Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christians Need to Reject the Legalization of Christianity

Posted on 04/05/2015 5:22:15 PM PDT by Talisker

As everyone knows, this past week crossed a Rubicon for the violation of religious rights in America. In obedience to a multimillionaire CEO oligarch’s homosexual identification and his threat of economic warfare, the governors of two States refused to sign legislation that was developed by the people of their States, according to Constitutional procedures, which would have allowed access to a defense before the Courts for Christians who are demanded to violate their religious beliefs in their workplace by homosexuals.

So extreme and egregious is this violation of religious rights that the media - in the Net, in print and on video - has had to resort to meticulously avoiding the details of the actual situation. Even when they created victims out of a Christian pizza parlor owner, they insisted on describing this as “discrimination against gays.” Because, of course, if they had given equal time to stating the plain truth that there literally is zero class discrimination against gays in this matter, that gays are welcomed into these businesses just like any other customer, it would severely offset the narrative they are pushing to foment outrage amongst the ignorant for political reasons.

Yet for all the discussion of this issue, I don’t believe the root of it, the actual thing that is going on, has yet been addressed. I believe, in fact, that Christians are like the pre-industrial natives who first received explorers who could not conceive of what a firearm did. They saw the “bang-sticks” go bang, they saw their tribe members fall wounded and dead, but the idea of a tiny bullet flying so fast they couldn’t see it actually being able to kill someone was incomprehensible to them.

They had spears and arrows - things they could see and understand how they worked. To them, there couldn’t be two different kinds of weapons. To them, weapons were weapons and they worked a certain way that you could plainly see and understand. There was no such thing as a weapon you could see, but NOT understand.

And so they remained mystified as to the “magical powers” of these invaders. They were, in other words, blind to the threat that was right in front of their eyes, precisely because they thought they already knew what a weapon was and wasn’t. And as a result, they were destroyed. But it wasn’t the guns that killed them - it was their refusal to SEE the gun and ACKNOWLEDGE its power. And things didn’t change for natives all over the world, until they finally realized what guns are, and got some for themselves.

I believe Christians in America are facing the same sort of blindness: they are the natives, the Left (not just homosexuals) are the invaders, and the TWO legal systems in America are what the Left sees, but the Christians don’t.

It’s time, therefore, for Christians to open their eyes. Or what is going to happen to them in America is exactly what happened to the natives - and for the same reason. Only the invisible weapon isn’t firearms this time - it’s corporate law.

I’m not talking down to you. I’m talking about something you don’t see. You think you see it, because you’ve been taught that you DO see it. But like the screaming, angry, dying natives who considered all the possibilities except the one they thought they already understood - weapons - you look straight past the answer.

Justice Roberts, in his now infamous Obamacare decision for which he is generally (and wrongly) reviled by conservatives, remarked:

"This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power."

Now that's an interesting thing to say, isn't it? "This case concerns two powers."

What two powers? Don't we have only one government?

No, we don't. We have two "governments," in fact. Two completely separate "governments," under one Constitution.

The first "government" is the original one. It deals with human beings acting as human beings and nothing else. That government has to work with authority derived from those human beings. And those human beings are acknowledged as possessing God-given natural rights, that existed before the "government" was created, and which cannot be removed by that "government," because it simply does not have the authority.

The second "government," however, is exactly the opposite of the first one. The second "government" creates, controls and runs corporations. The very word "incorporate" means "give body to," or "bring into existence." And because that "government" creates corporations, it owns those corporations completely - because of the fact that it is their creator.

Thus legally, corporations are slaves to the second “government”, the one that created them, by definition. They are created, live in obedience to, and die at the command of that “government.” And the rules that that "government" can make for those corporations are literally unlimited, because those corporations have no rights. They only have privileges that are granted to them by their creator "government," privileges which can be changed or terminated at any time, solely at the pleasure of that "government."

Functionally, therefore, in the real world, those are the two "governments" which comprise the two main federal government powers of our one constitutional Republic. And thus, they are the "two powers" to which Roberts is referring. And he acknowledges them both as constitutionally legitimate.

But he also warns that it is extremely dangerous to mix them up. In fact, he points out that IF you mix them up, you can end up with what he calls "a general federal authority akin to the police power."

So he is specifically warning everyone against making that interpretation of his Obamacare ruling, and teaching that the way to avoid that terrible mistake is to "read carefully."

So in order to understand the secret weapon that the Left is using against Christians, you FIRST need to understand and accept that TWO governmental powers exist. Roberts affirmed this as a FACT, and warned us against confusing them. For the Chief Justice said that if we mix them up, WE will create - by our very ignorance - "a general federal authority akin to the police power."

So how would that look, if we didn’t heed this warning? If we didn’t recognize the “bang-sticks” as guns? If we refused to believe that there were two completely separate kinds of law, one based on God-given human rights, and the other based on limited government-granted privileges?

It would look like the Federal government treating We The People of inalienable human rights, like wholly-owned government-privileged corporations, for everything.

Including telling Christians what parts of the Bible they lose when they go to work for a corporation.

That’s why the Christian arguments about whether this is “fair” or “legal” are irrelevant. Corporations don’t get to argue “fairness.” And they certainly don’t get to argue “rights,” because they have none. Corporations ONLY get to argue whether the way they are treated is beneficial to the federal government, or not. Because these federal statutes ONLY apply to corporations. In effect, they are corporate policies for the federal government. That’s why judges can rule something that violates rights as “fair” - because it’s fair to the interests of the federal government at that particular time.


Now, the reason that homosexuals are being foolish is that by relying on federal law to enforce their desires, they are actually relying on federal policies that may be changed at any time to suit the needs of the federal government. Right now, the federal government finds it beneficial to enforce corporate homosexual privileges over corporate Christian privileges. But how long will that last? What about the rising demands of corporate Muslim privileges? Historically, how do Muslims treat gays? Historically, how does anyone anywhere treat gays? The only place gays have found solid refuge is in their acknowledgement of NON-corporate, human being status in the American Constitution. That status CANNOT be changed or challenged. Anywhere else, they live and die at the whim of the corporate government’s needs.

Just like corporate Christians do, and corporate anyone does. Same difference. Same WRONG law being applied, for the benefit of the collectivist Left. So now ask yourself what Tim Cook, CEO of the largest multinational corporation in the world, is REALLY supporting here - along with other multinational corporations like Walmart. Homosexuality? Or the rule of corporate privilege over the law of God-given human rights?

Wake up.

But don’t be naive, either. Don’t think that by understanding what is going on, you can immediately change things. Many, many people have to understand this problem before enough public pressure can be put on the government to make itself clear. Laws need to be clarified so that they CLEARY declare corporate application - or not. Terms need to be clarified, so that, for example, “business” is not used where “corporation” is meant, and “rights” are not used where “privileges” are meant. All sorts of legal justifications are used for these word-swaps, but they have one purpose - deception. What do you think people LEARN in law school? The “law”? WHICH law? Corporate law, that’s which law, and the terms and procedures to refer to it, and how NOT to refer to the common law of the rights of non-corporate human beings, while HIDING this swap from those same human beings.

If it sounds like this little swap of rights for privileges, this “presumption” of corporate status, is done everywhere, then you’re starting to understand. But that general application of this fraud has been it’s best hiding tactic, because people don’t believe something this big could be pulled off in front of everyone. That’s why people say this person is having government trouble here, or that person is having government trouble there, but it doesn’t concern me... And then the government isolates and destroys those people, and keeps the lid on the secret.

But now things have change in SCALE. Now, the government is going after 150 million Christians - directly. Think about it - do these RFRA “anti-discrimination laws” ban the Bible? Nope. Do they ban you going to Church? Nope. What they do is more insidious than that - they decide what parts of the Bible are “LEGAL.” They decide what parts of Christianity is “LEGAL.” They decide what parts of Christians themselves are “LEGAL.”

As in, what parts are legal for a CORPORATION.

And the panels of people who are sitting together as a corporate collective, and ripping out pages of the Bible they don’t approve of and that you are not allowed to follow, believe in, or work under, include (but are not limited to) radicalized homosexuals, atheists, Muslims, communists, liberals and corporate CEOs.

Read the news - this is no exaggeration.

“Someday” is NOW.

“Somewhere” is HERE.

Right now, right here in America.

So given that FACT, isn’t it important to know WHAT LAW these people are invoking to decide if YOUR Christian faith is “LEGAL”? And what they mean by the word “legal”?

Isn’t it important to understand that they are treating you, a human being, as if you are a corporation, in order to cut up your Bible and your faith - and your humanity itself, along with it’s God-given rights?

After all, they’re threatening to fire you from your job, sue you into poverty and even throw you into jail over this issue. So doesn’t the source of their law to terrorize your life over your faith matter a little bit - especially if it’s not the law you THINK it is?

Just imagine if they ripped out the “New Testament” because they were holding you to the “Antique Homes Renovation Act,” and that law said that nothing “new” could be certified as “legal” under that act. So - no “New” Testament is allowed, only the “Old” Testament. Would you let them impose that law on Christianity? Would you let them fire you, sue you or throw you in jail over it?

No? Then WHY are you allowing them to impose a law written FOR corporations, which by definition have NO RIGHTS because they are NOT human beings, upon the subject of RELIGION?

It is impossible, by definition, for a corporation to be religious. A corporation - even a so-called “religious corporation,” is a legal entity, not a human being. A “religious corporation does not believe in God - human beings believe in God - period. Because corporations are literally the opposite of human beings, actually fake human beings that are only treated AS human beings in - surprise, surprise, a corporate courtroom - thus the application of the 1st Amendment protection of religious freedom to corporations is IMPOSSIBLE.

Rights apply to human beings. Privileges apply to corporations. Never the twain shall meet.

So how is this problem to be fixed, since we need corporations and corporate law? Simple: people need to understand the difference. Only when they understand the difference, can they change the laws appropriately, and make sure the laws are being applied appropriately.

Which brings me, finally, to the solution to the current issue of forcing Christians to work at gay weddings under corporate non-discrimination laws: those laws don’t apply to the human beings working at a corporation.

They might apply to corporations, once the conflict between the privileges of corporate gays and the privileges of corporations to choose their clients is resolved. But they cannot reach the human beings that work AT the corporation because they involve an issue that corporate law cannot reach.

Corporate law does not reach religion, because religion cannot be practiced by corporations.

Religion can only be practiced by human beings.

And therefore, when corporate privilege law conflicts with non-corporate human rights, human rights win. They win because the structure of the American government is:

God -> Human Rights -> Human Laws -> Corporations -> Corporate Law.

In America, under the American Constitution, human laws are superior to corporate laws. Religion cannot be practiced by corporations, only by human beings. Therefore the non-human 1st Amendment protection of religious freedom is superior to corporate non-discrimination statutes.

Religion is NOT “corporately legal” and it never will be, because it can’t be, because religion doesn’t deal with corporations, because corporations are NOT human and NOT created by God.


Yes, that means in America the practice of religion is “above the law” - as in, above the corporate law.

That doesn’t mean one can violate human law - common law - by hiding behind religion to lie, cheat, steal or kill, or trying to replace the Constitution. But the common law is not found in corporate statutes. And religion still is the presumption of authority, even in the common law. In other words, people are presumed to be breaking their religious teachings by committing those crimes, not fulfilling their religious teachings. A religion that teaches murder would not be considered an actual religion. It wouldn’t be breaking the law, it simply would not be acknowledged as a religion under the common law in the first place, and would not be therefore protected by the 1st Amendment of human rights.

So, in conclusion, to understand the answer set forth here, and to argue it, and to make the laws clearer so that these issues can be resolved without the enormous hardship they now bring, you have to understand the two powers. And the two different sets of laws they represent - rights versus privileges - must be brought out of the closet, and into the light of day. This subject MUST become common knowledge. Ways to clearly determine between them in written laws and in court procedures MUST be made clear.

Or the bang-sticks will destroy the Bible - and the human beings holding them.

Because if you step back a little bit, you’ll see that this is the real Leftist goal here - to get rid of the Christians, by getting rid of the Bible, by literally re-writing it to be “corporately legal.” Which is WHY corporate law is the METHOD they are using to accomplish this, and which is also why YOU need to understand the LIMITATIONS of corporate law in America.

They are swapping corporate law, for human law. It’s that simple. RFRA laws (for example) are simply allowances of corporate privileges. They do NOT address the 1st Amendment protections of human rights OUTSIDE of corporations for NON-corporate human beings. Period.

Get that, understand that, and you’re in the game. Pound on that, and you can change things. Demand answers from politicians and courts over that and you can stop the destruction of freedom that is going on right in front of our eyes - everyone’s freedom, not just Christians. But you have to know what the subject is and is not. Because otherwise, they will look you straight in the eyes and tell you that the RFRA laws oppress no rights - and you won't even know that's because RFRA laws don't deal with rights at all, only corporate privileges, and that that's their little secret. And you also won't understand why the courts won't even let you talk about rights when they fine you and jail you for "breaking" your "agreement" to follow corporate laws.

They are swapping corporate law, for human law. It’s that simple.

Americans have fought and died for 230 years to place and keep the mechanism for the protection of our God-given rights in our hands - that’s the power our Constitution gives us. Millions of Americans sacrificed their wealth and their lives and pledged their sacred honor to this mission. Now it is our turn to protect this precious treasure - not with guns, but with knowledge.

Because now Christianity itself - and with it the most fundamental human freedom of worshipping God - is directly in the line of corporate fire.

So it's time to learn some law.

Happy Easter.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana; US: Kentucky; US: Texas; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: 2016election; christianity; election2016; homosexualagenda; marriage; rfra
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: Talisker

Haven’t heard this stuff in a long time. great to hear it again. ie. right to travel in your personal conveyance or license to operate a vehicle.

21 posted on 04/05/2015 7:46:49 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I’m waiting for the first gays to walk into a Muslim bakery, and order a cake with Mohammed and Mohammed kissing as groom and groom adorning it. What will the metaphors and legal arguments be then? And what is the sense of yielding principles and conscience to one law, just to prevent having to yield principles and conscience to another law?

You can lead a horse to water, but it is easier if the horse isn’t tripping over too much metaphor. By the time the horse gets to the water, he will be too tired to drink.

22 posted on 04/05/2015 8:17:44 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith


Interesting perspectives.

23 posted on 04/05/2015 9:07:58 PM PDT by Tellurian (Obama's allegiance is to his "father's" dreams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

That is a very interesting treatise. Thanks for writing and posting it.

24 posted on 04/06/2015 12:58:22 AM PDT by TigersEye (STONE COLD ZOMBIE SCOURGE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis

It has happened I have read a title on FR.

25 posted on 04/06/2015 3:40:57 AM PDT by Biggirl ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism" - Ephesians 4:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Talisker


26 posted on 04/06/2015 3:54:20 AM PDT by Popman (Christ Alone: My Cornerstone...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker


27 posted on 04/06/2015 7:42:37 AM PDT by newheart (The greatest trick the Left ever pulled was convincing the world it was not a religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

If a hospital performs abortions, I think nurses have the right to not partake in the murderous surgery, for religious reasons, right?

So, the business could say that they would be glad to make that gay-wedding cake, but that everyone who works there has the individual right, for religious reasons, to not make the cake?


28 posted on 04/08/2015 8:03:33 AM PDT by gnickgnack2 (QUESTION obama's AUTHORITY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gnickgnack2
If a hospital performs abortions, I think nurses have the right to not partake in the murderous surgery, for religious reasons, right?

So, the business could say that they would be glad to make that gay-wedding cake, but that everyone who works there has the individual right, for religious reasons, to not make the cake?

Exactly. It's a matter of differentiating between the corporation and the human being. The corporation may well have to offer gay wedding cakes or abortions. But the human beings working within that corporation can invoke their religious freedom rights - rights, mind you, not privileges - to not violate their consciences in this matter.

The workaround being attempted is the idea of employment contracts being a voluntary agreement to obey the requirements of the corporate entity. It's tricky, because what is being said is not that corporate privileges trump human rights, but that the human right of private contracting was already used to accept employment, and so, in effect, nurses already voluntarily agreed to do abortions, or bakers already agreed to make cakes for gay weddings, when they voluntarily agreed to work at their respective corporations.

The answer to that, however, is that there are two separate issues going on - employment in general, and specific acts that a person finds unconscionable. And agreement to the former is not agreement to the latter.

Especially, corporate law is positive law - everything must be spelled out in detail So that's another level of argument against corporate authority, because it's not a matter of of "general employment" being assumed to include abortion or gay marriage, but rather specifically including a clause concerning the surrendering o the right of refusal due to religious conscience - and NO employment contract touches that.

Bottom line is that corporations cannot make acceptance of personally unconscionable acts as part of the their general employment contracts precisely because it is a violation of religious rights and would therefore reverse the relationship between rights and privileges. Rights, remember, pre-exist - no claim is necessary for them to exist, they exist because the human being exists. Privileges, on the other hand, are ALWAYS contractual. So it's never the issue of what the offending issue is, but rather the TYPE OF LAW being invoked to enforce it - rights versus privileges.

The biggest problem - by far - is that you don't see this fundamental issue argued ANYWHERE. Courts don't allow the discussion because they are sitting in their "corporate (administrative, regulatory, statutory) capacity." And so they simply will not allow ANY discussion of "rights" because corporations don't have rights. And outside of Courts, people literally don't even know that there is a difference in the laws - and the MSM refuses to acknowledge it as an issue. In fact, everyone goes to far as to say that corporations have "rights" - and that is the most fundamental lie of all.

But if you pay attention, it creeps out sometimes. Like in the OJ trial, they mentioned the "privilege to remain silent" when Furman was testifying. Who ever hear of that phrasing? After all, isn't it a "right" to remain silent? But Furman was a cop - a government employee, and the government entity was an incorporated City. So he had no rights in that capacity as a police officer regarding his official duties that he accepted - only government granted privileges as a "human extension" of that corporation. So there it was, right there, in front of the whole world, but zip - it was missed by everyone.

So clearly, American Christians have been lazy about this issue. They just have, and that's an observation, not a judgement. But now it's coming back to bite them. No one cared when it was the OJ trial - or anything else, really. Because it was always someone else, or something else. But now it's the Bible on trial - and with it, ALL Christians.

So if you want to have a say, you MUST understand "who" you really are before the Court - and who you're not. Because if you accept the Court's presumption (and that's officially what it is, a presumption, and further, no judge will tell you they made it about you) - the presumption that you are a corporate "person," or a corporate "individual," instead of a non-corporate "man" or "woman" - you can just hand over your Bible right now for government editing. Because only real human beings can demand their religious rights.

29 posted on 04/08/2015 12:19:05 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson