The Constitution, What Has Gone Wrong?

The Constitution, What Has Gone Wrong? By Jack Kettler

For those who have loved the freedoms we have enjoyed in this great nation, it may be painful to consider the following thoughts on the Constitution from Lyander Spooner.

Who is Lysander Spooner?

Lysander Spooner was an 19th Century American individualist, political philosopher and business entrepreneur. The two following quotes from Spooner come from his book titled; No Treason The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.

Lysander Spooner observed:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

It is obvious that almost all of the checks and balances put into the constitution, have broken down. It is also becoming apparent that there is in reality on one political party in Washington and that is the “giant government party.” For the most part, the politicians are bought and paid for. The supreme court in recent decisions has manifested itself to be nothing more than a rubber stamp court twisting the plain language of the constitution out of all logical context, making a mockery of the English Language. Therefore, it appears beyond dispute that Spooner is correct in the above quote.

Spooner continued his devastating critique of the constitution:

“And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.”

Spooner continues:

“Our constitutions purport to be established by ‘the people,’ and, in theory, ‘all the people’ consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of ‘the people’ exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given.”

What about this supposed social contract, is it binding? Consider the following from author Robert Higgs:

“In regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts.”

Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe elaborates more on this supposed contract:

“No, the state is anything but the result of a contract! No one with even just an ounce of common sense would agree to such a contract. I have a lot of contracts in my files, but nowhere is there one like this. The state is the result of aggressive force and subjugation. It has evolved without contractual foundation, just like a gang of protection racketeers. And concerning the struggle of all against all: that is a myth.”

James Madison was keenly aware of the dangers of the government being created. Madison said:

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be to-morrow.”

In the book Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silvergate is in agreement with Madison’s concerns:

“We are in danger of becoming a society in which prosecutors alone become judges, juries and executioners because the threat of high sentences makes it too costly for even innocent people to resist the prosecutorial pressure. That is why nearly all criminal defendants today plead guilty to “reduced” charges rather than risk a trial with draconian sentences in the event of a conviction.”

It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the average busy professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, takes care of personal and family obligations, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she likely committed several federal crimes that day.

Most freedom loving patriots today know that something has gone horribly wrong. John Adam’s insight on what could go wrong and why is spot on:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Noah Webster concurs with Adams:

“The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.”

Both Adams and Webster hit the nail on the head regarding what has gone wrong with our constitutional system of government. Most readers are well aware that our American constitutional republican form of government has been subverted into a democracy, an evil form of government!

How is democracy evil?

Democracy forces you to be in conformity with the demands of the “will of the people,” regardless of what economic realism, common sense, or what biblical law says.Democracy obligates you to relinquish your freedom and your assets including property for the so-called “general welfare” Article 1, Section 8, today a grossly misinterpreted term. Democracy in the end, destroys freedom and property. It is consumed by the parasites who vote for the political prostitutes who promise to give away the fruits of stolen capital from the productive sector of society.

At first, democracy is very particular on who is allowed into the country. There are strictly enforced immigration laws only allowing in people who have something to contribute along with secure boarders.In the late stages before a democracy collapses, the politicians who promise people free things to get elected, find that many people are starting to recognize the voting scam for what it is. In order to keep the scam of democracy going, the politicians need more stupid people who cannot not recognize the political lies. In the case of the U.S. the corrupt vote buying political prostitutes (most politicians) create an open boarder disaster and start flooding the country with millions of stupid people who fall victim to specious promises of the vote buying prostitutes. The new wave of immigrant law breakers are coming for government handouts, taken from people who are producers and given to non-producing bums and parasites.

Consider professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s thoughts on democracy:

“What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.”

“One-man-one-vote combined with “free entry” into government-democracy–implies that every person and his personal property comes within reach of-and is up for grabs by everyone else: a ‘tragedy of the commons” is created.”

“Democracy allows for A and B to band together to rip off C. This is not justice, but a moral outrage.”

Adams and Webster would put the root cause of failure of the Republic as a result of an immoral people. I would agree. This brings us to another point well made by Spooner concerning the operation and legitimacy of the state.

Where we are at today? Spooner’s analysis get right to the point:

“The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life…The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber…Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful ‘sovereign,’ on account of the ‘protection’ he affords you.”

In his article “Forget the Constitution” at LewRockwell.com, John Keller notes:

“Our patriots fought for individual, God given rights, instead of aetheistic utopian groups rights. Still, the men who founded our current Republic by writing and ratifying the Constitution understood the dangerous path they were taking. Students of antiquity, they tried to avoid following the Roman path of Kingdom, then Republic, then Empire, by writing everything down. It turns out in practice that the “social contract” cannot bind the politician or the entrenched bureaucrat, any more than the Soviet Union could make the New Soviet Man. In hindsight we can see that a piece of paper is no match for the linguistic gymnastics of our permanent caste of lawyer kings.

When things do change in this country, it will not be because the bureaucrats, professional liars, and assorted utopians come to work one day and say “Gee, we failed in our job. The private market would be so much better at this.” It will be because the people have finally figured out that Ben Franklin was right all along, liberty can’t be traded for security, and it looks like Rothbard, Spooner, and Patrick Henry were right about the Constitution.”

Kevin Craig makes the following comment about what has happened:

“And the Congress has effectively destroyed Constitutional government in America, replacing it with “The Administrative State” by delegating unconstitutional authority to swarms of bureaucrats.”

The following description of our current form of government is hard to beat:

“What is this oozing behemoth, this fibrous tumor, this monster of power and expense hatched from the simple human desire for civic order? How did an allegedly free people spawn a vast, rampant cuttlefish of dominion with its tentacles in every orifice of the body politic?” – P. J. O’Rourke, Parliament of Whores

It is hard to disagree with the following sentiments:

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” – H.L. Mencken

In closing it can be said, the original Constitutional construction of government no longer exists. In fact, the Constitution has been destroyed by a powerful centralized federal government.

We must again take seriously what is set forth in the following article:

Civil Government and Resistance

“And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.” – Isaiah 49:23 (KJV).

“The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly acknowledge, that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law, may and ought first and chiefly to take care of God’s glory, and (according to his place, or in his manner and way) to preserve religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and corrupted: and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists, blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violators of justice and civil peace.” – George Gillespie, Works, 1:12.

“Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever: as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied.” The Scottish Confession of Faith (written by John Knox and others), Chapter 24, 1560. “Yet civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church, to adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility.” – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:20:2.

“Reformation is desperately needed in our languishing nations. In the past, not only did biblical reformation sweep the church in doctrine, worship, and government, but also reformation of biblical Christianity was promoted and accelerated by Christian magistrates who wholeheartedly supported and defended the ministry of the reformed churches. Reformation is never easy. The truth is no more fashionable today than it was at the time of our reformed and covenanted forefathers. If we would see reformation we must return to the old paths of our God and of our forefathers. What is presented in the following pages is not a novel view of civil magistracy, but one which is believed to be both biblical and representative of our reformed and presbyterian forefathers from the covenanted reformation at the time of the Westminster Assembly. Civil magistracy is a blessed ordinance of the living God, given to the human family in order that it might reflect the order in which God so much delights (“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” 1 Cor. 14:33). This ordinance should be so cherished by God’s people that when the ruling civil magistrate cannot be owned as “the ordinance of God” within a nation, the hearts of God’s people both sadly bemoan that fact and earnestly pray that God would in His mercy remove His righteous anger from the land and grant nursing fathers to the church. May God be pleased to open the eyes of His people to the need for reformation in the divine ordinance of civil magistracy.” – Greg Price, Biblical Civil Government Versus the Beast; and, The Basis For Civil Resistance, free online at http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/bibcg_gp.htm.

“Maybe now you can understand why the national reformations that took place in the OT always included the recognition and national confession of the sins of the fathers — for those sins brought God’s wrath upon the nation (2 Chr. 34:21, 2 Chr. 29:6-7, 2 Chron. 30:7-9, Ezra 9:6-10:2, Neh. 9:2-37)”. Previous attainments and obligations continue to bind the national moral person (for more on the “moral person” of nations and churches see Scott’s Distinctive Principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, pp. 61,70,195f.,285f. and Robert’s The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism, p. 150). Moreover, these teachings formed the biblical basis as to why the Reformers (especially during the second Reformation) where always eager to seek out the causes of God’s wrath, and repent of these, whether individual, ecclesiastical or national. The best Reformers did not try to gather together all manner of infidels, idolaters, sectarians, etc. and form some kind of general, moralistic, conservative crusade to uplift the nation — never! (Cf. Gillespie’s “Another Most Useful Case of Conscience Discussed and Resolved, Concerning Associations and Confederacies With Idolaters, Infidels, Heretics, or Any Other Know Enemies of Truth and Godliness” in his “Treatise of Miscellany Questions”, Works, volume two). They aimed at purifying and unifying the church, state and family on the basis of a covenanted uniformity — always seeking to be faithful to Christ’s Crown and Covenant and shunning all suggestions of humanly based solutions to the problems of the day! They looked first to God’s mercy and grace (after recognition and confession of sin of course) in their individual lives; and they weren’t about to start to build on a resurrected covenant of works, after having faithfully begun building on the covenant of grace, in the civil or ecclesiastical realms either — when dealing with the reformation of church and state. This is why the Reformations under Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezra and Nehemiah all involved the biblical aspects listed below. They sought to: 1. Nationally eradicate idolatry and false religion (with iconoclastic zeal) (cf. 2 Chron. 34:3-7; 2 Chron. 31:1; 2 Chron. 15:8; 2 Chron. 15:16, etc.). 2. Nationally promote the true worship, discipline, and doctrine of the church of Christ (2 Chron. 29:11-30:6; 2 Chron. 30:12-27; Ezra 10:10vv.; Neh. 10:31-32, etc.). 3. Nationally establish the one true religion and church (cf. 2 Chron. 34:8- 17; 2 Chron. 29:3-5; 2 Chron. 31:2-3; 2 Chron. 31:20-21; 2 Chron. 32:12, etc.). 4. Nationally confess their own sins and the sins of their fathers (2 Chron. 34:21; 2 Chron. 29:6-7; 2 Chron. 30:7-9; Ezra 9:6-10:2; Neh. 9:2-37, etc.). 5. Nationally publish the truth (2 Chron. 34:30; Ezra 10:7-8, etc.). 6. Nationally renew covenant with God (with specific regard to the present testimony) and set the state upon a fully covenanted biblical pattern, agreeing to nationally obey the law of God (2 Chron. 34:31; 2 Chron. 29:10; 2 Chron. 15:12-15; Ezra 10:3-4; Neh. 9:38-10:31, etc.). 7. Nationally cause (by civil power) the inhabitants of the nation to stand to the covenant (2 Chron. 34:32-33; 2 Chron. 15:12-13; Ezra 10:5, etc.).” – Dr. Reg Barrow, A Contemporary Covenanting Debate; Or, Covenanting Redivivus (Reg Barrow Debates Joe Bell), free online at http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/covdebrb.htm.

“There is not a single square inch of the entire cosmos of which Christ the sovereign Lord of all does not say, ‘This is mine.’” – Abraham Kuyper

Resource Links:

http://kevincraig.us/constitution.htm

The Bible verses the man-made Constitution

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Fallacy and Contradiction of so-called Neutral Government Courts

The Fallacy and Contradiction of so-called Neutral Government Courts by Jack Kettler

The following material is my ongoing rambling thoughts on the nation’s descent into tyranny.

Article VI of the Constitution says:

The Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The supremacy clause asserts the Constitution is the “supreme” law of the Land, not treaties with foreign governments or global organizations, such as the UN.

In the 10th Amendment we read:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This Amendment does not contradict the “supremacy clause,” it clarifies the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution. Today the federal government is engaged in massive overreach, clearly violating the 10th Amendment.

How do we rectify this now that the separation of powers has clearly broken down? There are countless disputes between federal and state courts. Many people assume that the Supreme Court can resolve these disputes.

Consider this:

It is a fact that the federal judges are appointees and employees of the federal government. Is the federal government a neutral disinterested party? How can a federal court or Supreme Court be neutral to rule upon a case that they have an interest in or are a party to? It is a basic principle not to have a party that is involved in a dispute be the sole judge of its own case.

To elaborate why a federal court which is branch of the government is not neutral party, consider the following excerpt from the FSK’s Guide to Reality from a post called “Cargo Cult Justice:”

Another example of “Cargo Cult Science” is global warming research. Scientists who give the State-preferred opinion get research grants, and the opposite opinion is denied funding. Most “global warming computer simulations” have “carbon dioxide causes global warming” as an assumption. The computer model is using circular reasoning. In the “Climategate” scandal, global warming scientists were caught faking their data. A group of State-licensed scientists concluded that the State-licensed scientists did nothing wrong. What a surprise! It’s as impartial as the “internal affairs” division of the State police monopoly.

The US legal system has degenerated into “Cargo Cult Justice.” Judges go through the motions of being fair and impartial. They’re just making up excuses to justify State evil. The problem is that the State legal system has a monopoly. You don’t get appointed as a State judge unless you’re a severe pro-State troll and you’re very politically connected. There’s no accountability when the State justice system abuses State power. State judges don’t know that they’re frauds. They go through the motions of justice without performing actual justice. See full post at: http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2010/08/cargo-cult-justice.html

In disputes with the states, the federal courts are never neutral. The judges, the court licensed attorneys working for the federal government have a vested interest in the federal law prevailing.

Even the media is controlled by the government:

We are now, my friends, in a situation where the majority of Americans get their news and information about what is going on with their government from entities that are licensed by and subject to punishment at the hands of that very government. Nobody can truly believe that this is what our founding fathers had in mind.- Neal Boortz

A recent article from Republic Magazine regarding the high court’s upholding Obama law:

John Roberts, Constitutional Traitor: Chief Justice Approves Obamacare Tax Mandate

In a ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court — the same entity that acknowledged in 1819 that the “power to tax is the power to destroy” – has ruled that the federal government can use the taxing power to compel its subjects to participate in a government-run corporatist health care system.

Roberts’ ruling is applied Leninism – a pragmatic way of justifying the government’s intention to exercise “power without limit, resting directly on force.” Money and time are essentially the same thing; one earns money by investing his time – an irreplaceable and finite quantity – in commerce or labor. Through taxation the State steals life incrementally, rather than destroying it outright.

In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts has placed the High Court’s imprimatur on the proposition that the regime ruling us can steal our lives incrementally in order to force each of us to participate in a health care program that will regulate every aspect of the lives that remain – and either kill or imprison those of us who refuse to participate.

See more at: http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/john-roberts-constitutional-traitor-chief-justice-approves-obamacare-tax-mandate.html#sthash.j7XG9lpZ.dpuf

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, describing the Court’s ruling as the “defense of the indefensible,” “somersaults of statutory interpretations,” and said, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

Presidential hopeful, Senator Ted Cruz tells members of Supreme Court to “Resign and run for Congress, if those justices want to become legislators.” Cruz is correct to see the tyranny in the recent Robert’s ruling for Obama law.

It is now becoming obvious that the high court is becoming a Stalinist rubber stamp supporting federal government tyranny. One thing is obvious, Roberts writing for the majority of the federal government high court employees, has made sure the fed gov keeps growing in power over the people.

Some have said there are ways to put the brakes on an out of control federal judiciary. For example, Dr. Ben Carson has argued that the high court is not able to make law nor does it have the final say on law:

First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch. So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law [judge made law].

Thomas Jefferson speaks in a similar way in a letter to Abigail Adams:

You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the Sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it: because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution. That instrument [the Constitution] meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.

Dr. Carson and Jefferson are correct in their understanding of the limits of judicial review. Unfortunately, the supreme court in now seen as the final arbitrator and maker of law.

Consider a bleak assessment of the constitutional inability to stop tyranny:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. – 19th Century attorney, Lysander Spooner

The congress and courts have for all practicable purposes, have failed to stop government abuse. It appears, there is now only one political party in Washington D.C, and it is the big government party. The people have become slaves. Is this there any way to stop this tyranny?

Lysander Spooner believed that a jury was the only way to resolve disputes where the jury had the right to rule on the law itself. He says:

If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

For more than six hundred years — that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.

For example, what if an evil leader pressured the legislature to pass a law that would erect statues of the leader in every major city. Anyone passing by who did not bow down and kiss the ground would be guilty and sentenced to death. This is an extreme example, but easy to see that technically, a person could easily be guilty by violating this insane law. The jury has the right to declare this law null and void. It is shocking, today, judges would tell the jury to only consider the facts of the case. If the jury did this, the defendant would be executed. When judges fail to inform a jury that they can also rule on the morality of the law, is itself tyranny.

Combine jury nullification with state nullification and we have a way to win back freedom!

Consider, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.’

Jeffrey Tucker interviews Tom Woods on the topic of Tom’s latest book ‘Nullification:

Why is nullification so vilified today by so-called conservatives? Let’s remember our history on Independence Day this year when we should be grieving for our loss of liberties.

The ultimate form of nullification:

Preamble to the Declaration Of Independence

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Can Government Abridge God Given Rights?

No government possesses any real legal power to violate an individual’s God given, unalienable rights! Why? Because these rights are from God. Corrupt governments can and do unconstitutionally try to impede the use of man’s unalienable God given rights. It is of the utmost importance to know, that our rights are not given to us by government. The purpose of civil government is to secure these rights from God. If government gives the rights, then they can take them away. In this sense, rights given by government is a misnomer. All a government can give are privileges or exemptions to their friends and organizations who are being bought off.

In light of the fact that the original Constitutional compact gives the citizens the right to resist government tyranny, non-Compliance is a Christian Duty in which to Remedy the Unjust Usurpation of Freedom by the fed gov., when the spineless potted plant like Congress fails to protect our God Given Liberties! The people, the body politic are the last resort to stop tyranny. We are the final jury. As noted by Spooner, historically the jury could find a defendant innocent, even if violating a law, that the jury determined was unjust.

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Democracy for Dummies

Democracy for Dummies by Jack Kettler

There are many political leaders today and in recent times who say positive things about democracy. Perhaps you have heard some of them extol the supposed virtues of democracy, like: “we have to make the world safe for democracy” or, vowing to “promote democracy both at home and abroad.”

The following quotes are from a wide range of sources. They demonstrate sound thinking on the topic of democracy throughout history. Some of quotes are quite funny, other dead serious. Next time you attend a political speech and the speaker starts spouting off about democracy, ask them for comment on some of the following quotes.

This list of quotes on Democracy is one of the largest collections you can find:

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” – Karl Marx

“We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible.” – Socialist Party U.S.A.

“Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.” – Hans-Herman Hoppe

Some thoughts from the Founding Fathers on Democracy:

“Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” – James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” – Ben Franklin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” – Chief Justice John Marshall

“Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.” – John Witherspoon

A collection of important insights on Democracy:

“Democracy… is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.” – Plato

“In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.” – Aristotle

“The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting.” – Charles Bukowski

“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” – John F. Kennedy

“Democracy is the menopause of Western society, the Grand Climacteric of the body social.” – Jean Baudrillard

Democracy is also a form of religion:

“It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.” – H. L. Mencken

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H.L. Mencken

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – H.L Mencken

“Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they’ve told you what you think it is you want to hear.” – Alan Corenk

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” – Winston Churchill

“In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority” – Edmund Burke

“Democratism and its allied herd movements, while remaining loyal to the principle of equality and identity, will never hesitate to sacrifice liberty.” – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

“Despite popular rhetoric, democracy is not synonymous with freedom. Taking something without permission is theft, but not when the majority goes along with it and calls it taxation. Matters that should be of no interest to any other person (e.g., what a person chooses to do with his or her body) become matters of public policy when the majority says so. The recipe is fairly straightforward. All you have to do is appoint someone else to initiate force on your behalf, get enough people to pick the same candidate, and then hide behind the waving banner of free and open elections. The syllogism goes something like: The initiation of force is wrong, so I cannot initiate force without punishment. Democratic elections are good. I help to elect someone to public office, then he or she initiates force on my behalf.” – Brian Drake

Most people are cowardly and would not rob their neighbor with a weapon, instead as Mr. Drake has just pointed out, the people use the government to steal for them.

“Parliamentary government is simply a mild and disguised form of compulsion. We agree to try strength by counting heads instead of breaking heads, but the principle is exactly the same… The minority gives way not because it is convinced that it is wrong, but because it is convinced that it is a minority.” – James Fitzjames Stephen

“I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – Thomas Carlyle

“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” and, “It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist.” – Lord Acton

“It is a logical absurdity to equate democracy with freedom in the way that mainstream political philosophers and commentators typically do. A system where individuals and minorities are at the mercy of unconstrained majorities hardly constitutes freedom in any meaningful sense.” – Keith Preston

“The concept of the Will of the People is dangerously arbitrary. Certainly not worthy of being the foundation of a rational and practical political system.” – Stephen Townshend

“Democracy is mob rule with income taxes.” – Gloria Steinem

“Gang rape is democracy in action.” ~MRDA~

“Democracy plus Islam, equals, radical Islam” – unknown

“Democracy is the will of the people. Every morning I am surprised to read in the newspaper what I want.” – Wim Kan, Dutch comedian

Thoughts on the inevitable results of Democracy in the Civil Realm:

“Every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”- H.L. Mencken

“Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” – Frederic Bastiat

“Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.” – Ludwig von Mises, Austrian economist and great free market defender

Many people agree with the following sentiments on the inability to keep government growth in check once democracy takes hold:

“The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights.” – H.L. Mencken

Speaking about the hand in the neighbor’s pocket:

“Where shall we get to and how are we to maintain progress if we increasingly adopt a way of life in which no one wants any longer to assume responsibility for himself and everyone seeks security in collectivism?” Ludwig Erhard, former German Chancellor See Ludwig Erhard’s The German Miracle vs. the Welfare State.

“Democracy is majority rule at the expense of the minority. Our system has certain democratic elements, but the founders never mentioned democracy in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. In fact, our most important protections are decidedly undemocratic. For example, the First Amendment protects free speech. It doesn’t – or shouldn’t – matter if that speech is abhorrent to 51% or even 99% of the people. Speech is not subject to majority approval. Under our republican form of government, the individual, the smallest of minorities, is protected from the mob” – Ron Paul

“Democracy? I want nothing to do with a system which operates on the premise that my rights don’t exist simply because I am outnumbered.” – R. Lee Wrights

“The problem with [democracy] socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” – Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler, Scottish historian

Consider two quotes by economic professor Hans-Herman Hoppe author of the powerful book; Democracy – The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.

“What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.” – Hanse-Hermann Hoppe

“Thus, if one is indeed concerned about America’s moral decay and wants to restore normalcy to society and culture, one must oppose all aspects of the modern social-welfare state. A return to normalcy requires no less than the complete elimination of the present social security system: of unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, medicaid, public education, etc.- and thus the near complete dissolution and deconstruction of the current state apparatus and government power. If one is ever to restore normalcy, government funds and power must dwindle to or even fall below their nineteenth century levels. Hence, true conservatives must be hard-line libertarians (antistatists).” – Hanse-Hermann Hoppe

“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” – John Adams

It is significant that Adams grounds these rights in the biblical God and not from government!

The following article is a good theological analysis of democracy:

THE HERESY OF DEMOCRACY WITH GOD

By Rousas John Rushdoony [From Chalcedon Position Paper No.6]

A YOUNG woman, mother of a girl of six years, described conditions in the grade school (K-6) across from their church. One teacher is openly a lesbian. Some boys regularly drag screaming girls into the boys’ restroom to expose themselves to the girls, and nothing is done about it. The leading church officer had an answer to her call for a Christian School: he did not believe in spiritual isolationism for Christians, and this is what Christian Schools represent. Unusual? On the contrary, all too common an attitude.

In Chalcedon Position Paper no. 2, I wrote on “Can We Tithe Our Children?”, I quoted Psalm 128:1,

“Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord; that walketh in his ways.”

This fell into the hands of a minister, who was apparently very upset by it. He corrected the word of God, and wrote to declare, “I do not like the word feareth, Rather loveth the Lord.” Unusual? No, all too common.

A pastor, planning to speak on Biblical authority had the word “authority” altered in the church bulletin by members to read “leadership.” A prominent church publication spoke with ridicule and hatred of all who would believe in anything so “primitive” as Biblical law. Another pastor, planning to discipline a seriously sinning member, was attacked by his fellow pastors at a church meeting; somehow, it is unloving to deal with sin as God’s word requires it.

Is it necessary to give further examples? More pastors lose pulpits for their faithfulness to Scripture than for any other reason. Trifling excuses are found to make possible the dissolution of a pastoral relationship. Open sin is condoned, and simple faithfulness is despised. The telephone rings regularly to bring reports of fresh instances of churches in revolt against God and His word. Gary North is right. Humanism’s accomplices are in the church (Christian Reconstruction, III,2).

Much of this stems from one of the great heresies of our day, the belief in democracy. At the beginning of the century, some churchmen began talking about the democracy of God, i.e., that God wants a universe where He and His creatures can work and plan together in a democratic way. Of course, if our relationship with God is a democratic one, we can correct the Bible where it displeases us, eliminate what we cannot correct, and use other standards and tests for the church and the clergy than God’s enscriptured word. Then, logically, our word is as good as God’s word, and as authoritative as God’s.

In his important study, The Heresy of Democracy (1955), Lord Percy of Newcastle declared of democracy that it is “philosophy which is nothing less than a new religion” (p. 16). The justification for all things is not to be found in the triune God but in the people. Virtue means meeting people’s needs, and the democratic state, church, and God have one function, to supply human wants. State, school, church, and God become chaplains to man, called upon to bow down before man’s authority. In fact, Lord Percy said of state schools, “This is, indeed, democracy’s characteristic Mark of the Beast… of all means of assimilation, the most essential to democracy is a uniform State-controlled education” (p.13). To challenge that system is to shake democracy’s structure, including its state and church. Earlier, Fichte saw statist education in messianic terms: “Progress is that perfection of education by which the Nation is made Man.”

Within the church, the modernists first advocated the state as God’s voice and instrument. Wellhausen, the German leader of the higher criticism of the Old Testament, declared: “We must acknowledge that the Nation is more certainly created by God than the Church, and that God works more powerfully in the history of nations than in Church history.”

Behind all this is the question of authority: is it from God, or from man? If God is the sovereign authority over all things, then His law-word alone can govern all things. Religion, politics, economics, science, education, law and all things else must be under God, or they are in revolt!

If the ultimate authority is man, then all things must serve man and bow down before man’s authority. As T. Robert Ingram has so clearly pointed out in What’s Wrong with Human Rights (1979), the doctrine of human rights is the humanistic replacement for Biblical law. Man now being regarded as sovereign, his rights have replaced God’s law as the binding force and authority over man and his world.

The cultural effects of this change have been far reaching. In a remarkably brilliant and telling study, Ann Douglas, in The Feminization of American Culture (I977), has shown the effects of Unitarianism and religious liberalism on American culture. From a God-centred emphasis (not necessarily consistent or thorough in application), a man centred focus emerged. The new justification of women became the cult of motherhood (a humanistic, man centred focus), and for men and women alike, “doing good” for one’s fellow men. With this new emphasis, men left the church, or regarded it as peripheral to their lives, and the liberal clergy developed the fundamentals of what we have today as soap opera religion. In Ann Douglas’ delightfully incisive wording, it’s hardly accidental that soap opera, an increasing speciality of nineteenth century liberal Protestantism, is a “phenomenon which we associate with the special needs of feminine subculture” (p.48). Liberal religion feminized the clergy, made women and Christianity irrelevant to life, and created a spineless, gutless clergy for whom the faith is sentimental talk and not the power of God unto salvation. To quote Dr. Douglas again, “The liberal minister who abandoned theology lost his right to start from the ‘facts’ of the Bible as his predecessors understood them: that God made man, man sinned against him, and God had and has the right to assign any punishment he judges fit for the offences” (p. 200).

This humanistic soap-opera religion conquered other areas of the church. Arminianism quickly adopted it, as did much of Calvinism, as their emphases shifted from God’s sovereign act of salvation to man’s ostensible choice, or man’s experience, and from the centrality and authority of the word, to an emotional, experientially governed “heart-religion.”

In this humanist parody of Christianity, man’s experience has priority over God’s word. One “Christian worker” told me that it was unwise for people to read the Bible without the guidance of a “real” experience of “Spirit-filled” heart religion. Of course, for him the Spirit freed him from the word, a heretical opinion. One pastor, who announced a series of sermons on authority, i.e., the authority of God, of His word, authority under God, etc., was told bluntly that he should preach on “fellowship” with God, not God’s authority. When churchmen are hostile to God’s authority, they are not Christians. Fellowship with God through Christ is on His terms and under His grace and authority.

“If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (I John 1:6).

A church which denies God’s authority will be in no position to resist the state’s authority. It will look to authorities other than the Lord’s for its justification, and, in yielding to the state, it will do so in the spirit of cooperation, not compromise, because its true fellowship is with man and the state, not the Lord. Ambrose, in A.D. 385, resisted the state’s requisition of a church in Milan, declaring, “What belongs to God is outside the emperor’s power.” Ambrose said further, in his ‘Sermon Against Auxentius’, “We pay to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Tribute is due to Caesar, we do not deny it. The Church belongs to God, therefore it ought not to be assigned to Caesar. For the temple of God cannot be Caesar’s by right.” The emperor, he added, could be in the church by faith, but never above or over it.

Chrysostom, in dealing also with conflict with Caesar, warned his people, in Concerning the Statutes, Homily III, 19:

“This certainly I foretell and testify, that although this cloud should pass away, and we yet remain in the same condition of listlessness, we shall again have to suffer much heavier evils than those we are now dreading; for I do not so much fear the wrath of the Emperor, as your own listlessness.”

Here Chrysostom put his finger on the heart of the matter: the threat was less the emperor and more a listless and indifferent church. The same problem confronts us today. The greater majority of church members do not feel that Christianity is worth fighting for, let alone dying for. They only want the freedom to be irrelevant, and to emit pious gush as a substitute for faithfulness and obedience. In soap opera religion, life is without dominion; instead, it is a forever abounding mess, met with a sensitive and bleeding heart. Soap opera religion is the faith of the castrated, of the impotent, and the irrelevant. The devotees of soap opera religion are full of impotent self-pity and rage over the human predicament, but are devoid of any constructive action; only destruction and negation become them.

The heresy of democracy leads to the triumph of sentimental religion. Dr. Douglas defines sentimentalism thus:

“Sentimentalism is a cluster of ostensibly private feelings which always attains public and conspicuous expression” (p. 307). The focus in sentimental religion shifts from God’s word to man’s feelings, and from basic doctrine to psychology and human needs. The doctrine of the sovereignty of man means the sovereignty of the total man, and all his feelings. We have a generation now whose concern is themselves, whose self-love blots out reality and truth.

So great is this self-absorption that, in any office, faculty, church group, or other fellowship, there are commonly persons who give their momentous personal communiques on purely private matters: “I didn’t sleep well last night … I’m so tired today…Nothing I eat agrees with me lately, and I’m always gassy… I saw the film and used oodles of Kleenex. … The colour green always upsets me… I can’t bear to have children around …” and so on and on. Purely private feelings are announced as though the world should react, be concerned, and be governed by them.

Even worse, God is approached with a similar endless gush of private feelings, as though God should be concerned and upset when an egomaniac is distressed. Few people pray, asking, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6). Rather, they pray with a list of demands on God, for Him to supply. Now Paul declares that God will supply all our needs “according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19), but that promise is preceded by an epistle which speaks at length of God’s requirements of us, and also calls for contentment on our parts with our God-decreed lot (Philippians 4: 11).

Basic also to the heresy of democracy in the church is its belief, not only in man’s needs as against God’s requirements, but its belief in the irrelevance of God’s law. If man is sovereign, God’s law cannot bind man, and both hell and justice fade away. God, then, is allowed only one approach to man – love. He is portrayed as needing, yearning for, and calling for man’s love.

Man is in the driver’s seat, to accept or reject that plea. Lord Percy stated it succinctly: “A mere breaker of law… may always be saved; but there is no salvation for the deniers of law” (p.108). They have denied God’s sovereignty and His power to save. Their only logical relationship to God, then, is not by salvation but by man-ordained fellowship. Then, too, what man has ordained, man can destroy, so there is efficacious salvation, and no perseverance of the saints.

This brings us to the conclusion of sovereign man. On both sides of the “Iron curtain,” politicians trumpet the claim that theirs is the free world. “The free world” is a curious and popular term in the twentieth century, so commonly used that its meaning is hardly considered. What is the free world free from? First of all, it means freedom from the other side. The enemy represents bondage, “our side” freedom, although all the while freedom decreases in the West, even as its relics grow fewer behind the Iron Curtain. The less free we become, the more we are told of the virtues of our freedom. But, second, the whole world is not free in its more basic sense, “free” from God. For the Marxists, religion, Biblical faith in particular, is the opium of the masses. For democratic thinkers like John Dewey and James Bryant Conant, Christianity and the family are anti-democratic and aristocratic, and hence incompatible with democracy. (See R.J. Rushdoony: Messianic Character of American Education.) The Death of God School of a few years ago did not say that God is dead in Himself but that God is dead for us, because, they declared, we find Him “non-historical” and irrelevant to our purposes in this world. Only that which meets man’s needs and purposes is alive for man, and therefore man wants to be free from the sovereign God.

The man who did not believe in “spiritual isolationism,” of which he accused the Christian Schools, was emphatic on one point: we must obey the powers that be, the state, because God ordains it. Peter’s words, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts3:29), brought little response from him. Obedience to many other things in Scripture, such as tithing, bring no similar strong demand for obedience, but all such are ready to call their compromise with Caesar a faithfulness to God.

But to obey in the Hebrew Scripture means essentially to hear the word of God, to believe it, and to act on it. Therefore, W.A.Whitehouse said that the word obey has “the closest possible association with ‘believe’” (A. Richardson, editor: A Theological Word Book of the Bible, p. 160.).

Contrary to the humanistic, democratic mood in religious thought today, Christianity is an authoritative faith. It is held, throughout all Scripture, that all human authority is derived or conferred (or falsely claimed) and is always subject to the sovereign and absolute authority of God and is always subject to the terms of His law-word.

We have an age that wants (if it has anything to do with God) only His fellowship, on man’s terms, and without His sovereignty and lordship. lt dares to correct and amend God’s word; it refuses to hear Him but offers, rather, to love Him. (One Hollywood “Christian” leader of a few years back spoke of God as “a living doll.”) It wants a universe in which man plays sovereign and creator, endeavouring to create a brave new world out of sinful man, or out of self-centered churchmen, and it produces a fair facsimile of hell. Such a world is begging for judgment, and then as now “judgment must begin at the house of God” (I Peter 4:17). As always, judgment precedes salvation.

End of article

Final quotes on the evil form of government known as Democracy:

“Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life.” – R.J. Rushdoony

“Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.” – Walter E. Williams

“The tendency of liberals is to create bodies of men and women-of all classes-detached from tradition, alienated from religion, and susceptible to mass suggestion-mob rule. And a mob will be no less a mob if it is well fed, well clothed, well housed, and well disciplined.” – T. S. Eliot

“Democracy is no solution – it’s just 51% bossing the other 49% around. For God’s sake, Hitler was democratically elected! Democracy is just mob rule dressed up in a coat and tie.” – Doug Casey

In conclusion:

At first, some democracies are very particular on who is allowed to immigrate into the country. There are strictly enforced immigration laws only allowing in people who have something to positively contribute to the country.

In the late stages before a democracy collapses, the politicians who promise people free things to get elected, find that many people are starting to recognize the voting scam for what it is. In order to keep the scam of democracy going, the politicians need more stupid people who cannot not recognize the political lies. In the case of the U.S. the corrupt vote buying political prostitutes (most politicians) create an open boarder disaster and start flooding the country with millions of stupid people who fall victim to specious promises of the vote buying prostitutes. The new waves of immigrant law breakers are coming for government handouts, taken from people who producers and given to non-producing bums and parasites.

Theological problems with Democracy:

Democracy forces you to be in conformity with the demands of the “will of the people,” regardless of what economic realism, common sense, or what biblical law says. Democracy obligates you to relinquish your freedom and your assets including property for the so-called “general welfare” clause in the constitution which proponents of democracy have grossly distorted. Democracy in the end, destroys freedom and property.

Democracy springs forth from the desires of depraved men, and since man is depraved, evil is the result. Democracy seeks to make collective man like God, determining right and wrong for himself. The result, laws are changed to permit wicked behavior. Democracy is rule by the people, for the people, and of the people. It falsely raises up man to be the lord over all things. This is a violation of God’s sovereignty. The voice and will of the people, is not the voice and will of God. To assert this, is idolatry.

“… thou shall not steal, even by majority vote …” – Gary North

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Importance and Necessity of Special Revelation

The Importance and Necessity of Special Revelation by Jack Kettler

This article is a reply that deals with certain criticisms concerning views expressed in my article titled Pagan Philosophy, Unbelief, and Irrationalism.(1) This article briefly exposed the bankruptcy of materialistic and empirical philosophy in particular and the worldview of non-belief in general. It was asserted: “Matter is silent; it does not speak. It does not say what is right or what is wrong. The definition between good and evil is found in the Bible. God is not silent.” These assertions on my part were not original. Many Christian apologists have discussed these ideas when dealing with atheistic materialism.

The article was challenged regarding to the accuracy of these assertions and how assertions of this nature could be harmonized with the teaching of Scripture that shows matter does speak using passages such as Romans 1:19-20, dealing with creation’s testimony, and is therefore not silent. To start with, the claim “matter is silent” must not be understood apart from the context of the article: to point out that the materialistic worldview is philosophically unable to arrive at truth from any source, particularly matter. Matter according to this view is ultimately just an accident and is therefore meaningless. As will be seen, the crux of the problem is with fallen man. The article in question did not deal with the broader subject of general revelation from a Christian perspective.

Also, when stated that “matter is silent” this assertion should be understood as meaning that matter does not speak in or with an audible sound like human speech and does not communicate or have any meaning at all within the framework of a non-believing worldview. This is especially true when dealing with specifics, notably in the areas of science, ethics, and logic. Considering the Christian worldview in contrast, it can be said that matter does have a testimony. Its testimony is imprinted in it by virtue of its creation. In this reply, there will be a brief account of general revelation (creation knowledge) and special revelation (biblical knowledge) along with additional challenges to materialistic philosophy, contrasted with biblical philosophy. However to clarify things, reformed Christians believe that God conveys truth through both of these avenues. There is no conflict between these two forms of revelation. I believe that all creation testifies that God exists e.g., Psalms 19:1-3, Romans 1:18-20 and that God has spoken authoritatively in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. As will be seen, the problem is with man and specifically fallen man.

The article in question points out that the non-believing worldview is unable to articulate in a credible way a theory of ethics. The transcendental argument, or as some might say a world-view apologetic, was briefly used to illustrate the deficiency in non-believing thought. The transcendental argument shows the Christian world-view to be true because of the impossibility of the contrary. A worldview must have a theory of knowledge that can account for certain things, such as ethics, logic and science. The non-believer has never shown how one can get from matter like rocks to a concrete argument of why Stalin’s murder of millions of people, in particular the Ukrainians was wrong. The thrust of the aforementioned article is against atheistic materialistic philosophy, which produces death and destruction recorded repeatedly in history.

To start with, in light of the truth of Christianity and within the framework of the Christian worldview it can be said that creation has a testimony, albeit not audible like human speech. Creation does testify of God’s existence. In contrast, within the framework of a materialistic worldview, matter is absolutely silent. This is a suppressed or imposed silence, the result of fallen man’s ethical state reflected in his apostate philosophy. Within the Christian worldview the testimony of creation or general revelation is absolutely true but limited in its scope. Being limited does not imply deficiency. God always intended to give special or biblical revelation. Jesus is God’s fullest revelation to man and He is revealed to us in the Scriptures. General revelation does not tell us about Jesus’ death on the cross and how men are to be saved. The book of Romans and the Gospels do.

Matter is not alive. God creates matter. Because of this, matter has God’s imprint. Therefore, matter’s testimony mirrors or is reflective. It reflects God’s glory like the moon reflects the light of the sun. This testimony is general in scope. In the article it is said, “matter is silent” which is to point out the bankruptcy of materialistic philosophy and its inability to speak with intelligence concerning specifics in the area of ethics, since its worldview is deficient. The materialist starts with time and chance and matter. If non-believers start with matter, how do they get from A (matter) to B (ethics)? Matter does not logically lead to anything within the framework of materialism. There are obvious disagreements between Christians and non-Christians in the area of interpretation of matter. The reason for these disagreements can be accounted for by the way in which evidence is interpreted. In essence, fallen man rejects God’s interpretation of creation and imposes his own autonomous interpretation on created things, thus suppressing the truth. As will be seen, the materialist has nowhere to turn except his own conflicting autonomous capricious subjective evaluations.

The Christian sees all of creation as testifying of God’s existence. The Christian looks to God to find the true meaning of matter and the facts surrounding it. The non-believer, however, sees nothing except matter, which cannot mean anything nor have anything to say apart from man’s imposed interpretation. From a Christian perspective, man is governed by presuppositions. These presuppositions are determined by his nature that is either fallen or redeemed. He interprets matter consistent with these presuppositions. Fallen man is still committed to the Satanic lie that “ye shall be as gods knowing good from evil” (Genesis 3:5). In the fall mankind rejected God given knowledge

Many are not epistemologically self-conscious, including some Christians, and therefore are unaware that they have presuppositions, which govern their interpretations. In particular, fallen man generally refuses to acknowledge that he has presuppositions and that his presuppositions govern interpretations of matter or anything else. To many, what is put forward as evidence and interpretation seems self-evident; but in reality is nothing more than a subjective evaluation. Escaping from subjectivity is no easy task. Does non-believing philosophy enable man to get beyond his subjectivity? Can non-believing man’s rationalism (reason alone using logic) save him? Can the laws of logic within the framework of a non-believing worldview accomplish this? How can they, since the laws of logic cannot even be explained or justified within the framework of this philosophy? For example, where did these laws come from? Are they universally interpreted in the same way? The laws of logic within the framework of non-belief are nothing more than a philosophical construct, which ends up collapsing into irrationality.

Rational man, in other words, has no basis for his rationalism. The statement “matter is silent” should be understood in contrast to the statement that “God is not silent.” This second assertion is the Christian solution to obtaining knowledge. God has spoken clearly to all men through the Scriptures. We have a biblical foundation for seeking knowledge and obtaining it. God given revelation is objective. Ungodly men reject biblical revelation, they suppress the truth that God has revealed to them through creation (Romans 1:18). God has clearly spoken in the Scriptures, i.e. special revelation to mankind concerning what is required of him. The suppression of God’s revelation by fallen man is evidence of his epistemological rebellion.

In addition, regarding matter it can be said that, whatever testimony general revelation has, it is because God is the author of it. In and of itself, matter has nothing to say. Someone may object and say, “we can learn many things from rocks.” This type of assertion is naive. Evidence is interpreted within the framework of a worldview. The presuppositions that govern a worldview determine what may be learned. If the presuppositions are false, evidence will be misinterpreted or suppressed. The mind of man does not interpret raw data without the aid of controlling presuppositions. Some deny this. For example, empiricists, those who believe that man’s mind is blank in the beginning of life and then knowledge comes through sensations, believe that man’s mind is capable of assimilating and correctly interpreting these raw data.

For example, empiricism historically argues that knowledge comes through sensations in the following order: (a) sensations, (b) perceptions, (c) memory images, (d) and the development of abstract ideas. In this system of interpretation perceptions are inferences from sensations. How does the empiricist know valid from invalid inferences? Given this uncertainty, how can the empiricist be sure of anything, let alone what type of matter he has? In addition, studies have shown that some individuals do not have memory images. How can this group of people know things empirically? This is no small problem for empirical epistemology. Tiredness, drugs, and optical illusions can deceive the senses, particularly in the area of sight (color) and hearing (sound) causing further uncertainty. The Christian would also not rule out sin and demonic deception as factors leading to false conclusions. Assuming that empirical epistemology has resolved these difficulties is just that, an assumption.

Consistent empirical epistemology leads to skepticism, as in the case of Scottish philosopher David Hume. Allegedly, Emmanuel Kant was awakened from his dogmatic slumbers when he saw the effects Hume’s skeptical consistencies were having on empirical epistemology. Kant tried to save epistemology by positing that man’s mind organized empirical data by a priori categories through which sensations could be understood. Whether he did or not is another issue. Another problem for the empiricist is that it is impossible to know the totality of empirical data on any subject with the endless complexities of inter-related details, which always leaves open the possibility that the empiricist is mistaken in more than just his perceptions. Moreover, empirically, how does the empiricist assimilate the numerous sensations such as sight and touch into a coherent basis for knowing what anything is? The empiricist needs to explain his process of abstraction and demonstrate that it is free from error. Assuming the system works without demonstrating the process is nothing more than begging the question. Empirical scientists are notorious for making unjustified metaphysical assertions. See Gordon H. Clark’s The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God(2) and John W. Robbins, The Sagan of Science(3) for a number of instructive examples of this.

In addition to numerous philosophical problems relating to interpretation, it should be clear that matter has nothing to say within the framework of non-believing philosophy. What could it say? Within this framework, matter is ultimately an accident and therefore meaningless. In addition to this problem, all men have a priori commitments, which are at work and from which truth or falsity is deduced. The question is not does man have these commitments, but what are they? Do these commitments acknowledge God in the reasoning process? If one starts with non-Christian premises it is impossible to arrive at biblical truth. For a conclusion to be valid it cannot contain information not stated in the premises. The non-believer cannot have accurate knowledge because his presuppositions, starting premises, or axioms, which govern interpretations, are false.

When non-believers seem to arrive at conclusions consistent with biblical revelation, it is by accident, inconsistency, or theft. Many times the non-Christian worldview steals the ethical conclusions from the Christian worldview. This borrowing or more properly stealing from the Christian worldview is why non-believers at times seemingly speak the truth without having the necessary presuppositions to arrive at the truth. The non-believer, because of the bankruptcy of his position, is forced to live on stolen concepts. Thankfully, many non-believers rejected Nazism’s “final solution.” In other words, at times, by God’s common grace, the non-believer sees the reductio ad absurdum and horror of where his own philosophical commitments lead.

Since God is the creator, He gives the true interpretation of all things. All true interpretation must come to a grip with God’s revelation, in which is found the meaning and interpretation of matter. When dealing with the difference between right and wrong one deals with specifics. Natural or general revelation is only good as far as it is intended. It is right and true as far as it goes. It is intended to show man that God exists and testifies of His eternal power and Godhead (Romans 1:18-20). General revelation testifies but its testimony is not intended to address specifics in the area of science, logic and ethics. It is to special revelation in the Bible that we must turn.

Any theory of knowledge that attempts to build a philosophy without God’s special revelation (the Scriptures) is doomed to failure. Reformed Christians believe that general revelation is sufficient to condemn man. Special revelation, i.e. biblical revelation, adds to man’s culpability. God’s purpose in general revelation is not to give man specific knowledge in many areas. To illustrate, matter does not give specifics concerning the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter nor adultery and fornication, or whether fornication (pornea) is a category under which adultery is defined. This is found in special revelation, e.g., in the case laws of the Old Testament.

As has been seen, Christians have a solid basis for knowledge. All men have God’s moral law stamped upon their conscience. The diligent reader should consult Ronald H. Nash’s The Word of God and the Mind of Man(4) and his The light of the mind: St. Augustine’s theory of knowledge.(5) These two books explain and develop for the modern reader elements of Augustine’s philosophy in the area of epistemology that is found in his De Magistro.(6) These works deal with the mechanics of how the Christian receives knowledge into his mind. Man has a moral awareness of right from wrong, not learned from matter or uncertain sensations but from our mind being illuminated directly by God. We read: “That was the true Light which gives light to every man who comes into the world” John 1:9; and, “For in Him we live and move and have our being…” Acts 17:28a. God directly illuminates man’s mind so he knows the difference between right and wrong. God’s law is stamped upon our consciences. This knowledge gives man his moral awareness and is the result of man being created in the image of God.

In summary, to press non-belief further, it can be said the apostate worldview man has erected is full of contradictions. Oftentimes, if consistent with this materialist worldview, he cannot know anything, since consistent empiricism leads to agnostic skepticism which he then uses as a smoke screen or cover to justify ignorance and hostility to God’s law. If not consistent with the philosophical conclusions of a materialistic worldview derived from sensations, he then claims as an atheist to have certain knowledge of right and wrong using his reason, alone which is in defiance to biblical knowledge. Philosophically unbelief vacillates between these two positions of knowing and not knowing. These two opposite poles of allegiance constitute a never-ending dilemma, thus revealing the futility of non-Christian epistemology. Does any of this affect the non-believer? No, the philosophy of non-belief presses on irrationally, certain of its uncertainty, oblivious of the self-refuting contradiction being advanced. To illustrate, for example, some non-believers claim absolutely that there are no absolutes. The philosophy of non-belief contradicts itself when it claims not to know (uncertainty, agnosticism) and to know (certainty, atheism). Both atheism and agnosticism are two sides of the same coin. Fallen man’s contradictory uncertainty and certainty are manifestations of his epistemological and ethical rebellion against God.

Also no less devastating, many examples could be given of non-believers asserting absolutes and omniscient statements within the framework of a system that does not allow absolutes. When finite man without biblical authority asserts absolute omniscient statements, it is indefensible. Also, it should be noted the absurdity of atheism’s claim when asserting “there is no God.” The absurdity is this: it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Furthermore, when the atheist asserts that “there is no God” the second question of the Socratic technique “how do you know that?” reveals the failure of this unverifiable claim. So much for the non-believer’s demand for verification. The agnostic claims for himself ignorance concerning the existence of God. It should be noted that this claim of ignorance is not an argument against the existence of God. Rather, it is a sign of epistemological bankruptcy and what could be described as a deficiency of knowledge, or a self-confessed mental condition.

In essence, fallen man has erected a closed system. His system is closed to God. He does not allow God to speak. Since man rejects the Creator, he has nothing within his closed system that he allows to speak with ethical certainty. He is left to himself. As long as fallen man excludes the biblical God from his system, he cannot know anything with certainty. Non-believing thought has no basis for absolutes. If there are no absolutes there can be no meaning attached to anything since everything could be said to be true and not true at the same time, which is unacceptable nonsense. Thus, fallen man is left with only endless matter, unintelligible sensations, or his atheistic apostate reason. This is the bankruptcy of atheistic materialistic humanism.

It is only the Christian that has a rational basis for knowledge. This is because we allow God to speak to us in creation and Scripture. Our system is not closed like the non-Christian. The Bible tells us about general revelation and man’s requirement to worship the creator. The Bible tells us the specifics on how to worship the creator. It is only because we have special revelation that an intelligent conversation on these matters can be carried on. General and special revelations are biblical concepts. It would be impossible to have a discussion about these concepts without God’s special revelation, the Bible, since biblical revelation is where the concepts appear. Clearly, without special revelation there would be no discussion of ethics, science, and logic with any certainty.
In conclusion, without the Bible, i.e., special revelation we would not be able to talk about the concept of general revelation. This is because; it is in Scripture we learn of general or creation revelation. The objector to my previous article recognized the truth of Christian revelation, but gave away unnecessary ground to non-belief by not fully grasping the effects of the fall and therefore missed the thrust of the argument, which was directed against non-believing philosophy. Our knowledge of general revelation is dependent upon special revelation. Therefore, special revelation is indispensable. The importance and necessity of special revelation is absolutely essential. Without special revelation we would be left in a swamp of autonomous empirical subjectivity which is where the non-believer finds himself. The non-believer is left in the dark as long as they suppress the truth of God that has been revealed to them. God has spoken. This is certain: God speaks to us in the Scriptures (special revelation) with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. Consequently, the strength of the Christian worldview is clearly seen by the impossibility of the contrary.

Notes:
1. Jack Kettler, Pagan Philosophy, Unbelief, and Irrationalism, (Minneapolis: Contra Mundum, 1998). http://www.visi.com/~contra_m//cm/discuss2/cm98_jk_pagan.html
2. Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity, 1987).
3. John W. Robbins, The Sagan of Science, (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity, 1988).
4. Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1982).
5. Ronald H. Nash, The Light of the Mind: St. Augustine’s Theory of Knowledge, (Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1969).
6. Augustine, De Magistro in Augustine: Earlier Writings, Editor, John H. S. Burleigh, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, MCMLIII).

Special note:

As in my previous article nothing in the above article should be understood as being original with me. I am indebted biblically and philosophically for the above comments to Francis A. Schaeffer, Gordon H. Clark, Ronald H. Nash, Cornelius Van Til, and Greg Bahnsen.

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Pagan Philosophy, Unbelief, and Irrationalism

Pagan Philosophy, Unbelief, and Irrationalism By Jack Kettler

Biblically speaking, holding philosophical beliefs that contain internally self-refuting contradictions is an expression of irrationalism. It can also be a case of inexcusable ignorance. Ultimately, all non-Christian philosophy starts with bold rationalistic assertions about reality and ends up in irrationalism. The philosophy of logical positivism is one example. The positivist philosophy can be described as empiricism (all knowledge comes through sensations) with a vengeance. This positivist philosophy is a vengeance against all metaphysical statements. A popular contemporary form of empiricism that derives from John Locke is known as the theory that the mind at birth is a blank tablet (tabula rasa) and then assimilates knowledge through sensations. This theory could be called the “blank mind theory” of knowledge.

The Positivist School boldly asserted as it’s starting principle that they will only accept what can be verified empirically. The positivists would accept a statement like “some cars are red,” because this could be verified empirically. A color-blind person would have to take this statement by faith. A statement like “God exists” would be rejected since God cannot be brought into a science laboratory and inspected. Once upon a time, someone asked, “How does the positivist school verify its own starting principle empirically?” With that question, the empirical, positivist school collapsed. There are still those who promote elements of this philosophically discredited theory, not realizing that in doing so they have become an irrationalist, or guilty of inexcusable ignorance. Positivism collapsed because, as in all non-Christian philosophy, it contains its own internally self-refuting contradiction. This positivist contradiction is in the same category as with those who assert “there is no truth.” Supposedly, this assertion is true.

Many non-Christians hold to a materialistic atheistic world-view. Adherents of this pagan world-view proclaim their belief in the laws of science, morality, and logic. It should be noted that adherents of this world-view have never shown how the laws of science, morality, and logic can ever arise in a materialistic universe. Non-Christians who hold this world-view continue to proclaim their belief in such things without showing how their system can account for them. This is philosophically called “begging the question.” In the area of morality for example, the non-Christian is unable to define the difference between right and wrong in terms of his world-view or belief system. Today, many see this ignorance as a virtue. If Biblical absolutes are rejected, it is meaningless to even talk about right and wrong.

In a materialistic atheistic world-view, laws against evil, such as murder, are merely arbitrary social formalities. For example, in pagan democracies the laws change when a mere fifty-one percent of the population is swayed in a different direction. When it comes to knowing the difference between right and wrong many non-Christians act as though they have a blank mind. Pagan attempts to define right from wrong are arbitrary, or they borrow definitions from the Christian world-view in order to escape the utter bankruptcy of their own world-view.

Matter is silent; it does not speak. It does not say what is right or what is wrong. The definition between good and evil is found in the Bible. God is not silent. For example, the definition of murder is found in the case laws of the Old Testament. The Bible even defines precisely the difference between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter. Only the Christian world-view can account for the laws of science, morality, and logic. This is because God is the creator of the world, and we understand all things as defined and interpreted by Him in Holy Scripture. Nothing exists apart from His definition. Since God governs the universe, we can under normal providential conditions use scientific procedures to help us systematically understand how elements of the world function. God speaks to us in scripture with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. Because God has spoken, the Christian has a Biblical basis for the laws of science, morality, and logic. Only in Christ Jesus can one find answers to the questions of life. In Christ Jesus alone can one find the basis for truth and absolutes. All pagan philosophy suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and ends in internally self-refuting irrationalistic contradictions. CM

Note:

Nothing in the above article should be understood as being original with me. I am indebted Biblically and philosophically for the above comments to Francis A. Schaeffer, Gordon H. Clark, Cornelius Van Til, and Greg Bahnsen.

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Some thoughts on the Church

Some thoughts on the Church 2014 by Jack Kettler

It is important to note that the Church is the Object of Christ’s love:

“… as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” Ephesians 5:25. “That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” Ephesians 5: 27.

He will present the Church to himself in the presence of the Father as the fruit of His obedience to the Father’s will, for the elect on whose behalf He obeyed the law, (active obedience) and again for the elect whose sins He shed His blood, and died upon the cross (passive obedience) to the satisfaction of the Father.

The word church in the New Testament is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia and is synonymous with the Hebrew kahal in the Old Testament. Kahal is translated Ecclesia in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Both words simply mean an assembly in their most basic meaning, and do not necessarily have anything to do with public worship. The context determines the meaning.

Ecclesia is used in the following ways in the New Testament:

1.Ecclesia is translated “assembly” in the basic ordinary way in Acts 19:32,39,41. In this case, you had Demetrius and fellow craftsmen assembled against Paul with the town clerk appeasing the people and keeping order.

2.It is the whole body of the redeemed, or all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic or universal Church in Ephesians 5:23,25,27,29 and Hebrews 12:23.

3.It can be used for a few Christians associated together, in Romans 16:5 and Colossians 4:15.

4.It can be used for Christians in a particular city, regardless if they are assembled together in one place or in several places for worship, and are thus an ecclesia. The disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one Church in Acts 13:1, in addition, we see the “Church of God at Corinth” 1 Corinthians 1:2, also the “Church at Jerusalem” in Acts 8:1 and the “Church of Ephesus” in Revelation 2:1.

5.Ecclesia can also be used for the whole body of professing Christians throughout the world as seen in 1 Corinthians 15:9, Galatians 1:13, and Matthew 16:18 are the Church of Christ.

Christ’s Church is both “visible” and “invisible.”

Chapter 25 Of the Church in the Westminster Confession explains how the Church “visible” is comprised of all those throughout the world that profess the true faith, together with their children. It is called “visible” because its members are known and its assemblies are public. In the visible Church, there is a mixture of “wheat and chaff,” or of saints and unconverted sinners. God has commanded His people to organize themselves into visible assemblies, with constitutions, officers, ordinances governing worship, and discipline for the purpose of making known the gospel of His kingdom, and of gathering in all of the elect from the uttermost parts of the earth, Mark 13:27.

Each one of these organized assemblies that pledges fidelity to Christ, is part of the visible Church, and together with their children constitute the universal visible Church. A credible profession of faith involving membership vows is required for an adult to be a member of the visible Church. This Church is also called “the kingdom of heaven,” whose characteristics can be seen in the parables found in Matthew 13:24-52.

In comparison, the Church “invisible” consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one universal body under Christ, the head thereof. The Church is the body of Christ. It is called “invisible” because the greater part of those who are members in it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because it’s members still on earth cannot with certainly be distinguished this side of heaven because of the mixture of “wheat and chaff.”

The Church is universal and is perpetual. Christ’s Church is pictured as the stone in Daniel 2:35. This stone becomes a mountain and fills the whole earth. This is the kingdom that can never be destroyed and is Christ’s Church, Daniel 2:44. In the parable of the mustard seed, we see the Church and how it will become a great tree is seen in (Matthew 13:31-32). Christ’s Church will advance in History and the “Gates of Hell” shall never prevail against Her, Matthew 16:17.

For additional research:

The Church Of Christ
A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church
James Bannerman

“James Bannerman’s ‘The Church of Christ’ is the most extensive, standard, solid, Reformed treatment of the doctrine of the church that has ever been written. It is indisputably the classic in its field. Every minister and elder should own a copy, and church members would also be much better informed if they perused it carefully. How many church problems would be alleviated if churches used Bannerman as their primary textbook for their understanding of what the church is and for their modus operandi!” – Joel R. Beeke

You can down load a PDF copy of Bannerman’s Two Volume The Church Of Christ here.

In every thing we do, we should strive to bring honor to Christ and to advance His Kingdom on earth! Amen!

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Christians are Commanded to Violate Sharia Blasphemy Laws

Christians are Commanded to Violate Sharia Blasphemy Laws by Jack Kettler

Introduction:

Many people are familiar with Pamela Geller’s (http://pamelageller.com/) recent draw Mohammad contest in Dallas, TX. It was interesting to watch the supposed defenders of fee speech in the media and their coverage of this event. A number of talking heads at Fox News followed Bill O’Lielly’s take on the event. To paraphrase O’Lielly: it was protected First Amendment speech, but not wise. O’Lielly also was concerned that we not offend the moderate Muslims by drawing a cartoon or picture of Mohammad.

In my opinion, people who agree with O’ Lielly are Sharia-Compliant, Dhimmis. What would O’Lielly say about writing a book or article critical of Mohammad and the Koran? What about giving a speech critical of Mohammad or the Koran? This also will offend moderate Muslims. Being critical of Mohammad and the Koran are violations of Sharia law, just like drawing a picture of him. O’Lielly and those who follow him are on a slippery slope. Will they finally draw a line when, Muslims demand pork and wine be removed from stores because this offends Muslims?

Can there be any compromise with Sharia Law?

There are hundreds of Sharia laws. We will note two blasphemy laws among many that are in conflict with the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, and more importantly the commands of the Bible.

A Muslim who leaves Islam (apostasy) must be killed. This is violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights (cruel and unusual punishment).

It is a crime to say anything derogatory about Allah and his Prophet, or expose the contradictory points of Islam found in the Koran. That person must be killed. This is a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government).

Both of these Sharia blasphemy laws require the death penalty for violators. It is not just about drawing pictures, it also involves writing and speech against Mohammad.

As Christians we must speak out against the false prophet Mohammad and his book of false doctrine, the Koran.

We are not called to show respect to false prophets and books of false doctrine. We are to expose them! Consider the teaching of Scripture:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

“And many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.” (Matthew 24:11)

“Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26) All Muslims and their dhimmis speak well of Mohammad.

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” 2 (Corinthians 11:13-15)

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11)

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1)

“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

A true prophet of God, speaks the Word of God, and what is spoken must come to pass and be in harmony with previous spoken revelation. If someone claims to be speaking as God’s prophet and then makes a false statements, that person “has spoken presumptuously” and is not God’s true prophet.

The Koran says that the Holy Bible prophesied the coming of Muhammad (ash-Shu’ara’ 26: 196; as-Saff 61: 6; al-A’raf 7: 157). The Bible contains no prophecies about Muhammad. For Mohammad to assert this in his Koran is an example of his extreme narcissism and is blasphemy itself.

It will come as a shock to most people that Muslims would try and twist Scripture, and read Mohammad into the next two passages.

Is the next passage a prophecy of Christ of Mohammad?

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers, it is to him you shall listen just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)

Is the next passage about the Holy Spirit or Mohammad?

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, the will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. (John 15:26-27)

Trying to be passed off such nonsense as credible theological exegesis, does not merit a response. It is eisegesis on steroids. All branches of Christianity see the passage from Deuteronomy as a prophecy of Christ, and the passage from John, is referring to the Holy Spirit. These two shocking perversions of God’s Word are good examples of Muslims committing blasphemy against God.

Mohammad believed and the Koran records the idea that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is:

Allah had a wife Mary and together they had a child Jesus. This is laughably false. There is no Christian creedal formulation anywhere that teaches such an absurdity.

See my article Mohammad on the Trinity for more on this shocking belief right from the Koran.
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Trinity2.html

Just as shocking, Mohammad says in his Koran that Jesus was not crucified. This another whopper of a lie from Mohammad.

See my article Mohammad on the Crucifixion of Christ for more on this shocking belief, right from the Koran. http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Crucifixion.html

For more on Mohammad’s theology see my: The Mad Man from the Desert http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Mad.html

Does Mohammad’s religion meet the standard of Scripture for how man is to worship?

Mohammadism promotes idolatry. For example, bowing down to the K’abah and kissing this black meteorite stone at Mecca. Bowing down and kissing is an act of worship. In addition, Muslims must pray bowing towards the K’abah in Mecca five times a day.

We are commanded to worship God alone!

Muhammad is exalted in his religion to the same level as deity. You see this in Mohammadism by requiring the followers to have unconditional obedience to him, and forbidding, the making images of him, which is what the second commandment prohibits in making images of God.

In the Second Commandment, we are forbidden to make images of God, not Mohammad.

A contrast in teachings:

Jesus:

“If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to them the other.” (Matthew 5:39)
“But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44)
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” (Matthew 5:7)
“Blessed are the peacemakers.” (Matthew 5:9)
“Forgive and you shall be forgiven.” (Matthew 6:14)
“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” (Luke 6:27-36)

Mohammad:

“Make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (Sura 9:123, 66:9)
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day.” (Sura 9:29)
“Strike off the heads of infidels in battle.” (Sura 47:4)
“If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him.” (al-Bukhari 9:84:57)
“Never be a helper to the disbelievers.” (Sura 28:86)
“Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them.” (Sura 2:191)

Specifically, Muhammad killed many people, including beheading 700 Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina, A.D. 627. Does the following sound like a prophet of God?

“The Jews surrendered and the apostle confined them in Medina. Then the apostle went out to the market and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. … There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka’b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!’ This went on until the apostle made an end of them.” (Sirat Rasul Allah)

In summary of the comparison, Mohammad said kill, and Jesus said to forgive and love your enemies. As Jesus said: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:20)

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

“Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the Antichrist denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:22, 23)

As Christians we must speak out against the false prophet Mohammad and his book of false doctrine known as the Koran. The Muslim’s ultimate destiny is in jeopardy.

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) That name is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Resources:

The Christian Witness to the Muslim by John Gilchrist
http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

Answering Islam
http://answering-islam.org/authors/gilchrist.html

Topical Studies on Islam and Christianity
http://www.muslimhope.com/TopicalStudies.htm

Answering Muslims
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Koran.html

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Man from Geneva

A Man from Geneva by Jack Kettler

John Calvin (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564), né Jean Cauvin, was a French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called by his name. Calvin was trained as a lawyer. He embraced Protestant theology, and when religious hostility produced an uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Switzerland. In 1536 he published the first edition of his monumental influential two volume work, Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin was a indefatigable polemicist and apologetic writer. In addition to the Institutes of the Christian Religion, he wrote commentaries on most books of the Bible as well as theological treatises, theological letters of correspondence and confessional documents. He maintained a rigorous schedule of preaching sermons throughout the week in Geneva. Calvin’s soteriology built upon and further developed the Augustinian tradition of divine sovereignty. Calvin’s writing and preaching is carried on in the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches throughout the world.

A few Gems of Wisdom from Calvin:

“There is not one blade of grass, there is no color in this world that is not intended to make us rejoice.”

“There is no worse screen to block out the Spirit than confidence in our own intelligence.”

“Man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols.”

“The whole life of man until he is converted to Christ is a ruinous labyrinth of wanderings.”

Quotes about Calvin and Calvinism:

“I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross.” (Charles H. Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856).
“The longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection.” – Charles H. Spurgeon

“After the Holy Scriptures, I exhort the students to read the Commentaries of Calvin. . . . I tell them that he is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture; and that his Commentaries ought to be held in greater estimation than all that is delivered to us in the writings of the ancient Christian Fathers: so that, in a certain eminent spirit of prophecy, I give the pre-eminence to him beyond most others, indeed beyond them all. I add, that, with regard to what belongs to common places, his Institutes must be read after the Catechism, as a more ample interpretation. But to all this I subjoin the remark, that they must be perused with cautious choice, like all other human compositions.” – Jacob Arminius

“I believe Calvin was a great instrument of God; and that he was a wise and pious man.” – John Wesley

“I have been a witness of him for sixteen years and I think that I am fully entitled to say that in this man there was exhibited to all an example of the life and death of the Christian, such as it will not be easy to depreciate, and it will be difficult to imitate.” – Theodore Beza

“Calvin’s theology interests us in its historical context as an outstanding record of Reformation theology that historically—and at times even legally—has served as a basis of proclamation in modern Protestant churches.” – Karl Barth

“John Calvin is a man of distinguished reputation, one of the great figures of church history.” – Wulfert de Greef

“[Calvin] easily takes the lead among the systematic expounders of the Reformed system of Christian doctrine. . . . Calvin’s theology is based upon a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He was the ablest exegete among the Reformers, and his commentaries rank among the very best of ancient and modern times. His theology, therefore, is biblical rather than scholastic, and has all the freshness of enthusiastic devotion to the truths of God’s Word. At the same time he was a consummate logician and dialectician. He had a rare power of clear, strong, convincing statement. He built up a body of doctrines which is called after him, and which obtained symbolical authority through some of the leading Reformed Confessions of Faith.” “Taking into account all his failings, he [Calvin] must be reckoned as one of the greatest and best of men whom God raised up in the history of Christianity.” – Philip Schaff, church historian

“The greatest exegete and theologian of the Reformation was undoubtedly Calvin. . . . He is one of the greatest interpreters of Scripture who ever lived. He owes that position to a combination of merits. He had a vigorous intellect, a dauntless spirit, a logical mind, a quick insight, a thorough knowledge of the human heart, quickened by rich and strange experience; above all, a manly and glowing sense of the grandeur of the Divine. The neatness, precision, and lucidity of his style, his classic training and wide knowledge, his methodical accuracy of procedure, his manly independence, his avoidance of needless and commonplace homiletics, his deep religious feeling, his careful attention to the entire scope and context of every passage, and the fact that he has commented on almost the whole of the Bible, make him tower above the great majority of those who have written on Holy Scripture.” – Frederic William Farrar, History of Interpretation

“Calvin is the man who, next to St. Paul, has done most good to mankind.” – William Cunningham

“To omit Calvin from the forces of Western evolution is to read history with one eye shut.” – Lord John Morley

“It would hardly be too much to say that for the latter part of his lifetime and a century after his death John Calvin was the most influential man in the world, in the sense that his ideas were making more history than those of anyone else during that period. Calvin’s theology produced the Puritans in England, the Huguenots in France, the ‘Beggars’ in Holland, the Covenanters in Scotland, and the Pilgrim Fathers of New England, and was more or less directly responsible for the Scottish uprising, the revolt of the Netherlands, the French wars of religion, and the English Civil War. Also, it was Calvin’s doctrine of the state as a servant of God that established the ideal of constitutional representative government and led to the explicit acknowledgment of the rights and liberties of subjects. . . . It is doubtful whether any other theologian has ever played so significant a part in world history.” – J. I. Packer

“Calvin helped the Reformation change the entire focus of the Christian life. Calvin’s teaching, preaching, and catechizing fostered growth in the relationship between believers and God.” – Joel R. Beeke

“Calvin’s theological heritage has proved fertile perhaps to a greater extent than any other Protestant writer. Richard Baxter, Jonathan Edwards, and Karl Barth, in their very different ways, bear witness to the pivotal role that Calvin’s ideas have played in shaping Protestant self-perceptions down the centuries. . . . It is impossible to understand modern Protestantism without coming to terms with Calvin’s legacy to the movement which he did so much to nourish and sustain.” – Alister E. McGrath

“The fundamental issue for John Calvin—from the beginning of his life to the end—was the issue of the centrality and supremacy and majesty of the glory of God.” – John Piper

“Where the God-centered principles of Calvinism have been abandoned, there has been a strong tendency downward into the depths of man-centered naturalism or secularism. Some have declared, rightly, we believe, that there is no consistent stopping place between Calvinism and atheism.” – Ken Talbot

“Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they, and they only, did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed… If it had not been for Calvinists, Huguenots, Puritans, and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists.” – Sir John Skelton

“[Calvinists] are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world.” – French atheist Hippolyte Taine (1828 to 1893)

“Calvinism has been the chief source of republican government.” – Lorraine Boettner

“In Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties.” – Goren van Prinsterer

“John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.” – German historian Leopold von Ranke

“Calvinism boldly affirms that salvation is of faith in order simply that it may be of grace—totally, completely, finally, from beginning to end, from Alpha to Omega, completely of God. and not of man. God is exalted and man is abased. Salvation is of grace, it is of God, and I, along with Charles Spurgeon (who was a great proclaimer of the free and sovereign grace of God), am happy to say that I am a Calvinist who holds to the doctrines of grace.” – Dr. D. James Kennedy, from Why I am a Presbyterian

“The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster.” – “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.” – George Bancroft, Harvard professor, historian

“Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty in the West owes Calvin much respect.” – John Adams, second President of the United States

“From the first, therefore, I have always said to myself,—If the battle is to be fought with honor and with a hope of victory, then principle must be arrayed against principle; then it must be felt that in Modernism the vast energy of an all-embracing life-system assails us, then also it must be understood that we have to take our stand in a life-system of equally comprehensive and far-reaching power. And this powerful life-system is not to be invented nor formulated by ourselves, but is to be taken and applied as it presents itself in history. When thus taken, I found and confessed, and I still hold, that this manifestation of the Christian principle is given us in Calvinism. In Calvinism my heart has found rest. From Calvinism have I drawn the inspiration firmly and resolutely to take my stand in the thick of this great conflict of principles. And therefore, when I was invited most honorably by your Faculty to give the Stone-Lectures here this year, I could not hesitate a moment as to my choice of subject. Calvinism, as the only decisive, lawful, and consistent defence for Protestant nations against encroaching, and overwhelming Modernism,—this of itself was bound to be my theme.” – Abraham Kuyper, Dutch journalist, statesman and theologian. He founded a new church (the Gereformeerde Kerken), a newspaper, the Free University of Amsterdam, and the Anti-Revolutionary Party. He served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905.

“People say that Calvinism is a dour, hard creed. How broad and comforting, they say, is the doctrine of a universal atonement, the doctrine that Christ died equally for all men there upon the cross! How narrow and harsh, they say, is this Calvinistic doctrine—one of the “five points” of Calvinism—this doctrine of the “limited atonement,” this doctrine that Christ died for the elect of God in a sense in which he did not die for the unsaved! But do you know, my friends, it is surprising that men say that. It is surprising that they regard the doctrine of a universal atonement as being a comforting doctrine. In reality it is a very gloomy doctrine indeed. Ah, if it were only a doctrine of a universal salvation, instead of a doctrine of a universal atonement, then it would no doubt be a very comforting doctrine; then no doubt it would conform wonderfully well to what we in our puny wisdom might have thought the course of the world should have been. But a universal atonement without a universal salvation is a cold, gloomy doctrine indeed. To say that Christ died for all men alike and that then not all men are saved, to say that Christ died for humanity simply in the mass, and that the choice of those who out of that mass are saved depends upon the greater receptivity of some as compared with others—that is a doctrine that takes from the gospel much of its sweetness and much of its joy.” – J. Gresham Machen

What is Calvinism? by B. B. Warfield

It is very odd how difficult it seems for some persons to understand just what Calvinism is. And yet the matter itself presents no difficulty whatever. It is capable of being put into a single sentence; and that, on level to every religious man’s comprehension. For Calvinism is just religion in its purity. We have only, therefore, to conceive of religion in its purity, and that is Calvinism.

In what attitude of mind and heart does religion come most fully to its rights? Is it not in the attitude of prayer? When we kneel before God, not with the body merely, but with the mind and heart, we have assumed the attitude which above all others deserves the name of religious. And this religious attitude by way of eminence is obviously just the attitude of utter dependence and humble trust. He who comes to God in prayer, comes not in a spirit of self-assertion, but in a spirit of trustful dependence.

No one ever addressed God in prayer thus: “O God, thou knowest that I am the architect of my own fortunes and the determiner of my own destiny. Thou mayest indeed do something to help me in the securing of my purposes after I have determined upon them. But my heart is my own, and thou canst not intrude into it; my will is my own, and thou canst not bend it. When I wish thy aid, I will call on thee for it. Meanwhile, thou must await my pleasure.” Men may reason somewhat like this; but that is not the way they pray.

There did, indeed, once two men go up into the temple to pray. And one stood and prayed thus to himself (can it be that this “to himself” has a deeper significance than appears on the surface?), “God, I thank thee that I am not as the rest of men.” While the other smote his breast, and said, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Even the former acknowledged a certain dependence on God; for he thanked God for his virtues. But we are not left in doubt in which one the religious mood was most purely exhibited. There is One who has told us that with clearness and emphasis.

The Calvinist is the man who is determined that his intellect, and heart, and will shall remain on their knees continually, and only from this attitude think, and feel, and act. Calvinism is, therefore, that type of thought in which there comes to its rights the truly religious attitude of utter dependence on God and humble trust in his mercy alone for salvation.

There are at bottom but two types of religious thought in the world — if we may improperly use the term “religious” for both of them. There is the religion of faith; there is the “religion” of works. Calvinism is the pure embodiment of the former of these; what is known in Church History as Pelagianism is the pure embodiment of the latter of them. All other forms of “religious” teaching which have been known in Christendom are but unstable attempts at compromise between the two. At the opening of the fifth century, the two fundamental types came into direct conflict in remarkably pure form as embodied in the two persons of Augustine and Pelagius. Both were expending themselves in seeking to better the lives of men. But Pelagius in his exhortations threw men back on themselves; they were able, he declared, to do all that God demanded of them — otherwise God would not have demanded it.

Augustine on the contrary pointed them in their weakness to God; “He himself,” he said, in his pregnant speech, “He himself is our power.” The one is the “religion” of proud self-dependence; the other is the religion of dependence on God. The one is the “religion” of works; the other is the religion of faith. The one is not “religion” at all — it is mere moralism; the other is all that is in the world that deserves to be called religion. Just in proportion as this attitude of faith is present in our thought, feeling, life, are we religious. When it becomes regnant in our thought, feeling, life, then are we truly religious. Calvinism is that type of thinking in which it has become regnant. This is why those who have caught a glimpse of these things, love with passion what men call “Calvinism,” sometimes with an air of contempt; and why they cling to it with enthusiasm. It is not merely the hope of true religion in the world: it is true religion in the world — as far as true religion is in the world at all.

For Calvinism, in this soteriological aspect of it, is just the perception and expression and defence of the utter dependence of the soul on the free grace of God for salvation. All its so-called hard features its doctrine of original sin, yes, speak it right out, its doctrine of total depravity and the entire inability of the sinful will to good; its doctrine of election, or, to put it in the words everywhere spoken against, its doctrine of predestination and preterition, of reprobation itself mean just this and nothing more. Calvinism will not play fast and loose with the free grace of God. It is set upon giving to God, and to God alone, the glory and all the glory of salvation. There are others than Calvinists, no doubt, who would fain make the same great confession. But they make it with reserves, or they painfully justify the making of it by some tenuous theory which confuses nature and grace. They leave logical pitfalls on this side or that, and the difference between logical pitfalls and other pitfalls is that the wayfarer may fall into the others, but the plain man, just because his is a simple mind, must fall into those. Calvinism will leave no logical pitfalls and will make no reserves. It will have nothing to do with theories whose function it is to explain away facts. It confesses, with a heart full of adoring gratitude, that to God, and to God alone, belongs salvation and the whole of salvation; that He it is, and He alone, who works salvation in its whole reach. Any falling away in the slightest measure from this great confession is to fall away from Calvinism. Any intrusion of any human merit, or act, or disposition, or power, as ground or cause or occasion, into the process of divine salvation, whether in the way of power to resist or of ability to improve grace, of the opening of the soul to the reception of grace, or of the employment of grace already received is a breach with Calvinism.

Is it strange that in this world, in this particular age of this world, it should prove difficult to preserve not only active, but vivid and dominant, the perception of the everywhere determining hand of God, the sense of absolute dependence on Him, the conviction of utter inability to do even the least thing to rescue ourselves from sin at the height of their conceptions? Is it not enough to account for whatever depression Calvinism may be suffering in the world today, to point to the natural difficulty in this materialistic age, conscious of its newly realized powers over against the forces of nature and filled with the pride of achievement and of material well-being of guarding our perception of the governing hand of God in all things, in its perfection; of maintaining our sense of dependence on a higher power in full force; of preserving our feeling of sin, unworthiness, and helplessness in its profundity? Is not the depression of Calvinism, so far as it is real, significant merely of this, that to our age the vision of God has become somewhat obscured in the midst of abounding material triumphs, that the religious emotion has in some measure ceased to be the determining force in life, and that the evangelical attitude of complete dependence on God for salvation does not readily commend itself to men who are accustomed to lay forceful hands on everything else they wish, and who do not quite see why they may not take heaven also by storm?

Let us observe then, that Calvinism is only another name for consistent supernaturalism in religion. The central fact of Calvinism is the vision of God. Its determining principle is zeal for the divine honour. What it sets itself to do is to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity. In this it begins, and centres, and ends. It is this that is said, when it is said that it is Theism come to its rights, since in that case everything that comes to pass is viewed as the direct outworking of the divine purpose when it is said that it is religion at the height of its conception, since in that case God is consciously felt as Him in whom we live and move and have our being when it is said that it is evangelicalism in its purity, since in that case we cast ourselves as sinners, without reserve, wholly on the mercy of the divine grace. It is this sense of God, of God’s presence, of God’s power, of God’s all-pervading activity most of all in the process of salvation which constitutes Calvinism. When the Calvinist gazes into the mirror of the world, whether the world of nature or the, world of events, his attention is held not by the mirror itself (with the cunning construction of which scientific investigations may no doubt very properly busy themselves), but by the Face of God which he sees reflected therein. When the Calvinist contemplates the religious life, he is less concerned with the psychological nature and relations of the emotions which surge through the soul (with which the votaries of the new science of the psychology of religion are perhaps not quite unfruitfully engaging themselves), than with the divine Source from which they spring, the divine Object on which they take hold. When the Calvinist considers the state of his soul and the possibility of its rescue from death and sin, he may not indeed be blind to the responses which it may by the grace of God be enabled to make to the divine grace, but he absorbs himself not in them but in it, and sees in every step of his recovery to good and to God the almighty working of God’s grace.

The Calvinist, in a word, is the man who sees God. He has caught sight of the ineffable Vision, and he will not let it fade for a moment from his eyes God in nature, God in history, God in grace. Everywhere he sees God in His mighty stepping, everywhere he feels the working of His mighty arm, the throbbing of His mighty heart. The Calvinist is therefore, by way of eminence, the supernaturalist in the world of thought. The world itself is to him a supernatural product; not merely in the sense that somewhere, away back before all time, God made it, but that God is making it now, and in every event that falls out. In every modification of what is, that takes place, His hand is visible, as through all occurrences His one increasing purpose runs. Man himself is His created for His glory, and having as the one supreme end of his existence to glorify his Maker, and haply also to enjoy Him for ever. And salvation, in every step and stage of it, is of God. Conceived in God’s love, wrought out by God’s own Son in a supernatural life and death in this world of sin, and applied by God’s Spirit in a series of acts as supernatural as the virgin birth and the resurrection of the Son of God themselves it is a supernatural work through and through. To the Calvinist, thus, the Church of God is as direct a creation of God as the first creation itself. In this supernaturalism, the whole thought and feeling and life of the Calvinist is steeped. Without it there can be no Calvinism, for it is just this that is Calvinism. End or article

Resources for Further Study:

Institutes of the Christian Religion
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.toc.html

Calvin’s Commentaries on-line
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html

Abraham Kuyper: Lectures on Calvinism

Click to access LecturesOnCalvinism.pdf

The Calvinist Corner
http://calvinistcorner.com/ At this site, be sure to check:
GET A TEACHING MANUAL AND POWERPOINT ON CALVINISM

Classic Articles & Resources on Reformed Theology
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/classic.html

Defending Calvinism
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Defending.html

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Socrates

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Making Mischief by a Law

Making Mischief by a Law by Jack Kettler

“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” (Psalm 94:20)

The civil or government rulers passed laws which permitted them to sin, or laws which actively promoted sin. The true power of government is to punish evil-doers, but instead the Psalmist says it was used to advance wickedness.

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed.” (Isaiah 10:1)

Justice was corrupted, and man’s law, instead of being in accord with God’s Law, had become diametrically opposed. Man’s law was working towards injustice and unrighteousness. This corruption seemed unbearable because the rulers of the day claimed to be acting according to law, seeking to hide their unrighteousness under the cover of law.

While both passages deal with the corruption of law in the Psalmist’s and Isaiah’s day, the problem is just as pronounced in the present time. Wicked leaders use the machinery of the law to crush and ruin their opponents and advance their own interests.

Examples of modern day American governmental mischief by a law:

1. Favored status for Sodomites
2. Abortion
3. Putting debt upon future generations
4. Favored status for the pagan religion of Mohammedism
5. Failure to follow its own laws
6. Banning biblical truth from the public square
7. Intrusion into the marketplace, creating financial bubbles (housing, stock market) that burst
8. Pagan indoctrination of children in government schools
9. Political public lying
10. Anti-Christian foreign policy
11. Confiscatory levels of taxation, or theft by government
12. Onerous levels of regulatory abuse
13. Debasing the currency

What should Christians do when civil authorities make unjust laws? Like the Psalmist we should pray:

“Pronounce them guilty, O God! Let them fall by their own counsels; Cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions, For they have rebelled against You.” (Psalms 5:1)

“When he is judged, let him be found guilty, And let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, And let another take his office.” (Psalms 109:7-8)

“His trouble shall return upon his own head, And his violent dealing shall come down on his own crown.” (Psalms 7:16)

“Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his wickedness to account till you find none.” (Psalms 10:15)

“O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord! Let them vanish like water that runs away; when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted. Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime, like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.” (Psalms 58:6-8)

“Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more! Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!” (Psalms 104:35)

“When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.” (Proverbs 29:2)

The prophet Isaiah pronounces woe upon wicked rulers:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

Calvin’s comments are right to the point:

20. Wo to them that call evil good. Though some limit this statement to judges, yet if it be carefully examined, we shall easily learn from the whole context that it is general; for, having a little before reproved those who cannot listen to any warnings, he now proceeds with the same reproof. It is evident that men of this sort have always some excuse to plead, and some way of imposing on themselves; and, therefore, there is no end to their reproachful language, when their crimes are brought to light. But here he particularly reproves the insolence of those who endeavor to overthrow all distinction between good and evil

The preposition l (lamed), prefixed to the words good and evil, is equivalent to Of; and therefore the meaning is, They who say of evil, It is good, and of good, It is evil; that is, they who by vain hypocrisy conceal, excuse, and disguise wicked actions, as if they would change the nature of everything by their sophistical arguments, but who, on the contrary deface good actions by their calumnies. These things are almost always joined together, for every one in whom the fear of God dwells is restrained both by conscience and by modesty from venturing to apologize for his sins, or to condemn what is good and right; but they who have not this fear do not hesitate with the same impudence to commend what is bad and to condemn what is good; which is a proof of desperate wickedness.

This statement may be applied to various cases; for if a wo is here pronounced even on private individuals, when they say of evil that it is good, and of good that it is evil, how much more on those who have been raised to any elevated rank, and discharge a public office, whose duty it is to defend what is right and honorable! But he addresses a general reproof to all who flatter themselves in what is evil, and who, through the hatred which they bear to virtue, condemn what is done aright; and not only so, but who, by the subterfuges which they employ for the sake of concealing their own enormities, harden themselves in wickedness. Such persons, the Prophet tells us, act as if they would change light into darkness, and sweet into bitter; by which he means that their folly is monstrous, for it would tend to confound and destroy all the principles of nature.1 (under-line emphasis mine)
1. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Isaiah, Volume VII, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p 186.

Some pertinent human observations:

“When government engages in the involuntary transfer of wealth, that’s nothing more than legalized plunder. There is nothing noble or laudatory about it. It is contemptible, evil and profoundly wrong.” – Frederic Bastiat

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“To make no decision in regard to the growth of authoritarian government is already a decision for it.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“When the Christian is treated as an enemy of the State, his course is very much harder, but it is simpler. I am concerned with the dangers to the tolerated minority; and in the modern world, it may turn out that most intolerable thing for Christians is to be tolerated.” – T.S. Eliot

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956

“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” – Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

“True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us to do as absolutes which are sinful- which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these things the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.” – Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

Beyond prayer, we must take positive action by standing against public manifestations of evil. Personal sanctification is a given. Christians are called to do more than live in our personal circle of influence.

Research links providing biblical ammunition for the cultural war we are in:

The Bible and Government; Biblical Principles: Basis for America’s Laws
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

Noah Webster, God’s Law, and the United States Constitution:The Influence of the Bible on the Development of American Constitutionalism
http://providencefoundation.com/?page_id=1948

American Government and Christianity
https://bible.org/article/american-government-and-christianity

Biblical origins of American Political Philosophy
http://lawandliberty.org/history1.htm

Bible in American Law
http://uscivilliberties.org/themes/3195-bible-in-american-law.html

The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny
http://creation.com/the-christian-foundations-of-the-rule-of-law-in-the-west-a-legacy-of-liberty-and-resistance-against-tyranny

Not Yours To Give by Col. David Crockett
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Give.htm

Vindiciae contra Tyrannos: A Defence of Liberty against Tyrants, Or of the lawful power of the prince over the people and of the people over the prince.
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Tyrants.html

The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate
https://lessermagistrate.com/

At https://lessermagistrate.com/, there are examples of how the Lesser Magistrate’s are beginning to exercise their authority, protecting state citizens from the tyrannical overreach if the fed gov and its promotion of evil.

The “Lesser Magistrate” and the jury system if utilized properly, can be a powerful bulwark against the perverted evil laws of men:

“If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.” – Lysander Spooner

“For more than six hundred years — that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.” – Lysander Spooner

Today, judges never inform a jury of their right to nullify unjust laws. This is a perversion of the law by judges. In fact, if a judge suspects a juror has knowledge of this historic right, the juror will be thrown off the jury.

See Lysander Spooner’s powerful: No Treason The Constitution of No Authority
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Treason.html

Nullification and Tenth Amendment:

The states come first! The states created the Union. Therefore, under the doctrine of nullification, and since the states are the foundation of the Union, they have the power to renounce unconstitutional laws. It is clear that ultimate authority resides in the states, not an entity formed by the states.

Nullification maintains that the states have the right to overrule any unconstitutional laws. Nullification is the ultimate check on the balance of power and removes power from the Supreme Court and federal government and its agencies in extreme cases.

In essence, some states before ratifying the constitution, maintained that they had the right to leave the Union. For example, Virginia, made the right to secede from the Union unambiguous in their agreement to sign the Constitution.

Here is an selection from Virginia’s delegation:

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-99 was a series of resolutions passed by the state legislature protesting the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Kentucky Resolutions were drafted by Thomas Jefferson. Virginia passed similar resolutions, drafted by James Madison. These resolutions were a protest against what Jefferson, Madison wisely considered to be a dangerous usurpation of power by the federal government.

The Kentucky Resolution of 1799 was the most radical of the resolutions and asserted that states had the power to nullify the laws of the federal government:

The representatives of the good people of this commonwealth [of Kentucky], in General Assembly convened, have maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to [the ongoing debate and discussion of]… certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the Alien and Sedition Laws, would be faithless, indeed, to themselves and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in the principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained…. Our opinions of these alarming measures of the general government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency, and with temper and submitted to the discussion and judgment of our fellow-citizens throughout the Union…. Faithful to the true principles of the federal Union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation. Lest, however, the silence of this commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles advanced… therefore,
Resolved, That this commonwealth considers the federal Union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in… [the Constitution], conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact… and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact [the Constitution], by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the state governments… will be the inevitable consequence: [That the construction of the Constitution argued for by many] state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extant of the powers delegated to it, stop not short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution] being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the infraction; and, That a nullification of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare, that the said Alien and Sedition Laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the said Constitution…. although this commonwealth, as a party to the federal compact, will bow to the laws of the Union, yet, it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, or ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt at what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact…. This commonwealth does now enter against [the Alien and Sedition Acts] in solemn PROTEST.

Tenth Amendment strongly supports Jefferson’s and Madison’s view of nullification:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

See Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century by Thomas E. Woods at Amazon.

Learn more at: The Tenth Amendment Center

Tenth Amendment Center

What are the costs of no action?

“If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready-made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it.” – T. S. Eliot

There is reason for hope that our efforts can bear fruit because of what is noted by Calvin:

“Men of sound judgment will always be sure that a sense of divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men’s minds. Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God, is abundant testimony that this conviction, namely, that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow.” – John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1

Mr. Kettler is the owner of http://www.Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Observations on Unionism!

Observations on Unionism! by Jack Kettler

In this look at unionism, a number of issues will be relevant. To start, an economic analysis of union philosophy will be considered. Then, the nature of union oaths will be of utmost importance for Christians who desire to be faithful to the dictates of Scripture. Other problematic aspects of unionism will be looked at. The fact of unions and organized crime will be dealt with. In closing, public sector unions will be looked at.

Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises on Labor Unions:

Exclusively preoccupied with wage rates and pensions, the unions boast of their Pyrrhic victories. The union members are not conscious of the fact that their fate is tied up with the flowering of their employers enterprises. Planning for Freedom p. 91 Unions

The labor unions are deadly foes of every new machine. Human Action p. 269; p. 269 Unions

They and their members and officials have acquired the power and the right to commit wrongs to person and property, to deprive individuals of the means of earning a livelihood, and to commit many other acts which no one can do with impunity. Planning for Freedom p. 191 Unions

As people think that they owe to unionism their high standard of living, they condone violence, coercion, and intimidation on the part of unionized labor and are indifferent to the curtailment of personal freedom inherent in the union-shop and closed-shop clauses. Planning for Freedom p. 153 Unions

The labor unions aim at a monopolistic position on the labor market. But once they have attained it, their policies are restrictive and not monopoly price policies. They are intent upon restricting the supply of labor in their field without bothering about the fate of those excluded. Human Action p. 374; p. 377 Unions

No social cooperation under the division of labor is possible when some people or unions of people are granted the right to prevent by violence and the threat of violence other people from working. Planned Chaos p. 27 Unions

The labor unions of the Anglo-Saxon countries favored participation in the Great War in order to eliminate the last remnants of the liberal doctrine of free movement and migration of labor. A Critique of Interventionism p. 123 Unions

No one has ever succeeded in the effort to demonstrate that unionism could improve the conditions and raise the standard of living of all those eager to earn wages. Human Action pp. 764-65; pp. 77071 Unions

The issue is not the right to form associations. It is whether or not any association of private citizens should be granted the privilege of resorting with impunity to violent action. It is the same problem that relates to the activities of the Ku Klux Klan. Human Action p. 773; p. 779 Unions

Strikes, sabotage, violent action and terrorism of every kind are not economic means. They are destructive means, designed to interrupt the movement of economic life. They are weapons of war which must inevitably lead to the destruction of society. Socialism p. 307 Unions

The cornerstone of trade unionism is compulsory membership. Socialism p. 435 Unions

The weapon of the trade union is the strike. It must be borne in mind that every strike is an act of coercion, a form of extortion, a measure of violence directed against all who might act in opposition to the strikers intentions. Socialism p. 435 Unions

The policy of strike, violence, and sabotage can claim no merit whatever for any improvement in the workers position. Socialism p. 437 Unions

Union membership in the light of Scriptural principles:

The attempt to use violence to force an employer to pay a desired non-economic wage is clearly robbery. It is a demand that either an employer rob himself or his customers, which can mean pricing himself out of the market.
R. J. Rushdoony; Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, p. 508.

What should be of utmost importance for the Christian? The religious aspect of unionism is evidenced by the membership oaths that are required and where the members are bound to the membership oath under penalty of retribution. Should a Christian make a union oath?

The origins of an oath is clearly religious in nature:

Throughout the history of Western Civilization, oaths have been understood to be solemn declarations made in the presence of God, to whom we are accountable.

Because of the importance attached to oaths by Scripture and centuries of common law experience, it is important for us to consider the religious nature of an oath.

John Witherspoon, Presbyterian theologian, mentor of many of the Founders, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, explained that religion and the oath were inseparable:

An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation [a calling down] of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate [lie]. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship, and so accounted in Scripture, as in that expression, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt swear by His name. . . . . Persons entering on public offices are also often obliged to make oath that they will faithfully execute their trust . . . .
Reference: The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), vol. VII, pp. 139-40, 142, from his “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Lecture 16 on Oaths and Vows.

The following oath has been taken for generations by members joining the Teamsters Union. In light of the above material by Witherspoon about the religious nature of oaths, the following Teamster oath binds its members into a religious covenant known as the “Brotherhood of Teamsters.”

OBLIGATION

Fellow worker, you will now take an obligation that will bind you to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and this Local Union and that will in no way conflict with your religious belief [an outright lie since unionism, i.e., socialism is incompatible with Christianity] or your duties as a citizen:

I,________________, pledge my honor to faithfully observe the Constitution and the laws of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the bylaws and laws of this Local Union.

I pledge that I will comply with all the rules and regulations [The bylaws are a rather lengthy document which very few individuals whom swear allegiance to this document have ever seen let alone read it] for the government of the International Union and this Local Union.

I will faithfully perform all the duties assigned to me to the best of my ability and skill.

I will conduct myself at all times in a manner as not to bring reproach upon my Union.

I shall take an affirmative part in the business and activities of the Union and accept and discharge my responsibilities during any authorized or lockout. I

I pledge not to divulge to non-members the private business of this Union, unless authorized to reveal the same.

I will never knowingly harm another member.

I will never discriminate against a fellow worker on account of race, color, religion, sex, age, physical disability or national origin.

I will refrain from any conduct that would interfere with the Union’s performance of its legal or contractual obligations.

I will at times bear true and faithful allegiance to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and this Local Union. {A classic mark of cultism}
Source: Teamsters Article II: Membership

Another example is the oath required for membership by the International Typographical Union:

I hereby solemnly and sincerely swear (or affirm) that I will not reveal any business or proceedings of any meeting of this or any subordinate union to which I may hereafter be attached, unless by order of the union, except to those whom I know to be in good standing thereof; that I will, without evasion or equivocation, and to the best of my ability abide by the Constitution, By-Laws and the adopted scale of prices of any union to which I may belong; that I will at all times support the laws, regulations and decisions of the International Typographical Union, and will carefully avoid giving aid or succor to its enemies, and use all honorable means within my power to procure employment for members of the International Typographical Union in preference to others; that my fidelity to the union and my duty to the members thereof shall in no sense be interfered with by any allegiance that I may now or hereafter owe to any other organization, social, political, or religious, secret or otherwise . . . that I will not wrong a member, or see him or her wronged, if in my power to prevent. To all of which I pledge my most sacred honor.

As seen from the above quotes, unions are “brotherhoods.” It is problematic for a Christian to be a member of a union because of accepting unbelieving, ungodly men as brothers. In addition, this puts the Christian in a position of sharing the un-biblical rationale regarding labor practices promoted by unions.

Scripture calls the believer to communion with fellow believers and forbids fellowship with the ungodly. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14).

As noted above, the swearing of an oath is an initiation rite and religious in nature. God is sovereign over this world, over human life, and in heaven. Making non-biblical oaths and vows violates God’s sovereignty. Jesus forbade the taking of oaths of this nature in Matthew 5:33-37, which is especially relevant to union oaths. Jesus taught us to be content with our wages in Luke 3:14. In contrast, unionism teaches us not to be content with our wages.

It should be noted that a biblical and civil oaths require, sanctions or penalties for violating the oath. This is true of unionism. Violence and threats are still a big part of union enforcement tactics. Unionism also uses fines levied against a member who exercises his First Amendment freedom to speak out against the forced union membership requirements. The Teamster oath binds the member to never bring “reproach upon my Union.” This oath would forbid a member from bringing attention to union corruption. Or, forcing unwilling individuals to join something in good conscious they are opposed to.

In addition, it should also be noted that when union members call themselves brothers and sisters, this is a concept borrowed from Christianity and further evidence that this “brotherhood” has a religious element to it. Union membership does not qualify to make someone my brother or sister in Christ. Union brotherhood is non-Christian in nature, and violates the clear command of the scriptures where we are told not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14).

Today thousands are forced into union membership against their will by state and federal law authorities. This is outrageous and highly immoral.

Henry Van Til of Calvin College wrote a book on Calvinism and culture. Regarding unions, He asserted that:

the believer, in his opposition to the world, therefore, must see that the so-called “neutral union” is an enemy of the cross of Christ just as well as the communistic party leader that curses the church and her King. For the neutrality postulate of the union involves a tacit curse upon the anointed One, whom the Father sent into the world and by whom he now rules over all things . . . The labor unions of our day are not one whit behind those of whom the Psalmist testifies that they took counsel together against the LORD and his anointed . (Psalms 2)
Henry R. Van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture, Baker, 1959, pp. 201, 202.

Inherent problems with Union membership and representation:

Consider what is involved in making a car, computer or television purchase. You expect to have a printed guarantee of the specifications of the item purchased. You want to know how much memory the computer has, the size of the hard drive, how fast the CPU is. You want to know how many pistons and horse power the engine of the car or truck has, how many miles per gallon you will get in the car or truck you are about to purchase. In regards to televisions, you want to know what the picture will look like compared to the other models in the show room.

You also expect to have a service contract that protects you if you get a defective item. In other words, you expect and deserve a written money back guarantee or replacement of defective parts. A written guarantee protects you, the buyer.

Unions try to get employees of a company to buy a service contract. What is involved in the contract?

Unions will never to put into writing a guarantee of what the union will do for those being pressured to sign a union contract in the area of increased wages, and benefits. Imagine that, a union wants people to pay for union service but refuse to put in writing what they will do. In addition, and more importantly, a union will always refuse to put in writing a money back guarantee if people conclude the service is defective or does not live up to promised expectations. This is a standard right as consumers!

No one in their right minds would purchase a car, truck, computer or television with out some kind of written guarantee to protect and insure that if the product is defective it can be returned for a refund or replacement. A union should held to the same standard as any other business that wants money for a service or product, a written guarantee. This is only reasonable.

The middle man. Who needs a middle man?

Everyone have heard about eliminating the middle man. In this day and age, you do not need a middle man which can make things cost more. Today we can buy online direct from the manufacturer or go to a factory outlet store to save money. In contrast, a union wants to come between individuals and private business entities as a high-priced middle man service.

Problems with unions negotiating contracts:

If unions were fair, you should only have to pay once every three to five years to negotiate a contract. Not being charged month after month, year after year, pay check deductions. Any legitimate bargaining business would only charge a one time fee for the contract and then when the contract is up, you could hire them again if they did a good job. The union wants to be hired as full time middle men and then clauses built into union contracts, make it next to impossible to fire them.

Unions don’t mind negotiating bad contracts:

The union wants the tax cash flow to start going into their bank account as soon as possible. This is how they make money. Union business agents are trained in how to manipulate a vote to get the members to accept lousy contracts. A contract may be lousy for the members, but good for the Union. Why would the union profit from a bad contract? First, the union profits from a high employee turnover. All new employees pay the union initiation tax in addition to the payroll tax. This initiation tax is a lucrative revenue source for the Union.

The turnover will start when the senior employees take a big financial hit in a union contract. Contrary to what the union propaganda, everything is on the table including the wages of those loyal employees that have been with the company for many years. There will only be one wage scale and the top of the scale will not be where many of the senior employee’s hourly rates are currently. This means that the most loyal employees will have a wage reduction, which is the recipe of employee turnover.

One thing the union fears is a work force of employees that have a special bond which comes from years of working together. Why is this? Employees with this special bond know each other and trust each other and are able to organize themselves effectively to fight against the union protection and taxation racket. An employee work force with a high turn over means employees that do not know each other and will find a difficult time in trusting each other. With a high turnover work force, it will be extremely difficult to organize a campaign to boot the union out. That is why some businesses have had Unions for years simply because of the inability of the transitory, high turnover work force to mount any type of resistance to the union’s skillful manipulation techniques.

Once the union gets in and destroys a company’s ability to reward long term committed loyal employees, attrition begins. The business then starts losing its most committed employees because of the one wage scale in the union’s socialistic pay system. The union loves a wage pay system in which everyone is paid the same. Merit pay is out the window in union shops and many employees are forced to find work elsewhere. A business has to keep hiring new employees to keep their business operating. The company’s employees are now made up of new hires with no long term leaders who can organize resistance to the union protection and taxation racket. Bad contracts are good business for Unions and bad business for career minded employees.

Since their inception, trade unions have been influenced by communists and mafia crime syndicates:

Labor investigator Michael Moroney, who has served as a consultant to the federal Organized Crime Strike Force argues that mobsters back in the 1930s didn’t simply “infiltrate” unions; they established them. “The five crime families of New York are the foundation of American trade unions,” he said. “Without the support of the Mafia, and government officials who have winked at them, most unions simply would not exist.”

Unions are the modern form of communism, restricting what members can earn and by telling them what political stance they can have. They dictate to their members what they will earn. They dictate to their members what their political views must be. Freedom of choice is no longer valid when you are in a union.

Every year union members give a portion of their hard earned money to labor unions. What do they get in return? Union membership provides nothing, except substandard medical and dental benefits.

Unions take the money from their members and spend it on politics. They spend the money endorsing political ideas that may or may not reflect the values, ideas or political parties of their members. They do it without asking, polling or voting on what the members want or would like. The unions only care about advancing their power and control over their members, business and politicians.

Unionism is a form of organized crime. Unionism threatens to damage a company financially through its strike threat. This is where unions have historically gained concessions, by bringing a company to its knees through financial loss. The strike threat union’s use is nothing more than an attempt of collective or group theft.

A recent National Labor Relations Board’s annual report for included the number of Unfair Labor Practices alleged against unions. Union officials faced a disproportionately high number of allegations of wrongdoing, when compared to employers. The worst part: The vast majority of allegations said that members were the ones hurt by the union officials that are supposed to protect them.

This report detailed the fact that Unions faced a total of 6,381 allegations and 82% of charges against unions alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) represents more than 1.3 million members. It is perhaps best known for its historical relationship with the mafia. In 1989 the Justice Department brought a racketeering case against the union, saying that it was a “wholly owned subsidiary of organized crime.” Since 1992, the Teamsters have been overseen by an Independent Review Board (IRB) that is charged with making sure the union stays clean. It is not entirely clear that this IRB has succeeded; in fact it is extremely doubtful.

A 2002 article in the generally pro-union New Republic magazine noted that the IBT is “still plagued by corruption; ex-felons and people with reputed mob associations lurk around the edges of key Teamster locals seeking influence over the union. Indeed, corruption within the Teamsters may actually have increased in recent years.

Embezzlement, False Reports, Violence is the history of Unionism. Most people don’t know just how many crimes are committed every year through which union officials hurt their own members. The number of reputed and verified crimes is staggering.

Union officials have regularly ordered or approved of violent, coercive and harassing conduct aimed at making an example of employees who don’t toe the union line.

“Schemes involving bribery, extortion, deprivation of union rights by violence, and embezzlement used by early racketeers are still employed to abuse the power of unions.” Source: U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General, 2004

According to a 1999 Congressional report four of the last eight Teamsters presidents have been indicted according to the FBI.

Despite being outspent 10-to-1 by his opponent, Teamsters presidential aspirant Tom Leedham received a third of the vote in the union’s November 2006 election. The centerpiece of Leedham’s campaign was a vocal dissatisfaction with President James P. Hoffa’s administration, which Leedham says has a “dismal record of failure.” As he told the October issue of In These Times: “[Hoffa] pushed through the largest dues increase in the history of the union without a membership vote … [H]e ran on a pledge of no dues increase … He doubled dues, but there’s been no doubling of union power … He developed an anti-corruption program with great fanfare and spent $15 million, but it collapsed when he blocked investigators when they were getting close to his office … [Dues] support [the] lavish lifestyle of top officers, with the number of international employees receiving multiple salaries increasing from 16 to 163.”

In 2005 alone, federal racketeering investigations resulted in 196 convictions against union officials and $187 million in fines. Union tactics including deception and intimidation during organizing campaigns, strikes that hurt members more than they help, spending mandatory union dues on radical political agendas, and the use of anti-democratic voting practices are long overdue for exposure.

Union membership has numerous parallels with joining a gang!

A gang is a group of Individuals that share a common identity, even if the identity consists of little more than their association with one another. Gang is a general class of behavior in which collective action and support of community interests and goals to active social cohesion or solidarity. Solidarity is very important in Gangs, Cults and Unions.

1. Membership in both unions and gangs provide the false security of belonging to the group. In reality, it is no security at all.
2. Joining unions and gangs are similar in that it is usually involuntary or pressure is applied to individuals to force them in.
3. Neither unions nor gangs can deliver on their promises.
4. Both unions and gangs use intimidation and threats of and real violence to keep their members in line.
5. Both unions and gangs engage in theft.
6. Unions and gangs have links to other criminals.
7. Both union and gang members are manipulated and controlled by the leaders.
8. It is easier to join a union and gang than to leave.
9. Leaving or opposing a union or gang can involve personal risk such as the threat of violent payback and or financial damage i.e. union fines or destruction of property.

One Internet blogger notes: Just join a Union….same lifestyle as a gang but with benefits and political clout.

News: Los Angeles building-trade unions are stepping up recruitment in the inner city, where many new hires are former and current gang members. Posted May 21, 07 in US, Business, Arts & Living

Reader’s Digest July 1986; Time To Put Labor Racketeers Out of Business

The following article is dated but it nevertheless provides valuable insights into the corruption that has been part of the union movement since its inception.

Gangsters dominate four major U.S. unions-and use them to pick the pockets of all Americans. We have to declare total war on their corrupt empire

BY EUGENE H. METHVIN

READER’S DIGEST Senior Editor EUGENE H. METHVIN was a member of the President’s Commission On Organized Crime and supervised its investigation into union corruption.

Joe Teitelbaum, owner of a Miami stevedoring company, became so fed up in 1975 with shakedowns by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) that he turned to the FBI. The G-men were ecstatic to have an industry insider bold enough to wear secret tape recorders and introduce undercover agents to his business.

A federal probe lasting five years uncovered a massive, Mafia managed cartel stretching from Boston to Houston. The racketeers sold labor peace on the docks where delays can cost shipowners $35,000 a day, rigged bids on ship repairs, orchestrated fraudulent workmen’s compensation claims, shook down employers for payoffs and fingered cargoes for truck hijackers. Dockworkers even had to pay a daily kickback to get work.

The FBI’s biggest catch was the ILA’s No. 3 officer, Anthony Scotto, boss of Brooklyn Local 1814. FBI electronic surveillance captured irrefutable evidence that Scotto was a capo in the Gambino gang, one of New York’s top crime families. The Gambino organization controlled the docks as far south as Norfolk, Va., while the Genovese gang-another major New York crime family-ran the ILA locals farther south.

By 1981 Justice Department prosecutors had convicted 52 union officers and 58 company executives and corporations. Despite the convictions, little changed. The FBI subsequently recorded Gambino boss Paul Castellano boasting, “It’s our International.” Last January the President’s Commission on Organized Crime reported, “Life on the docks today remains much as it was.”

“Bad Four.” The frustrating result of this, the most successful labor-racketeering probe the FBI ever mounted, underlines a national scandal: four major American labor unions, with a total of nearly three million workers, are dominated by La Cosa Nostra, the crime syndicate, and its allies. The “Bad Four” are:

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), whose l.9 million members range from airline pilots to truck drivers. The IBT has been under the mob’s thumb for three decades. Former president Roy Williams, imprisoned for conspiring with Mafia leaders to bribe a U.S. Senator, acknowledged under oath that every major Teamster local “had some connection with organized crime” and his successor, Jackie Presser, is as controlled “as I was.”*

The ILA, representing 116,000 dockworkers on the East Coast, the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes. Through this union, reports FBI Director William Webster, the mob imposes a “racket tariff” on all goods shipped through U.S. ports. Syndicate-managed thefts at Miami docks alone total $2 billion a year-costs that are passed directly to shippers and consumers.

The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International (HERE), whose 400,000 members are “owned” by the Chicago Mafia, according to Congressional testimony and the FBI. In nine years the union’s assets have dropped from $21.4 million to less than $14 million. Millions have been siphoned away in “loans” to gangsters and associates.

The Laborers’ International (LIUNA), whose 509,000 members are concentrated in heavy construction and the building trades. In addition to extorting kickbacks and payoffs, LIUNA leaders rig bids, fix prices and order contractors to buy supplies from mob-controlled firms. By one authoritative estimate, the Mafia monopoly adds 20 percent to construction costs in New York City.

The presidents of all four of 11 these unions have invoked the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer official inquiries about criminal activities. Though AFL-CIO policy prohibits officials who take the Fifth from holding union office, the presidents of the three AFL-CIO unions continue to sit on the parent body’s executive board. (The Teamsters were expelled from the AFL-CIO for corruption in 1957.)

Neglected Weapons. Federal law-enforcement authorities, for their part, have ample legal power to clean up these unions, particularly with two weapons Congress gave the Justice Department in the 1970 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations statute (RICO).

Legislators provided in RICO both criminal and civil sanctions for those engaged in a “pattern of racketeering.” To imprison them, prosecutors must produce “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” But in a civil proceeding, government prosecutors or private parties need only supply a “preponderance of evidence.” Then a jury or judge can impose triple damages. A judge can dissolve or seize racketeers’ companies, oust them from their union posts or welfare-fund trusteeships, and ban them for life from specified business or union activity.

The late Sen. John L. McClellan (D., Ark.), the legislation’s author, predicted the civil RICO law would assure the “wholesale removal of organized crime from our organizations and forfeiture of their ill-gotten gains.”

But in 15 years, the Justice Department’s organized-crime strike forces have brought just 68 criminal RICO prosecutions, with a distinct minority of those against union racketeers. These cases yielded only $1.1 million in fines and $3.2 million in forfeited assets. The neglect of the civil RICO weapon has been even worse: a mere six cases in 15 years, only one against a union racket.

By contrast, states that have adopted their own RICO statutes have put Washington’s record to shame. Florida has had its statute only nine years, yet its attorney general has won $8.3 million in 39 civil RICO cases against racketeering enterprises as diverse as pornography, prostitution, theft, fraud and drug smuggling. In six years Arizona has brought 75 RICO prosecutions and chalked up judgments exceeding $16 million.

Rare Victory. Clearly, there is a great deal more to do on the federal level. Indeed, one of the few outstanding federal civil attacks on labor racketeering shows what can be accomplished by an all-out offensive.

In New Jersey, Mafia capo Tony Provenzano and his family ruled a Teamster empire, embracing 35 locals and 90,000 members, by sheer terror. In his own Local 560, two members who dared oppose Tony Pro were murdered-one gunned down as he left home the morning after speaking out at a union meeting.

The Provenzano group bilked Teamster welfare funds and oversaw Mafia loan-shark activities. They also infiltrated legitimate trucking companies to perpetrate a series of frauds and inside thefts, bleed the firms white and force them into bankruptcy. To avoid labor troubles, employers were compelled to make wholesale payoffs and hire ghost employees.

Justice Department prosecutors sent Tony Pro to prison for extortion. Yet he continued to run the union from his prison cell, his brothers assuming his official posts in Local 560. When Provenzano was finally put away for life for murdering a Teamster worker, his successor was none other than his 23-year-old daughter.

Then on March 9, 1982, Newark Strike Force chief Robert C. Stewart filed the first-ever civil RICO suit against a union. After a four month trial, he won a resounding victory. Federal Judge Harold Ackerman declared that the evidence revealed “how evil men engaged in a multifaceted orgy of criminal activity,” and he ordered the removal of the entire Local 560 executive board and the appointment of his own trustees to run the union. An appeal of his order is pending.

Rich Potential. Stewart’s New Jersey triumph had strong reverberations in Washington. Assistant Attorney General Stephen S. Trott told Congress, “The Local 560 case has opened our eyes to the potential of civil RICO. Future cases along the lines of Local 560 will be instituted.”

Months passed, and nothing happened. Last March, the President’s Commission on Organized Crime scored Justice Department inaction and called for a nationwide strategy “to bankrupt individual mobsters and to discourage union officers, employers and public officials from accommodating organized crime.” But an effective federal assault will have to overcome these longstanding obstacles:

1. Lack of political will. Busting union rackets has never been popular work in Washington. Explains one former Labor Department investigator: “The rank-and-file union members are powerless, while their leaders can make campaign contributions, provide telephone banks and move voter blocks–muscles that win elections.”

Thus, ILA vice president Scotto marched Brooklyn dockworkers to cheer candidate Jimmy Carter, and President Carter invited him to lunch-even after FBI agents had recorded incontrovertible proof of his Mafia membership and union piracy.

President Reagan has entertained Teamster leaders Williams and Presser at the White House. In 1980 top LIUNA officers trooped to the White House to have their picture taken with Vice President Walter Mondale and present him with a campaign contribution. In the last two Congressional campaigns, the Bad Four collected $4.7 million to aid favored candidates.

Declares the President’s Commission: “When corrupt union leaders are seen joining hands with politicians it conveys a message that political leaders are beholden to the union. Such contacts can erode public confidence and dampen the desire to end racketeering. Organized crime is aware of this and purposefully seeks to cultivate and benefit from political influence.”

2. Anemic enforcement. Congress has never provided enough personnel and funds to enforce the laws it has passed to safeguard union members’ rights. “I have fewer than two hundred people to oversee fifteen thousand federally protected union pension and welfare funds containing billions of dollars in trust for millions of workers,” complained Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor John J. Walsh before he quit in 1984. (The union funds are in addition to the 700,000 other private pension plans that the Department oversees.) The DOL has only 89 investigators to help the Justice Department combat labor racketeering. A veteran prosecutor told me, “I could use more than that in Manhattan alone.”

The racket-busters’ principal antagonist is Robert J. Connerton, a lobbyist and LlUNA’s longtime general counsel. Lawyers in Connerton’s firm wrote a law-journal article denouncing DOL corruption fighters as “a national police force with little accountability”-without noting that one of their firm’s major clients is the racket-ridden LIUNA. Connerton spearheaded an AFL-CIO lobbying drive that sank a Reagan Administration effort to persuade Congress to provide I50 more DOL investigators.

3. Bureaucratic bumbling and bickering. For decades, lethargy and rivalry have dogged federal anti-racketeering efforts. When the Justice Department indicted Florida LIUNA official Bernard G. Rubin for embezzling $400,000, for instance, prosecutors moved to place union funds under trusteeship. After DOL declined to assist, pleading “lack of manpower,” the Justice Department abandoned the effort. Rubin was convicted (he is appealing), but Senate investigators found he embezzled an additional $2 million before he went to jail.

DOL’s 89 crime investigators do not have the authority to carry guns, execute search warrants or make arrests. When a DOL agent wants to bust a racketeer, he has to hunt up an FBI agent to accompany him. Sen. Sam Nunn (D., Ga.) has introduced remedial legislation, but a turf-jealous Justice Department has stalled it for almost three years.

4. Inadequate planning, analysis and pursuit. The FBI, its agent strength cut by nearly ten percent between 1976 and 1980 has lacked the manpower to mine its vast lode of surveillance tapes of top mobsters. The G-men in Chicago, for example, recorded thousands of hours of criminal conversations between Teamster president Roy Williams and his cohorts, but harvested only a single case.

“I know what those tapes contained, and it’s a shame only a single prosecution came out of it,” one FBI agent told me.

Proper planning and analysis could pyramid such intelligence bonanzas into seizures of racketeers’ property, expelling them from office and placing their unions under court supervision. Scores of FBI veterans are retired at age 55, when they’re considered too old to “work the streets.” Why not use them as intelligence analysts to pore through the files and plan strategic long-range strikes?

5. Neglect of corporate racketeers. While businessmen are often unwilling victims, they may also be eager customers for the mob’s chief product: muscle to terrorize workers and keep them quiet while corrupt union and corporate executives strike sweetheart deals.

The Commission on Organized Crime heard from one self-styled mob “leg breaker” who described how corrupt Teamster leaders conspired with Fortune 500 company executives to cut wages and welfare benefits, and jettison safety rules.

The Justice Department prosecuted only seven defendants-not one of them a Fortune 500 executive.

EVERY AMERICAN, whether union member or consumer, has a direct stake in ending the mobster empire of labor racketeering. When your Congressman and Senators ask for your vote this autumn, ask them these questions: What have you done to root out racketeers and get the Justice Department moving to break the Mafia stranglehold on key unions? Are you accepting campaign contributions or endorsements from the “Bad Four” unions?

Meanwhile, write Chairman Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Senate Labor Subcommittee, 428 Senate Dirksen Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510;; Chairman William L. Clay (D., Mo.), House Labor-Management Relations Subcommittee, 2451 House Rayburn Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515; or Attorney General Edwin Meese 111, U.S. Justice Department, Washington, D.C. 20530. Tell them it’s time to put labor racketeers out of business, now.

No one should be forced to pay tribute or protection money to a union in order to keep a job.

Under federal law, if union organizers win a representation election by even 50% plus one of those voting, they are empowered to negotiate contracts on behalf of all 100% of the workers. In fact, under some circumstances, union officials become monopoly “representatives” even when most workers are against them! And by law each and every worker loses his or her right to negotiate directly with the employer on his or her own behalf.

This trampling of individual rights flies in the face of what the Bill of Rights is all about:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to place certain subjects . . . beyond the reach of majorities. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Justice Robert Jackson in Board of Education vs. Barnette

As noted economist and Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek wrote about U.S. labor law:

It cannot be stressed enough that the coercion which unions have been permitted to exercise contrary to all principles of freedom under the law is primarily the coercion of fellow workers. Whatever true coercive power unions may be able to wield over employers is a consequence of this primary power of coercing other workers.

A recent poll by the Marketing Research Institute found that over 84% of Americans believe that employees who do not wish to be represented by a labor union should have the right to bargain for themselves. In fact, some 75% of union-member households agreed that such monopoly bargaining is wrong. If a union is great, let them operate side by side with non-union employees and let them prove that their negotiating leads to better benefits and wages than the non-union workers. If unionism is voluntary, I have no problem with it. If they force me to join and pay tribute, I will consider it tyranny.

Union political contributions to unprincipled Congress Creatures can be described as a circle of influence buying political payback corruption. The net affect of this in the real world is that freedom loving, individuals are forced into unionism against their wills and then subjected to unfair union payroll taxation without representation. Union leadership is not representation in a Constitutional sense of the word. Forced unionism is an affront to the Constitutional guarantees of one’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson

Public Sector Unions:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service August 16, 1937

Public sector unions are particularly evil, since they are organized against the tax payers who are at the mercy and victims of corrupt politicians who have received substantial campaign contributions from these unions and in return scratch the backs of the unions. This an unholy alliance.

The following links are provided so you can educate yourself about the dangers of forced unionism!

Union officials have ordered or approved of violent, coercive and harassing conduct aimed at making an example of employees who don’t toe the union line. See: http://www.unionfacts.com for examples of union crimes!

The National Right to Work Foundation
National Right to Work Committee
Say No To Unions
Labour Watch Association
National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Union Facts
Youtube Right to Work Channel
The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition manifesto
Unions: Why A Faithful Christian Cannot Belong To Or Support Labor Unions
Forgotten Facts of American Labor History by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Click here for an online pamphlet by the Protestant Reformed Church on Christians and unionism.
Freedom is not free, you have to fight for it! Stop UN-Constitutional unionism Today!

The above links are active at http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Unionism.html

Mr. Kettler is the owner of Undergroundnotes web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized