"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper which should have been gold, are a token of honor -- your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money." ~ Ayn Rand
Is the "United States" a Christian "Nation"?
A popular myth is the "United States" is a "Christian nation" or a "nation" founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. This is actually two separate myths: 1) there is a "nation" and 2) it's founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. The first myth, that there is a "nation," is proven to be a myth by Judeo-Christian ethics themselves. As I will show, a "nation," as we know it, cannot be founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. This is based a simple truth: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. To unravel these myths, we must know what a "nation" such as the so-called "United States" is, or is supposed to be. As the name suggests, the "United States" is more than one "state" joined together. What is a "state" though? We can quickly dispel the political nonsense a "state" is a geographic location such as "New York." If not, then politicians should explain where the "State of New York" was on July 3rd, 1776. A "state" is defined as "A body politic . . . occupying a definite territory, and politically organized under one government." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1210. The "United States" is "A body politic and corporate . . . ." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1318. A "body politic" is "formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact . . . ." Preamble, Massachusetts Constitution and Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113. "Government" is alleged to be men and women providing the service of protecting "Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to those men and women who "Consent" to such service, Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776. In reality though, "government" is one man controlling another man without the latter's consent ostensibly for the latter's own "good." Knowing this, let's look at the facts. The "states" and the "United States" were allegedly created by pieces of paper and ink called "constitutions." Being nothing more than paper and ink, "constitutions" are only obligatory on men and women as contracts, agreements or compacts. After all, a "body politic" is supposed to be a "voluntary association." I recommend reading Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. As stated therein, the "constitution" is unsigned and as such created nothing. Myth number one is dispelled on that alone (there are other reasons not included herein): there are no "states" and no "United States." In other words, there is no "nation." Let's look at just a few common Judeo-Christian ethics and compare them with the real-life application of those four pieces of paper and ink called the "constitution." The question here is this: Is the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" provided in a manner consistent with Judeo-Christian ethics? There are "Thou shalt not kill . . . thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Exodus 20:13, 15-16. And "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." John 15:12. Are you free to accept and support the "constitution" (four pieces of paper and ink) or not? Free means there are no strings or conditions attached, such as being killed, robbed and lied to if you don't accept. Do you have a choice to not accept the wonderful "protection" (remember 9/11?) and other pretended "services" offered by the "constitution?" If so, are you obligated to pay for such services i.e., your "fair share of taxes?" Can you decline paying "taxes" without being killed, robbed or lied to by men and women claiming to be a "state?" Let me first dispel the claim you can "just move to another country." Such emotional claim is ridiculous because the "United States" is not a geographic location but instead ostensibly a "voluntary association of individuals." It also supports the fact the "constitution" is not offered freely. The "constitution" isn't offered freely on a take-it-or-leave it basis like contracts or agreements. Remember, if not a contract, the "constitution" binds no one and creates nothing but is just four really old pieces of paper and ink. Those "services" are provided and paid for on a compulsory basis; your "Consent" has nothing to do with it. So, to answer the question, NO; the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is NOT provided in a manner consistent with the above Judeo-Christian ethics: "Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity!" Habakkuk 2:12. The idea there's a "benefit" to people because a group of men and women provide their "services" on a compulsory basis and this so-called "benefit" then somehow "obligates" people to pay "taxes" is preposterous. That's how the mob does business. The "constitution" is offered on a compulsory or violent basis. This contradicts "state constitutions" and the Declaration of Independence that state it's "voluntary" and by "Consent." This is inconsistent with Exodus 20:15 and John 15:12. What if you refuse to "pay your fair share?" Refuse to "pay your fair share" and you provide these valiant protectors of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" with an awesome opportunity to contradict Exodus 20:13. If you doubt application of the "constitution" contradicts Exodus 20:13 and John 15:12, then go back into the "history" books and refresh your memory about the "civil war." Read about the slaughter of men, women and children because they decided to leave the pretended "voluntary association of individuals." So much for the asinine "if you don't like this country then leave." If you still doubt this, read article I ' 2 of the Nevada "constitution." For those who are not faint of heart, grow marijuana on land you are convinced you own. When the men with machine guns show up, boldly tell them you have no agreement or "social compact" with them and they should get off your property immediately. When you say it make sure your hands are empty and where the agriculture police can see them. Even if we assume there's a "nation," it was not based on Judeo-Christian ethics because those so-called "services" are paid for on a violent basis. The taking of property by force or threats of force is called stealing. The act of stealing and "taxation" are virtually identical. You don't have to take my word for it either: "tax. A forced burden . . . A tax is not regarded as a debt in the ordinary sense of the term, for the reason that a tax does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer . . . ." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1255-56. Real customers, voluntarily accepting real services, incur debts. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know and understand "taxes" are based on violence. People pay to avoid the violence. A clue to the quality of the "services" provided by the local "state" is the fact that payment is compulsory. What kind of people provide their "services" at the barrel of a gun? Why would a "valuable service" everybody allegedly wants have to be provided on a compulsory basis? Oh yeah, what about the part in the Bible about Caesar? "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's'" Matthew 22:21. This is an absurd attempt to justify the violent taking of property i.e., robbery. Caesar and his henchmen conquered the Jews; he never claimed to be protecting them with their consent as their servant. Do the people who make this claim believe there was a "social compact" between Caesar and the Jews? And for those people reading this who need to divert attention by making claims about being "free" in this "country," let me point out just how "free" we are; that is just another myth like the one there is a "country." You are not "free" to post anything on the internet unless you get permission first. Don't believe me? OK, don't pay the "tax" your ISP collects for the "privilege" of doing business. If you have a dial-up connection you better make sure all those "communication taxes" are paid first. You're free to be in any profession you want? Nonsense; better go to those "state" approved "schools" first. Make sure you get permission to work by getting a so-called "license." Oh, your chosen profession isn't "required" to have a "license" just yet? Make sure you fill in your "tax forms" before you start and don't forget to report every single penny. Forget ten little pennies and you are suddenly a felon and your home "seized" to pay for your "trial." Free to marry the person of your choice? Think again, you need a so-called "license." Free to live with that significant other? Sorry, that's a crime also. Think you can freely engage in consensual sexual relations with another adult in the privacy of that home you think you own? Think again. Believe you're "free" to walk down the street? Too bad, better have a "state" issued ID card or you'll be awarded six months in a "state" jail if your friendly neighborhood "cop" decides it's your lucky day to be "protected." Freedom to say "No" to a service or product you don't want to have? Yeah right, just say no to the IRS, DEA or the ATF? Sorry, I want my head to stay on top of my neck. And if you think you have property rights you are sadly mistaken in the eyes of those men and women pretending to be a "state." To these pretended "servants" individual men and women own NOTHING: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, from April 1933. I think the point is made. There is no "nation." To be based on Judeo-Christian ethics, the "nation" would have to be a "voluntary association." The service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" would have to be provided on a purely voluntary basis and that means it's also paid for just like every other service ' voluntarily. Because what is supposed to be a "nation" today was, and is, based on violence, there is no "nation" because "nations" and "states" are "voluntary." Go ahead and challenge this, keep in mind the founding "constitutions" would then contradict Exodus 20:13 i.e., a "body politic" is "formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact . . . ." Preamble, Massachusetts Constitution and Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113. This presents statists with a real problem: if "nations" are NOT voluntary then that itself contradicts Judeo-Christian ethics. It proves there is no "voluntary association" but a violent one. If violent, then there is hardly freedom and liberty let alone being founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. There is no "nation" or pretended "state." Just a group of men and women doing business at the barrel of a gun. As Ernest Hancock says, "There are only two types of people; those who want to be left alone and those who won't leave them alone." Wake up America: There is no "nation" and there never was. Stop supporting unproductive anti-social individuals who won't leave you alone.