today's courts, the framers strove, not to displace, but to complement the wisdom of the ages. Because the Wayward Supremes lack the spiritual idealism characteristic of the founders, they have a great handicap in divining the intent of the framers.
As the rudderless ship of state runs its course, it has adopted a moral relativism that is the navigational and mathematical equivalent of a circular reference. Why? Who benefits from the absence of a true reference standard? Keep that question uppermost in your minds as we continue to move forward through these arguments and as you move forward through your deliberations.
we expect what never was and never will be." (Thomas Jefferson)
While fundamentalist movements have reinforced the view that religion is a reactionary obstacle to secular progress, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has created confusion with respect to the role of religion. And, through its lack of a viable or serviceable definition, has produced an embarrassing array of opinions and denials concerning religion's "public significance." The American family has suffered significant destabilization as a direct consequence of these high level vacillations.
The SCOTUS Justices now also fancy themselves as sociologists and psychologists. And, in their most pretentious moments, have advanced the notion that a certain class of individuals have suffered "psychological harm" whenever government has embraced the values of religion. Accordingly, they have established a new protected class. But the court's primitive notion of what constitutes psychology also promotes and bespeaks an abysmal ignorance. While psychiatry is a branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental and emotional disorders, the word psychology, correctly translated from its Greek origins, means "the science of the soul."
Any competent psychiatrist will acknowledge that mind is an endowment separate and distinct from that electrochemical mechanism upon which it gently rests. And, because the Justices don't know what they're talking about, they have been unable to explain to their subjects just how a moment of silence causes harm to the human soul. It is largely because the Justices have so clearly and consistently demonstrated ignorance of both science and religion that the extra-constitutional nature of their policy-making has been brought to intense light.
Indulging those who are somehow embarrassed by or uncomfortable with their own thoughts during a moment of silence deprives such individuals, and everyone else of healthy socialization challenges. And, on the sociological scale, the SCOTUS policies serve to impair an entire nation, for they attack the spiritual idealism the justices already lack. It was this very idealism that took that young earthly nation from one level of attainment to the next. And, unless the citizenry takes its nation back, as world competition heats up historians will likely have to account for the nation's loss of spiritual idealism during a near-term post-mortem phase.
Nowhere on Earth was the great experiment with freedom and democracy better exemplified than in the United States of America (USA). The country was cobbled together by the most diverse collection of individuals ever assembled for an uncommon cause. Fewer than half of the passengers traveling to the North American continent on the Mayflower were actually separatists seeking religious freedom in a new land. The rest - including such famous names as Myles Standish and John Alden - were economic emigrants who had signed onto the voyage in hopes of finding a better life for themselves in far-off "Virginia."
Initially neither group was large enough to form a colony on its own. So, born out of necessity and in the spirit of cooperation, they joined to sign the Mayflower Compact, the first document outlining a form of self-government in the New World.
In 1635, the Puritan government demanded that its members take an oath of allegiance to church and state; a requirement opposed by prominent Puritan clergyman, Roger Williams. Williams did not think that nonbelievers should be required to take such an oath. For his stalwart opposition, he was banished. He fled south with followers to form the colony of Rhode Island.
About one hundred years prior to the American Revolution, a pragmatic Lord Baltimore took note of England's victorious Puritan Parliament. He invited the Puritans to settle in Maryland. He promised them full religious freedom and hoped thereby to secure toleration for Maryland Catholics. As about one thousand Puritans accepted and made plans, Baltimore appointed Protestant William Stone to be his Governor.
In 1649, as the Puritans made their voyage, Maryland passed the Act of Religious Toleration. It acknowledged the Trinity, reinforced laws against blasphemy, and exacted penalties for profaning the Sabbath. It also took a firm position in protecting the rights of any who may find themselves in a religious minority just so long as they professed a belief in Christ. Extracted from the historical record that was earlier placed into evidence, we would offer the following:
… noe person or persons whatsoever within this Province, or the Islands, Ports, Harbors, Creeks, or havens thereunto belonging professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall from henceforth bee any ways troubled, Molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof within this Province or the Islands thereunto belonging nor any way compelled to the belief or exercise of any other Religion against his or her consent …
Against a backdrop of heresy trials and the European Dark Ages, Maryland's Act of Religious Tolerance then stood in bold contrast to the oppressive influence of theological arrogance. Though far from perfect with respect to minority rights, it was more inclusive than anything that had gone before. It protected the free exchange of ideas, while also protecting individual believers against intimidation and coercive labeling.
The freemen of Concord passed a resolution outlining the rights and liberties they thought important, including "liberty of conscience to all Christians (Papists excepted)." This occurred in 1774, barely a year before the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord fired "the shot heard round the world."
A few years later, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson beat back an effort in Virginia to use tax money in the name of "public morality." In the context of that time the support of church activities would have funded the Church of England in its competition against the insurgent Baptists. Madison and Jefferson then fought to pass the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, which became the inspiration for the First Amendment. That amendment has been interpreted, out of context, as prohibiting the inter-mingling of religion with government-sponsored education.
In 1787, when the nation was still operating under the Articles of Confederation, Congress enacted The Northwest Ordinance. The purpose of the Ordinance was to create a temporary government for the Northwest Territory (a huge swath of land that extended from the great lakes to the Ohio River valley), and to establish a procedure by which territories could apply for admission into the Union. The Northwest Ordinance received final House and Senate approval, and was signed into law by President Washington in the summer of 1789, the same summer in which the same Congress was formulating the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Article III of the Northwest Ordinance begins with this sentence:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
George Washington, the first President, and John Adams, the second, spoke in equally strong terms concerning the importance of both religion and education.
Washington said:
"The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail. - And let us with caution indulge the opposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Adams said:
"Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, (are) necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties."
The Establishment clause of the United States Constitution was precisely worded by men who knew the language and carefully considered the initiative as well as its context. So why did SCOTUS ever have to go searching for the "intent" of the framers. And once engaged in that folly, why did they give more weight to one framer's letter to the Danbury Baptists then they gave to the collective will of Congress and the first President, as expressed through the Northwest Ordinance?
The framers understood what the justices deny, that religion is to values what science is to facts. In a world of competing ideas, Jefferson and Madison leveled the playing field by not subsidizing the Church of England over the Baptists. Specifically, the Establishment Clause is the embodiment of this particular wisdom. But such wisdom is apparently lost on the Justices of SCOTUS. Or is it something more sinister? Perhaps they don't want to acknowledge the true intent of the Establishment Clause for other reasons.
At first glance the simplistic reasoning and revisionist history proffered by SCOTUS would appear to be flawed interpretations rather than deliberate misrepresentations. That is until one recognizes that selective amplification, filtration and contextualization are the primary tools of modern day deceivers. At least one thing is painfully obvious. When the Court redefined religion in support of its secularization hypothesis, it departed from the agreed upon contract and amplified, with considerable distortion, the so-called "intent of the framers."
Clearly the "intent" is not as advertised by SCOTUS. And, by redefining religion the Justices can themselves violate the Establishment Clause to promote their pet "ism's," including humanism and moral relativism, with plausible deniability backed up by absolute judicial immunity. Where the carefully worded Establishment Clause protected the nation from any potentially domineering religion, the Supremes have formulated their own value proposition and are determined to run consistently afoul of legislative intent while driving out anything that challenges their prevailing megalomania.
This theft of religious liberty at the hands of Supreme Court Justices would have been the perfect crime were it not for the fact that they overlooked one detail. They were so caught up in their declarative constructs and pontifications that they neglected to obliterate certain historical artifacts. In a few moments we will cut through the obfuscations imposed by SCOTUS and reveal the extent to which the people were snookered by the Justices. But first we must explore further what can only be described as a power grab by one of the so-called equal branches of government.
What Jefferson described as the "wall of separation" between church and state was never intended by the other framers to be all that much greater than the separation between the three branches of government. And in this area too, SCOTUS is well afoul of constitutional imperatives. A constructionist court could not exist were it not for the weakness of the legislature with the acquiescence of, and in this case through the uninformed consent of, the governed. At this point, from the evidence placed into the record previously, I would highlight Sir Edmond Burke's Report to King George. Reading from the record:
"Permit me sir to add another circumstance in our colonies which contributes no mean part toward the growth and effect of this intractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. All who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering of that science. I've been told by an eminent book seller that in no branch of his business, after tracks of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the colonies. They have now fallen into a way of printing them for their own use. I hear they have sold as many of Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage states that all the people in his government are lawyers or smatterers in law, and that in Boston they have been enabled by successful chicane wholly to evade many parts of your capital penal constitution."
"The smartness of debate will say that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the penalties of rebellion, but my honorable and learned friend, the attorney general, will disdain that ground. He has heard as well as I that when great honors and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a considerable adversary to a government. If the spirit is not tamed by this happy means, it is stubborn and litigious. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in their attack, ready in defense, full of resources. In other countries the people are more simple and are of a less mercurial cast. They judge of an ill principle only in government, only by an actual grievance. Here they anticipate the evil and judge the pressure of the evil by the badness of the principle. They honor misgovernment from a distance and snuff out the approach of tyranny in every tainted brief."
So what happened? When did those Americans lose the ability to recognize a "tainted brief" or the "badness" of a principle? For it now seems that even when they can define good practice, it's on a purely academic level. There is some major disconnect when it comes to real world applications.
Suppose, just suppose you were called upon to investigate a murder. In our hypothetical you have been given responsibility for presiding over a team to support this effort. Would you include a person on this team that had been recently fired from his job by the decedent? Now suppose this person, in addition to having motive, had clear opportunity and the means or connections to have the victim killed. Let's say you also hold a highly prestigious position with a prominent institution. Would you lend your good name to such an investigative team? What if the institution you worked for was known for being politically independent, would political pressure be a factor?
Ok, ok, maybe this isn't the most realistic example. Such a thing could never happen because if you were the Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States, you'd be presiding over an independent judiciary. And if, in fact, the now deceased President had removed Alan Dulles from his job as Director for Central Intelligence, he'd be disqualified from holding a seat on the Commission, right? Certainly, in such an event, you would never allow the good name Warren to be associated with the appearance of impropriety, or to be placed on such a tainted work product. After all, the public would have to have the attention span of a gnat to let you get away with that.
But average citizens have been largely conditioned to behave as subjects of the state. Most of these dues paying dependants rarely participate in the democratic process, except by periodic invitation. Many see democracy as not working and their sense of ownership is diminished with each and every election cycle. Of course there are compensations for this loss of equity.
Parents and marketeers have created the current culture of indulgences. But rather than educate constituents on fundamental fairness, politicians lull the electorate into complacency or stir them up for political purposes. They have promoted unrealistic expectations of disproportionate representation even while they champion other interests. And, more often than not, they advance a sense of entitlement that is not only unsustainable, but also de-coupled from any sense of duty.
To be more specific, it is increasingly clear that the government of the United States no longer operates as three equal branches. Composed mostly of lawyers, the legislature has failed to provide a proper statutory framework for many important areas of law. Where it is unable to reach consensus, or lacks the moral courage to put closely held values on the record, it defers to case law thereby avoiding the glare of the spotlight and accountability. The same dynamic applies to the executive branch as it has also failed to provide real moral leadership on so many of the most important issues of the day.
We look to this process of unraveling the promise by first understanding the inter-dynamics of the three branches of this North American government. Politicians, be they executive, legislative or judicial, often broach major issues by stealth. Issues will of course present themselves without regard to government responsiveness. So, by default, elected officials offload controversial decisions to courts. Where Congress is expressly prohibited from making any law that abridges certain constitutional rights, the Supreme Court is more than willing to do so, through its unchecked and arbitrary assumption of ever increasing power.
Legislators usually will not criticize the courts because most are lawyers by training and no one wants to ask the career ending question. Representatives often yield their legislative responsibility to the judiciary out of convenience and because it is less visible and less vulnerable to political upheavals. After all, how many citizens entering the voting booth even know the names of their judges, much less the decision records?
While legal experience is an asset to moving ahead within the legislature, lawyer-politicians also know they are just one election away from having to practice law within the same bar and before the very same judges whose power they might otherwise curtail through properly crafted legislation. This failure to effectively bracket the sometimes esoteric and purely personal "values" of individual judges and the legal fraternity is especially dangerous in light of historical precedent and the larger democracy implications.
Voter indifference insures that the citizenry will not take control. Controlled access and the fear of being cut out of the loop compromises the media. Religious institutions have effectively disbarred themselves; their range of permissible speech and activity is now defined and circumscribed by federal regulators. Religionists are seemingly content with relative impotence as long as they are able to enjoy tax exemptions "granted" by the government.
Coercive tax policies for religionists, exclusives for the good behavior of journalists and false euphoria for the electorate combine to favor shadow government. With each clash the chasm between Church and State widens and each compromise serves to eclipse and undermine the State's internal separation of powers. As the country turns its back on founding principles, it tries to cling to a confused and narrow disintegration of Truth. This occurs, in large part through the type of re-contextualization we have witnessed.
The principles of context were introduced to the people of Earth by John Wycliffe in the fourteenth century. He outlined an approach to understanding scripture that should also prove useful to students of statecraft. He wrote:
"It shall greatly helpe ye to understand scripture if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom, and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth."
As one presidential candidate was fond of saying, "the Devil is in the details." To this we would simply add that the details are in the case law. SCOTUS, has a history of competitive, ideologically motivated jurisprudence. Their anomie initiative is largely based upon anecdotal evidence of societal change. All judges employ personal values and their own principles in making constitutional choices. The same political process that produced the secularization hypothesis produced the current class of judges. And, even though the hypothesis contains the seeds of its own misconstruction, SCOTUS still views the secularization of society as a positive long term trend that will eventually result in the elimination of religion as a public influence.
The onetime standard bearer now spends much of its time presiding over the normalization of deviance. Accordingly, the constructionist court is heavily vested in secularization and the ancient laws have been removed from courthouse walls across the nation. No doubt the judicial definition of religion will continue to morph, hiding the court's convoluted reasoning while serving an incoherent jurisprudence. By current definition however, the inalienable rights endowment described in the Declaration of Independence must, in the view of the court, be a source of psychological torment to atheists.
Squelching the "Endowed by their Creator" language would be politically problematic, even for a supposedly independent Judiciary. But SCOTUS has already shown its willingness to misrepresent the facts in supporting its abandonment of "de-facto establishment" as a guide to church/state relations. The intellectual integrity deficit is not only pervasive, but the flow-downs are traceable directly back to the nations highest court and from there map to the Lucifer Manifesto.
In the movie Devil's Advocate a young lawyer asked "why the law?"
The devil's answer: "Cause it gets us into everything, it's the ultimate back stage pass."
Post offices in Texas have been forced to remove small "In God We Trust" signs because they violate a law concerning electioneering posters. South Carolina Judge William Bertlesman ruled that license plates bearing the slogan "Choose Life" are unconstitutional. And then there was Judge Alfred Goodwin's effort to excise the phrase "One nation under God" from the United States Pledge of Allegiance.
When Roy Moore, an Alabama Circuit Judge displayed a small handmade wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall, he was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union. Shortly after his election to the Alabama Supreme Court, Chief Justice Moore installed a monument in the Rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. The monument of the Ten Commandments includes many references to God in American Law and History, like the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Motto, the National Anthem and the Oath of all Public Officials.
Moore was sued again and, in a move highly symbolic of the judiciary's obfuscation tactics, the monument was briefly walled off from public view by a plywood partition. "This is an example of what is happening in this country: the acknowledgment of God as the moral foundation of law in this nation is being hidden from us." Moore said in a statement.
As Justice Moore put his office and reputation on the line to acknowledge that the rights and freedoms we all enjoy are gifts from a loving God, SCOTUS avoided the issue and refused to hear arguments on Moore's Certiorari petition as well as his Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus. For his actions in courageously defending Alabama's right to display the Ten Commandments, Moore was removed from the bench by the unanimous decision of his cowering colleagues.
The Judicial Inquiry Commission, which filed the complaint against Moore, said that the justice violated the code of judicial ethics by failing to:
" Uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary;
" Observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary might be preserved;
" Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety;
" Respect and comply with the law;
" Conduct himself in a manner promoting public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary;
" Avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to bring the judicial office into disrepute.
Moore, though, asserted that a level of inconsistency rests in the nation's judiciary. "We've got to stop the hypocrisy in this country," he said. "We've got to stop courts that will open with 'God save the United States and this honorable court' and then say (we) can't acknowledge God. We've got to stop judges who put their hand on the Bible and say, 'So help me God,' and then go into court and deny the very Creator God upon which this nation and our laws are founded."
"The nation must stand up to the actions of courts," Moore said. "Unless we do, the public acknowledgment of God will be taken from us - 'In God We Trust' will be taken from our money and 'One Nation under God' from our pledge. - There is a basic philosophical difference in this country of what law is," Moore said. "Law is not an order of court, and we've got to get that straight. If we follow the rule of man and not the rule of law, we're disregarding everything we're sworn to uphold."
These cases underscore the Screwtape process described by C.S. Lewis as it applies in an institutional setting. As these cases slowly wind their way up to the US Supreme Court, it is expected that the fundamentals of law will again be denied unless there is a reawakening of the electorate.
The Justices will do whatever the Justices want to do.
The game we're witnessing is called Gospel Quash. It is usually played in an enclosed room that is referred to as "open court." This is worthy of note because the presiding judge not only regulates the size of the public, but also controls the viewpoint. The judge can move the jury in and out of the courtroom at will and control the use of cameras and microphones. The right to a jury trial is, at face value, protected. But the judge is the gatekeeper. Nothing reaches the hearing of the jury unless the judge authorizes it. It is the judge who determines what the jury and the public sees and hears through the highly selective amplification, filtration and contextualization we've come to recognize. Then there is the phenomenon of the directed verdict, which further diminishes the value of a jury. It all begs the question, why have a jury? The short answer is; as scenery for the public.
Back stage, in certain highly coveted low profile cases, and in accordance with any prevailing collegial spirit, fellow judges along the avenue of appeals can mask unmeritorious reasoning through an under the table transaction known as the unpublished mandate. SCOTUS has fortified this cloaking devise as one part of an array of self-serving conveniences, foremost among these, the Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunity.
This extra-constitutional doctrine is a throwback to times when elsewhere the King and the Pope regarded themselves as infallible. It also brings the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods but me," into striking relief. Where the framers of the Constitution were meticulous about acknowledging God as they went about the task of ruling, SCOTUS Justices have demonstrated an air of superiority and absolute immunity that is derived from their real god: Themselves as supported by their unconstitutional Doctrine of Infallibility.
Who's going to challenge them? The inattention of the electorate and the impotence of the congress notwithstanding, the court has dishonored itself through an inability to be integrity centered. The Wayward Supremes have held that, even in cases of malice and corruption, judges are immune from civil liability for judicial acts. In this way the court has defined the injudicious act as a judicial act and has thereby become the champion of the injudicious judicial act.
Now we know that it is painful for you to follow SCOTUS logic just as it is painful for us to subject you to it. But it is essential to any understanding of their modus operandi. The Supreme Court of the United States has actively engaged in this willful and deliberate deception through a persistent disintegration of truth. It has taken upon itself the right to decide who gets college tuition assistance, what speech is permissible in the public square and which petitions fall within the scope of a right to petition. By narrowly redefining the domain of values to suit its own purposes, it can characterize the Ten Commandments, not as the historical embodiment and foundation for law, but as a narrow tradition. In this way the Supremes have enabled and actively promoted the moral relativism and the circular references that have resulted in such disharmony and judicial inconsistency throughout the land.
At the heart of the New World opportunity were soil conditions that favored religious growth. But today that soil is so compacted; the country has no coherent definition of religion. With a tolerance for some religions and denial about a de facto preference for the ones that don't challenge individual righteousness, the country has lost its spiritual idealism through an unhealthy and distorted concept of tolerance that effectively masks a most devastating affliction.
The United States has actively courted a variety of opportunistic infections and it has attracted a disproportionate number of so-called leaders who think freedom of religion means freedom from religion. Indeed, religion is thought to have no real place in the deliberative process where mature, though imperfect, value systems are routinely dismissed in favor of no viable alternative. The now lethargic value proposition of the New World lacks the spiritual idealism that once characterized a region on the forefront of progressive religious evolution.
Religionists have been bluffed out of their place at the table, have given up much ground through a failure to engage, to work the soil and to be part of the deliberative process. As if learning nothing from the Parable of the Sower, today's retail religionist largely avoids the hard work of soil amendment and essential conditioning. Moral courage is seldom required of those who occupy a comfortable mission field, the spiritual equivalent of a low maintenance ornamental garden.
These comfort levels are often secured at the expense of the Gospel. Corporate model churches have become fashionable. This is where ministers become administrators. Truth is crystallized into creedal formulas where it speedily dies and its power to transform is effectively neutralized. The Body ceases to be a unified whole and its parts compete against, rather than complement one another. Boundary lines are drawn and procedures are put in place to support a self-righteous exclusivity that runs well afoul of the "Love one another" mandate delivered by Our Universe Sovereign.
When Gospel resources are thus redirected, their effect is seriously diminished and evil is often the result. We've previously considered the positive influence of Martin Luther as he launched the protestant reformation at Wittenberg. Now, in the current context, consider his advocacy of an exclusive State Church in light of the blueprint he left for Adolph Hitler.
Much like SCOTUS, Luther denied the early foundations of law. He wrote: "Moreover, since priesthood, worship, government - with which the greater part, indeed, almost all, of those laws of Moses deal - have been at an end for over fourteen hundred years already, it is certain that Moses' law also came to an end and lost its authority. Therefore the imperial laws must be applied to these imperial Jews. Their wish to be Mosaic Jews must not be indulged. In fact, no Jew has been that for over fourteen hundred years."
I am quoting from Luther's tract titled Concerning the Jews and Their Lies:
"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of the Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we cannot tolerate them if we do not wish to share their lies, curses and blasphemy…. We must prayerfully and reverently practice a merciful severity…. Let me give you my honest advice:
" First… to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom.
" Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.
" Third, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.
" Fourth, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
" Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesman or the like. Let them stay at home.
" Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them, and put aside for safekeeping.
" Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hand of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow."
Some four centuries later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter stated that the history of liberty is in no small part the history of procedure. Frankfurter would know. As one of three prominent Jews who helped to shape Roosevelt's New Deal policies, the Justice was early on privy to, and in apparent denial about, information concerning the treatment and pending extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. Frankfurter had a reputation for intervention behind the scenes to correct instances of bias in the United States. When confronted with gruesome detail about the situation in Germany however, Frankfurter told one young witness, in a soft voice filled with resignation, "I am unable to believe you."
Denial is not uncommon. The Nazi holocaust seems like "ancient history" to the current generation of leaders. As terrorism takes the stage, new high profile threats are everywhere. As indiscriminate bombings dominate the news, an almost imperceptible erosion of civil liberties seems barely newsworthy and goes largely unacknowledged.
A false consciousness of liberty and the illusion of representative democracy prevail. Participatory democracy cannot succeed without an informed citizenry. Those idealistic forebears, in laying the foundation for rights now largely taken for granted by current generations, possessed uncommon wisdom. Now, as the crowning insult to those who laid down their lives for their fellows, freedom secured through the blood, sweat and tears of past generations is squandered by inattentive, self-indulgent masses.
We began these arguments by saying that "Much of what was foundational is no longer deemed desirable." We made the charge that "An impetuous leadership has dismissed mature and dependable systems of values for poorly defined baser sets." We also made reference to an adulterated concept of liberty through the routine divorce of rights and responsibility. And we said we are concerned with the "flow-downs, the fallout," and the effect upon the innocent child.
Most of what we have highlighted thus far has been a broad-brush view of what's been happening on earth with continued special emphasis on one evolving democracy, the United States. I believe we have accurately represented Lucifer's strategic overview and that of Our Sovereign. Now we will get to some of the details. We will focus on Lucifer's legacy through some of the tactical moves that depend, more than anything, upon what that country's framers called the "easy emoluments of statuteable plunder."
Lucifer is no longer walking the planet. His devotees no longer have direct access to his wicked counsel though they do have his manifesto. We are now entering a theatre of operations that is the Spiritual warfare equivalent of Where's Waldo. We're going to look for that devil in the details. And you will have opportunity to decide if certain procedures are Satanic ritual derived from Luciferian thought or just innocent lapses in judgment. You will decide if Lucifer had the means, the motive and the opportunity to squelch or obfuscate constitutional questions of exceptional importance to all of humanity.
At one time Lucifer commanded great respect by means of his brilliant personality. The fact that he wore jeweled robes certainly didn't hurt his ability to overawe the material mind. Both were gifts of beauty. And both were corrupted in such a way as to support his peculiar form of persuasion. Lucifer exhibited his ingratitude, and through time the gifts of God were trampled under foot. The folly of casting one's pearls before the unappreciative is not uncommon and, as the unmitigated selfishness of this privileged son ran unabated, he was eventually seen for just what he is, unappreciative - the very personification of ugliness. Though in his wake the people of Earth were left dazed and confused, individuals on high are no longer impressed by the parade or with his adornment, only his motivation and the lack of merit within his argument.
Now the same standard must be applied to the courts of earth and the public discourse. Citizens have long accepted, at face value, a peculiar "wisdom" proffered by judges not only robed by the people, but in whom their elected representatives have vested excessive discretion. Fortunately it takes far more than prestige of office to advance, even the illusion of, integrity. To the extent that absolute power does corrupt absolutely, we need to look even more closely for the after effect of the Immunity Doctrine.
Ruling in accordance with a counterfeit wisdom depends largely upon the dumbing-down of those who would be subjects. Where fashion sits, the light is sometimes harsh. And playing mirror, mirror on the wall is just no fun at all when stark contrasts interfere with self-admiration. Who's the fairest of them all is not a question today's earthly courts want answered by any means. To them, the problems associated with their substitution of false for true wisdom is largely a matter of contrast control.
In truth the court has put every other god before Absolute Deity. There is a definite purpose behind revisionist history and the banishing of the Ten Commandments from the public enclave. We have seen the results of Martin Luther's devaluation of these in the context of the Nazi Holocaust. Accordingly, as the ancient laws are removed from courthouse walls the results are clearly foreseeable. The post-mortem on American jurisprudence has begun. And the first casualty, along with the command "You shall not bear false witness," is truth.
In judicial proceedings witnesses are sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Then they often watch helplessly as half-truth is extracted and re-contextualized to paint one falsehood after another. The first duty of a witness is to demand the opportunity to give complete answers in accordance with his or her oath. We submit that, upon being forced to run afoul of such an oath, of being denied the opportunity to tell "the whole truth" or to give complete answers, a witness has the solemn duty, even at the risk of contempt, to retroactively renounce that oath.
We've seen that trial strategies are often selected on the basis of what a jury will believe, not on what constitutes truth. What to include in pleadings, whether to play the race card or employ the insanity defense is now simply a matter of permissible spin with a wink and a nod from the bench. What is the value of a judiciary, a process of adjudication or, for that matter a judge that does not depend fully and finally upon Truth?
In light of the truth decay, the injudicious judicial acts and their highly selective intolerance of religion, we again turn our attention to the state level and the former state of religious toleration. Right now in Maryland a baser set of values has emerged to take the place of, what was once regarded as traditional values. The new values system is generally not well defined and those in power steadfastly refuse to define, or be accountable for it.
So much of what is procedural would never stand for the light of day. The courts have become a forum for the systematic disintegration of truth. And all three branches of government in that state clearly intend to keep playing this esoteric system of values close to the vest for reasons we are about to examine. Here we will consider the demise of citizen participation in one small state for the purpose of understanding what's happening all across one troubled union of states.
Before we get into the details of this unpleasant but necessary illustration we want to make clear that the average citizen of Maryland is hard working, well motivated and basically good just like those in other parts of their nation. This state is of particular interest because it was the cradle of religious toleration and is a great prize to the devotees of Lucifer.
What we will show here is the state and federal context, the principle target of the attack and also the extent to which these people have been defrauded. How perilously close they are to losing their voice. And how, in light of "you shall not steal," certain "inalienable rights" are incrementally, systematically and deliberately stolen from these citizens as they are lulled into a sense of well being by their government.
Marylanders possess a grand heritage and a keen sense of right and wrong. What they lack is quality information from their representatives and their press. It is ironic that one of the best-educated populations on the planet is treated as though they are among the most poorly educated and disinterested.
Maryland's elected officials are largely reactionary. For example, when it was revealed that a prostitute had been servicing a Montgomery County Judge in chambers, there was prolonged debate about whether he should be removed. When a Circuit Court Judge concluded a rape trial by saying "it takes two to tango," elected officials again engaged in strong rhetoric, but little more. It was only when another judge from the same circuit granted custody of a minor child, to a mother convicted of murdering that same child's sibling, that the court's statutory authority was subject to some token modifications.
Still, as we have seen in the latter case, the next higher court actually refused to disturb what it termed the "wide discretion" vested in a lower court judge. Only when the case became a national embarrassment to the state and a favorite topic among talk radio callers and hosts did the highest state court agree to review the case and opine that the first reviewing tribunal failed to use its "collective common sense."
We submit that in such an unusual custody case, state intervention was fully justified. But, we are also convinced that, had it not been for the public outcry, "collective common sense" would not have prevailed. Did the High Court in this case see the light or just feel the heat?
Religion was never an opiate to Maryland's early inhabitants. The state boasts no poppy fields but rather features an abundance of battlefields. Much of the blood that nourished Maryland gardens was given unselfishly by solders laying down their lives to establish or defend basic freedom on behalf of all people. What a pity that within just a few hundred years after so many died to establish the nation's constitution, citizen participation is just too much trouble for many descendants of these fallen heroes.
Now we will review the apathy and immunity effects in light of our most sacred trust, that of child rearing. We've seen how human society's basic organizational unit is the family and we have defined the nuclear family, for the purposes of this discussion, as the child with the two natural parents. Though there are many noble variations on the human family, these are largely compensations for failures of nature. Of course, since an advanced society does not ultimately place its faith in nature, such disadvantages can and must be overcome. Without aspiring to nature we have learned, in looking at the higher orders, to respect it in the absence of something clearly superior. All else being equal, children who have benefited from the nurture of two loving natural parents will always have a clear and distinct initial advantage over their less fortunate peers.
The Supreme Court of the United States once termed the right to rear one's child "essential" in the 1923 case Meyer vs. Nebraska. It is one of the "basic civil rights of man," So said the court in 1942 with Skinner vs. Oklahoma. And in 1953 the Supreme Court held that Child rearing constitutes a right "far more precious ... than property rights." That case was May vs. Anderson.
At one time Maryland courts also protected the bond between parent and child. For example, the same Circuit Court with the unenviable record of having advanced the custody to a murderer case, heard arguments in 1977 by the Montgomery County Department of Social Services (MCDSS) in the case Montgomery County versus Saunders.
In that case the Government was arguing against returning a child to the custody of his mother, not because of any alleged or then current parental unfitness, but because the agency was enamored with the fashionable idea of reducing custody determinations to an exercise in basic algebra.
A+T=C. Age + Time = Custody. This formula was supposed to yield greater "judicial economy." The Judge in this case, John C. Tracey, was not interested in avoiding the hard work of adjudication. The subject child, Christopher, was still calling Rebecca "mother." Tracey returned Christopher to his mother and, as expected, MCDSS appealed, but MCDSS lost. The Appeals Court included, in its published opinion, the following quote from the 1963 book Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator. I quote:
"One may illustrate the essential idea by a spider web, pull a strand here, and a complex pattern of adjustments runs through the whole web. Pull another strand from a different angle, and another complex pattern results."
Social engineering at the nuclear family level is still very much in vogue at the MCDSS, but the courts of that day exhibited true wisdom and were reluctant to intrude. Today those same courts hard sell a counterfeit wisdom as they habitually intrude, especially in divorce cases.
While divorce is an unfortunate but necessary social safety valve, Maryland has installed the equivalent of a pump, fueled with monetary incentives. The state now allows individual judges to establish religious principle in the form of judicial precedent, to elevate purely personal evaluations to the level of absolutes in accordance with circular references, moral relativism and as a matter of habit. The current judiciary has proven itself to be a malevolent, predictable force in Maryland family life condemning little ones to a mode of living where they are taught maintaining relationships is just too much trouble.
The marriage statutes call for a ceremony to be superadded upon execution of a marriage contract. The preamble for the civil ceremony prescribed by the state reads: "We are gathered here in the presence of these witnesses to join this man and this woman together in matrimony. The contract of marriage is a solemn one and not to be entered into lightly, but thoughtfully and seriously and with a deep realization of its obligations and responsibilities."
Even while these ceremonies are conducted within Maryland courts of law the same judiciary has undermined the institution of marriage. And inconsistency has become the technique for plausible deniability. While the Constitution of the United States clearly prohibits laws that impair the obligations of contract, Maryland case law equates the contractual obligations of marriage with fleeting affection and holds that there is no cause of action for what they term "alienation of affection."
Thanks to the de-facto devaluation of marriage and higher than average divorce rates, the state engages in a steady chipping away at the sacred bond between parent and child through the neglected statutory framework whereby custody decisions are made. One turn of the millennium effort for comprehensive reform, The Best Interests of Children Act of 2000, died in committee. Other important legislation has failed because the House Judiciary Committee has, at times, been unable even to produce a quorum for such important legislation. Still, deadbeat is a term somehow reserved for parents.
This is pivotal. A key example of how legislative bodies have failed to put their values on the line. By not defining and not protecting marriage as a contract, and as they pay lip service to the best interests of children, the Judiciary, the Legislature, the Executives and the unbridled divorce industry have systematically brought instability to every child's nurturing environment. Children that have not lost a parent fear losing one. And because judges arbitrarily and routinely terminate parental rights in such incrementalist fashion, the state operates well under the radar screen of most constitutional scholars and with no coherent system of values.
At this point we need to be reminded of just how the devaluation of family serves the cause of Lucifer. Gospel Quash is a continuously running game. It has many variations, though each uses reality skew to achieve its goal of eliminating at least one parent from the life of a child. This is the way it works in Maryland and several other states.
In Maryland and elsewhere the contract of marriage often leads to a union that gives rise to interested third parties, the children. Not only has the contract that best protects their interest been undermined at every opportunity by an insatiable and expansionist divorce industry, the children are almost always without representation in cases involving custody. Nevertheless, the system makes much ado about the best interests of the children and has created a best interests fiction. These interests, as defined by a mostly self-serving system, are said to govern, giving the court a "justification" for selectively setting aside parental rights while, more often than not, putting asunder the rights of children as well.
Maryland's family law article provides that "parents are joint natural guardians of their minor child" In practice however; the state and federal courts have allowed just about every Tom, Dick and Principality to intrude on the parent/child relationship. And, there is absolutely nothing to limit these intrusions to divorce cases. Why would a confusing and conflicting array of case law be preferred by anyone over well-crafted legislation? As we continue, keep asking yourself: Who benefits?
Let's briefly return our attention to the SCOTUS agenda. The second casualty in the interest of contrast control is fidelity. By eliminating the commandments against covetousness and adultery from courthouse walls, the Supreme Court of the United States and some state courts have facilitated a moral inversion. They have sent clear signals that to impair the obligations of contract and to violate or betray the integrity of relationships is now ok. In so doing, Maryland Courts have advanced their best interests fiction. Despite strenuous denials, these courts have been the great enablers of family destabilization and parental alienation.
The nation's highest court has become the supreme scofflaw, Maryland's highest court is unable to distinguish between contractual obligation and fleeting affection. In this regard the court of public opinion has rightly held they both lack the "collective common sense" of first year law students.
The third casualty of the SCOTUS mirror is familial integrity. By removing "Honor thy father and mother" from courthouse walls, the courts have helped promote the fashionable idea that relationships with parents are entirely optional. Through the introduction of additional Boolean operators to its adulterated parenting philosophy, the courts have established their own religion. Their new commandments "Honor thy mother or father," "Honor thy mother not father" and "Honor thy father not mother."
From deep within the arena of moral relativism the Ten Commandments are seen as far too absolutist. If the high court is to be operated as a den of iniquity, and thereby serve the cause of Lucifer, these "offensive" commandments must be removed.
The courts are well able to advance other doctrines that are internally inconsistent and detrimental to children. For example, with rights conferred only at birth, a child can legally be greeted with a blow to the head as it traverses the birth canal. This is regarded as a partial birth medical procedure while at the same time a father killing his wife can be charged with her murder as well as that of the unborn child. A stillbirth due to neglected pre-natal care may be considered cause for a manslaughter charge against the mother.
The defect of intellect that could produce such a confusing and conflicting array of case law is directly traceable to the accountability deficit. The framers wrote "Congress shall make no law …" because the courts were never authorized to make law. The framers, though weary of the power of judges they characterized as "foreign potentates," clearly did not anticipate that the legislature would shrink from its responsibility, just as the judiciary became more constructionist. Let's revisit the state example.
Family law in Maryland has devolved into a system of patronage composed of those who deride and those who preside. During their first visit to a divorce attorney, each parent gives their so-called advocate a sense of scope, including insight on available financial resources. The number of potential billable hours is quickly deduced. And, unknown to any steer-able parent, a course of action and the level of contention is often set at this juncture. Attorney advice and predictions are usually conditioned by the business mathematics.
In states such as Maryland, parents quickly learn that one parent can effectively veto joint custody through non-cooperation. And, depending upon whether the particular judge has a demonstrated maternal or paternal preference, the percent chance of win is predictable. What parents don't realize until after the damage is done is the extent to which trial lawyers, judges and ancillary service providers are incentivized within a system like Maryland's.
To emerge victorious in contested custody cases, the goal is to prove the other parent unfit. The court takes, what amounts to, a snapshot of the parents at their worst, least cooperative, most reactive and most competitive moment. This is usually in the context of a contested divorce where living truth is murdered in a triangulation of crossfire. As it is with quarreling children, if provocation goes unnoticed, the reactive parent appears to be the offender.
From this snapshot, snap judgments are formed and, as the courts only think they possess superior wisdom in such cases, all of their conclusions regarding such matters are suspect. Insidious maneuvers are calculated to further divide the parents and to impeach the covenant, the parent and their right to petition. Each is blunted, corrupted and distorted in a way that serves, not the interests of children, not the interests of citizens, but the insatiable appetites of a parasitic system of patronage.
The State's de-facto preference for sole custody sacrifices good results for design efficiency. It stands in stark contrast to lip service and usually results in the disenfranchisement of one otherwise "fit-and-proper parent." The initial "decision" is often capped with an award of attorney fees to the victor and designed to disadvantage the potential Appellant. Also common is the imposition of disproportionate support obligations.
With an oppressive thump on the equity scale, support enforcement occurs at the expense of the state but access enforcement occurs at the expense of the frustrated parent. Such parents often conclude that access is unenforceable or they are unable to endure sustained combat as the price of continued involvement. Beyond doubt, the state has become the de-facto enabler of parental alienation.
The vanquished is further disadvantaged through the tax code and what is known as the material change in circumstances trap. This means that unless the vanquished has substantial resources and unless some arbitrarily set threshold proving a change in circumstances is reached, once the court takes its initial snapshot and a custody decision is made, there will be little chance of success through subsequent proceedings for modification. Through so-called procedures in equity, the state has empowered judges to protect the system and to impose penalties on those seeking to protect their children from, what amounts to, a state sponsored religion. The judicial priesthood is adept at masking the results.
As those vested in the system pat themselves on the back and say "we've served the best interests of a child today," that child's nurturing infrastructure is often discarded as an empty, it's life supporting plasma having been consumed by a system that serves, first and foremost, its own interest.
The child is thus deprived of a nurturing infrastructure that is balanced and diversified in the name of a slothfulness termed "judicial economy." Such "economy" is the haven of the most ethically lazy, socially indifferent, morally unprogressive and spiritually indolent judges. These deadbeats of the highest order abandon moral values and presume to repudiate spiritual goals for whole societies as they undermine the best interests of all children. This so-called economy is also the key to profitability for divorce attorneys, for once the deal is done and there's nothing left to attach, with no time wasted it's on to the next client, the next chug-a-lug.
Now for those who don't think it could possibly be as bad as all that, we will now zoom-in further to examine this scenario, as well as more of the incentives, in even greater detail. As we do, consider the words of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, I quote: "The rights of every person are diminished when the rights of one person are threatened."
Maryland case law states that in matters of custody the court shall examine the sincerity of a parent's request, the capacity of parents to communicate and reach shared decisions affecting the child's welfare, the psychological capabilities of the parents, the potential for psychological or emotional injury to the child and the potential disruption of a child's social and school life. In divorce cases involving adultery the court must determine if the relationship has had a detrimental affect on the child. The court should examine the totality of the situation in the alternative environments and avoid focusing on any single factor.
The trial courts are also admonished to be aware of what they term lollipop and rescue syndromes. The child's own wishes may be consulted and given weight if he or she is of sufficient age and capacity to form a rational judgment. The state's high court has held that, and I quote "It is not the whim of the child that the court respects, but its feelings, attachments, reasonable preference and probable contentment."
That's quite a snapshot!
By what stretch of even the most overactive imagination, by what miracle of legal education and by what level of megalomanic delusion is a human judge competent to make these determinations? How can the State of Maryland, without regard to their personal success as parents or spouses, justify imposing the values of individual judges on children and families?
Such mandates are impractical as well as immoral, appellate opinion notwithstanding. The State Judiciary does not justify itself but rather covers its failures through unpublished mandates. And there is virtually no objective follow-up that could potentially reveal the long term detrimental affects on children or that might serve as an indicator to the quality of wisdom as it's applied. The Maryland Judiciary clearly does not favor any type of independent audit that would lead to exposure of the best interests' fiction.
In contrast to Maryland and other states that have failed to evolve joint custody, those states with a demonstrated preference for joint custody have recognized the folly of allowing one uncooperative parent to veto it. Such family friendly courts have put the children first and have clarified their intentions with respect to the child's nuclear family in no uncertain terms.
In 1992 the Court of Appeals for the State of Kentucky heard Chalupa v. Chalupa. Judge Schroder, wrote for the majority, and I quote:
"A divorce from a spouse is not a divorce from their children, nor should custody decisions be used as a punishment. Joint custody can benefit the children, the divorced parents, and society in general by having both parents involved in the children's upbringing.... The difficult and delicate nature of deciding what is in the best interest of a child leads this Court to interpret the child's best interest as requiring a trial court to consider joint custody first, before the more traumatic sole custody. In finding a preference for joint custody is in the best interest of the child, even in a bitter divorce, the Court is encouraging the parents to cooperate with each other and to stay on their best behavior. Joint custody can be modified if a party is acting in bad faith or is uncooperative. The trial court at any time can review joint custody and if a party is being uncooperative, modify the custody to sole custody in favor of the reasonable parent. Surely, with the stakes so high, there would be more cooperation, which leads to the child's best interest, the parent's best interest, fewer court appearances and judicial economy. Starting out with sole custody would deprive one parent of the vital input."
In 1993 the Court of Appeals for the State of Georgia heard a case in the interest of A.R.B., a child. In a unanimous opinion, presiding Judge Dorothy T. Beasley stated:
"Although the dispute is symbolized by a 'versus' which signifies two adverse parties at opposite poles of a line, there is in fact a third party whose interests and rights make of a line a triangle. That person, the child who is not an official party to the lawsuit but whose well being is in the eye of the controversy, has a right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it. Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child's right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parent's wisdom, judgment and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce."
In states with a rebuttable presumption of joint custody, parents get the idea early on that cooperation truly serves the best interests of their children. In contrast to Georgia and Kentucky, certain states provide the means for sole custody by contrivance. Especially where one parent has a clear advantage due to a judicial bias. When governments presume to regulate a fundamental familial relation they intrude on the natural family with so-called procedures in equity that are often far from equitable.
Compulsive tinkers have encroached in ways they are not willing to acknowledge, but clearly understand. And, they have violated the most basic tenet of sound tinkering, which is to keep all the parts. States that have failed to evolve joint custody together with gender neutrality have engaged in a systematic deprivation of rights against an entire class of citizens. In light of what is known about homes with absentee fathers or mothers, this is clearly a moral inversion, a serious offense subversive of good order.
Executives, legislators and the electorate share responsibility with a judiciary that has lost sight of its onetime role as the standard bearer. As confusion reigns, caseloads increase. Mediocre judges become senior judges who, in the opinion of the Supremes, enjoy absolute judicial immunity, the only remaining absolute in their very special world. This bears repeating again and again, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that judges are immune from civil action, even for acts of malevolence and corruption.
The wayward high court does not differentiate between the judicial act and acts that are arguably in-judicial. Justices have demonstrated a general lack of interest for the issue of judicial integrity and chose to place the interests of friends and colleagues well ahead of the fundamental rights of United States Citizens. Through summary dismissals that are a clear violation of the judicial oath, courts thereby avoid concerning themselves with annoying questions pointing to pervasive judicial corruption
These are questions you must answer. Are they simply educated fools, or do they have an overriding agenda? Does the United States enjoy equal justice for all and an independent judiciary as advertised, or are judges also just one more product of political process? Before you answer, consider again the turn of the millennium national election and the series of court decisions that fell precisely along political lines accompanied by an extraordinary amount of "justification" in the form of court opinions. Also, take note that this was a very rare, high profile case of interest to the largest public. With so much light on them, good behavior was all but assured. All of this serves to underscore the principle that sunlight remains the best disinfectant.
In low profile cases however, reviewing tribunals, both state and federal, routinely issue unpublished mandates thus denying the public the opportunity to see their courts in their most defining moments. It is these buried transactions that enable governments to pacify and sometimes to defraud citizens. Amendment One to the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In contrast, the Judiciary has granted itself the right to suppress questions of exceptional importance. Abridging the Right to Petition has become black art. Lawyers are trained to fear the career-ending question and the intemperate rage of senior judges. Petitions are routinely dismissed before any hearing, for failure to state a non-frivolous claim even when the claims are anything but frivolous. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that such questions are of little interest where maintaining the illusion of honor is involved.
Justices have used every bureaucratic device to avoid, obfuscate and cowardly suppress the petitions of an entire class of citizens. Advocates and government officials sworn to protect the general population routinely bluff citizens out of their most fundamental rights. With each new occurrence deniability becomes less plausible. No honest person, knowledgeable in this area, denies that there are lawyers engaged in conspiracies against rights and that there are judges, sworn to uphold the constitution as their first duty, that are not above imposing deprivations of rights.
The courts quash any effort to focus public attention on the judiciary's unconstitutional behaviors. It is the courts themselves that have weakened the system of judicial accountability. We have all witnessed judges that would minimize the serious and gravity of perjury as well as the subornation of perjury. Reckless indifference to the problem of corruption is pervasive and their motivations, with respect to maintaining the status quo, are clear.
Everyone understands and appreciates the Judiciary's discomfort and its reluctance to hear petitions that call into question the integrity of fellow members of the bar. Even so, it is clear the immunity doctrines do not serve the public interest.
Should a judge engaged in the slow, careful and deliberate process of adjudication enjoy absolute freedom from liability for malpractice when an over-tasked emergency room physician does not?
The only justifications offered by the federal courts clearly demonstrate that the self-interest of the court and those of career advocates govern, despite all pretenses to the contrary. The citizenry is not sympathetic to the cause of corruption. The question remains if the public, once fully informed, will be tolerant of a court that, by its own actions and dereliction, has brought such dishonor upon a once respected institution.
Petitions are dismissed for having the wrong typeface while constitutional questions are characterized as frivolous. Judges have treated the whole body of law as though it's a buffet from which they can pick and choose in a self-indulgent manner, placing their personal interests and the career interests of their colleagues ahead of their respective duties in accordance with their oaths of office. The willingness to suppress questions presented on appeal and the habit of obsessing on minutia while ignoring essential principles is not without historical precedent. The courts of ancient times were said to have strained at gnats while swallowing camels. We submit that the sophistries and motivations of those cloaked in absolute power have not changed in thousands of years.
The people of this earthly nation are just now coming to the realization that they have the duty to get focused, to correctly discern the merits of each and every proposition put forth by their public "servants." And to regain control. The electorate is just beginning to recognize that peer pressure and the current political climate are such that elected officials are mostly concerned with running afoul of political correctness standards, and that these so-called standards are often set by vocal minorities and special interest groups.
In formula politics, the moral compass is seldom, if ever, consulted. In fact, morality itself is denounced by certain constituencies as "politically incorrect." Where fashion sits, immoral decisions are characterized as "properly amoral." So-called leaders are seen by citizens as reeds in a political wind, as tripping all over themselves to avoid moral questions in a pathetic attempt to conform to these fleeting "standards."
Yates, in his poem the Second Coming, said "The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity." In accordance with this belief, the Judiciary is confident that citizens will continue to tolerate what amounts to a state sponsored religion that is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. But by this perfidy the judges have aroused the indignation of a virtuous, loyal and affectionate people.
Waiting armies of Citizen Litigators are thriving in light and see that the effects of acquiescence are not tolerable. They have rightly concluded that to accept is to deserve and are willing to go to extreme, at times self-sacrificing lengths, to expose the unmitigated selfishness of jurists who seek to suppress constitutional questions for their own purposes. There is a long line of citizen litigators in training who are unimpressed by any masquerade usurping the authority of true justice and equity.
These true citizens are not members of any bar and they serve without conflict of interest. They are therefore free to champion the true interests of their fellow citizens. They are an unruly lot and often hated by judges for such careers are not in the hands of these judges. And accordingly, the career-ending question has bounced back with an attitude. It is they who will expose the pseudo-judicial hucksterism that has so corrupted these earthly courts.
The founders did not regard themselves as God's equal and certainly did not believe their work product to be superior to His. In contrast to today's courts, the framers strove, not to displace, but to complement the wisdom of the ages. Because the Wayward Supremes lack the spiritual idealism characteristic of the founders, they have a great handicap in divining the intent of the framers.
As the rudderless ship of state runs its course, it has adopted a moral relativism that is the navigational and mathematical equivalent of a circular reference. Why? Who benefits from the absence of a true reference standard? Keep that question uppermost in your minds as we continue to move forward through these arguments and as you move forward through your deliberations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
