|Oh Yes You Are!||[Test Oath] || [Pacifism || [Feedback] || [V&FT]|
All true Christians are pacifists. The only question is, are you as good a pacifist as you could be?
"Wait a minute," you say. "I'm no pacifist."
Ah, but you are . . . legally speaking. If you are a true Christian then you follow the Apostle Peter when he said, "We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). In particular, Christians must obey God rather than the State, the emodiment of Secular Humanism's worship of Man. And given the fact that the State is the greatest source of violence and murder today, if your obedience to God puts you in opposition to a murderous State which justifies its violence in the name of "national security," you are likely to be called a "pacifist." Consider these examples:
The U.S. Government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
It turns out that over 60% of the Marines surveyed were a bunch of yellow, lily-livered
PACIFISTS. Just like the Commies who were always taking the Fifth, these pacifist wimps
refused to blow the brains out of the lawfully-declared enemy, and relied on some
"constitutional amendment" to defend their cowardice. One pacifist
"marine" wrote something about the "second amendment" on his survey
and added, "If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it
where the sun don't shine!" What a bunch of pinko fags.
What kind of red-blooded, loyal, patriotic American will not kill his neighbor if ordered to by the lawful authorities? What kind of commie will not take up arms to protect President Clinton's cocaine shipments? What kind of PACIFIST will not travel to far-away lands to blast peasant scum back to the stone age if they threaten the profitability of Bush family investments? Wouldn't you be willing to kill under these circumstances?
Theologically speaking, your answer is that of Peter: No.
Legally speaking, you are a "pacifist," because you are allowing your conscience to override "legitimate" government orders.
The purpose of this web page is to make you a better "pacifist," even if that will get you court-martialed or executed. Remember, Jesus Christ was executed.
Most Christians do not think of themselves as "pacifists," even though the New World Order does. In this sense, they are "gentle as doves" but not as wise as the serpents in power (Mat. 10:16). Or put another way, most Christians do not think of themselves as pacifists because they think of themselves as Americans. Unfortunately, America is an anti-Christian nation. America is a Secular Humanist Theocracy. For a Christian to think of himself as an American is as senseless as a Christian thinking of himself as an Islamic Fundamentalist. The problem goes back to the origin of America. Whereas the original colonies were more or less Christian Theocracies, the formation of the Federal Government was an attempt to get away from Christian Theocracy. There may have been some Christians involved in the effort, but they were not consistent with the Scriptures.
My goal as a pacifist is to follow the Scriptures even when it contradicts the reigning mythology of America. I trust that your goal - whether you call yourself a "pacifist" or not - is the same: God before country.
Tragically, "God Before Country" is considered a dangerous and subversive idea. As I have attempted to show in connection with my case now in Federal Court, a Christian cannot become an American citizen. While it was once the case in this country that you could not hold any public office (or even testify in court) unless you were a professing Christian, it is now just the opposite: if you put God before man, you cannot be a part of the American system. What follows is designed for those who have explored the site above. Those who haven't read it should either do so now, or may wish to return to the Pacifism Home Page.
Some people have been reluctant to support my "anti-Constitution" case because they feel that some of the cases I rely on do not apply to them.
For example, I rely heavily on the case of In re Summers, in which a Christian was denied admission to the Illinois Bar based on his religious beliefs. The Illinois Bar, the Illinois Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court all agreed that Summers couldn't take the oath to "support the Constitution" in "good faith" because he had religious disagreements with at least one part of the Illinois constitution. The Summers Court relied on the case of U.S. v. Macintosh. Although the Bible says "we must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29), the Macintosh Court said our allegiance to the State must be "unqualified." In other words, you can't say, "Yes, I support the Constitution, but . . . ." Or, "Yes, I'll obey the laws unless. . . ." Your allegiance must be "unqualified," says the Court. You don't "support" the Constitution if you disagree with it. Well, I disagree with the Constitution a lot more than Professors Summers and Macintosh did. Therefore, I would be disobeying the U.S. Supreme Court by swearing that I "support the Constitution."
Now some people have actually read these cases, and they have discovered that both Macintosh and Summers called themselves "pacifists," and these legal eagles have said, "Well, I'm no pacifist! I've got nothing to worry about."
When will we ever learn?
Remember that saying in Nazi Germany? It went something like this:
"When the BATF came for the Branch Davidians, I did not speak out, for I was not a follower of David Koresh. Then when the FBI came after the family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, I did not speak out, for I didn't believe in the 'Identity' movement. [And so on, until. . .] Then they came after me, and there was no one left to speak out."
But more importantly, this is an insidious Government attempt at "divide and conquer." The government divides its opposition by defining one part of the opposition in a way which alienates it from the rest of the government's opposition. One group of freedom-lovers is labeled "pacifists" by the government, and other groups who also oppose government tyranny say, "Ooooh, we don't want to be 'pacifists,' so we won't support them." Another group is labeled "anarchist" by the government, even though they repudiate violence and insurrection. "Ooooh," we say, "we don't want people to think we're 'anarchists,' so we won't help them, either."
The greatest irony, however, is that we really are "anarchists" and "pacifists."
What if Janet Reno defined your loved ones as "the enemy"? Would you kill them on orders from the State? If not, then you are a government-defined "pacifist." This is exactly what Macintosh and Summers said. They said if the government told them to kill someone they didn't believe should be killed, they wouldn't obey the government's orders. And you're not on their side?!? I submit every true follower of the Prince of Peace is a "pacifist" in the eyes of this anti-Christian Empire. No true Christian will kill his neighbor just because the government says so. And if you don't agree with that, then I don't know how you found about about this page!
TheSummers case relied on Macintosh, but Girouard is said to have overruled Macintosh. Macintosh set forth the rule that Congress has almost limitless authority regarding war and citizenship. Girouard did not contradict this principle, but overruled Macintosh "on strictly statutory grounds."
According to Macintosh, an alien must meet Congress' requirements to gain citizenship. Even the dissenting Justices did not disagree with this. The Macintosh Court interpreted a Congressional statute to require a willingness to bear arms for naturalization (although natural-born citizens could obtain "conscientious objector" status). It was this interpretation of the statute with which the dissent disagreed. The Girouard Court agreed with the Macintosh dissent, and construed the statute to exempt conscientious objector-aliens from being willing to bear arms, leaving aliens and natural-born citizens on the same level. Under Macintosh, pacifists did not have "unqualified allegiance." Under Girouard they did. By reversing the Macintosh construction of the statute, aliens no longer had to "make bargains" with the State on the issue of bearing arms. By statutory construction, their allegiance could again be said to be "unqualified." Once "disobedient," they were now "obedient." Only the State's mind had changed.
In spite of Girouard's tipping of the hat to religious freedom and the First Amendment, the State remains secular, and the void left when God was removed by Macintosh is still to be filled by the State. The Girouard Court made no apology to the Holy Trinity Court for the arrogant presumption of Macintosh. A Secular State cannot tolerate those who believe in a Higher Authority.
A willingness to help kill whomever the State declares to be the enemy du jour is not the only principle of the Constitution which conflicts with the Lordship of Christ. If you are not willing to give "unqualified allegiance" and total obedience to the State, then you are an "anarchist," a "pacifist," and a whole lot of other nasty labels which the State and its media will concoct (Acts 17:6-7). You might even find yourself a victim of the State's favorite method of killing (Mark 8:34-38).
Since I'm a Christian, and I too have disagreements with all Constitutions, I believe that this ruling applies to me. The Supreme Court of the United States is saying, "People like Summers cannot take an unqualified oath to 'support the Constitution.'"
The government levies a tax on you. What is your response as a Christian:
(a) pay the tax
(b) challenge the tax in court
(c) blow the IRS agent's brains out
(d) a and b
If you answered "c," you lose. Jesus says "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew. 26:52). If human life means less to you than taxes, or less than a particular political theory, then you have missed the Gospel.
America has missed the Gospel.
Worse than that, America once had the Gospel, and threw it away. The conflict in 1776 was not a group of colonists who were told they could not preach the Gospel. It was a group of merchants who did not want to submit to the powers. They would rather destroy property and kill government agents than pay a tax one-tenth the size of the taxes we routinely pay today.
If you see the contradictions, you will be saying, "How can I become a better pacifist?" Well, you're in luck; the Bible tells you how.
(1)In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561, 65 S.Ct. 1307, 89 L.Ed 1745 (1945); reh. den. 326 U.S. 807, 66 S.Ct. 94, 90 L.Ed. 491 (1945). [Return to Text]
(2) U.S. v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed. 1302 (1931). [Return to Text]
(3) Girouard v. U.S., 328 U.S. 61, 66 S.Ct. 826, 90 L.Ed. 1084 (1946). [Return to Text]
(4) Naturalization of Brakel, 524 F.Supp. 300, 301 (N.D. Ill. 1979). [Return to Text]
(5) The only point of conflict in Girouard was the issue of bearing arms. Obviously if an alien were willing to bear arms for the purpose of assassinating the President, he or she would not be admitted to citizenship. The State still calls the shots. [Return to Text]
(6) The "higher authority" invoked by Girouard is the "unknowable god" of "ceremonial deism" (Acts 17:23). The authority of the secular Empire remains, but Rome is now willing to give pacifists a place in the pantheon. Christians are still excluded. Macintosh is still cited as controlling on the question of the power of the State [See In re Petition for Naturalization of Matz, 296 F.Supp. 927 (E.D. Cal., 1969) (denying naturalization to Jehovah's Witness who, "because of religious training and belief refuses to vote, serve on juries or otherwise participate in government" (at 929)], and the cases discussed in Appendix E of the California Petition, including Smith v. County Engineer of San Diego Co. 266 C.A.2d 645, 72 Cal.Rptr. 501 (1968), Petition of Williams, 474 F.Supp. 384 (D.Ariz., 1979), and In re De Bellis Petition for Naturalization, 493 F. Supp. 534 (E.D. Pa., 1980), show the Macintosh principle in action. [Return to Text]
(7) O.K., forget the word "pacifist." Just ask, "How can I be a better Christian?" or "How can I 'be at peace with all men?'" (Hebrews 12:14) (Frankly, I think our sanctification has to come to a point where we don't care what other people call us. I would rather be called a "pacifist" than an "American." At least if I'm being called a pacifist it will be because I am perceived as different from a nation of people who will kill other human beings over a relatively small amount of money. There's an ancient and very wise proverb that I just made up which goes something like this: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but emotion-laden labels are just a way of avoiding my argument.") [Return to Text]
Vine & Fig Tree
12314 Palm Dr. #107
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[e-mail to V&FT]
[V&FT Home Page]