Us Courts Establish Government As The Official Religion Of United States.

The upcoming battle against the usurpation of religious freedom.


Well I guess we didnt listen and we didnt care and we didnt learn from history, and as so many times before we get to watch it perpetually repeat itself in our complacent xbox/mainstream media educated society, so now as powerless spectators we watch the country disintegrate and die an accelerating death from the cancer from within.

Oh this is nothing new, it just took several years for the cancer to reach stage 4 and terminal.

'Nothing' happens in the US except through the authority of congress. Congress granted all authority in the US.



In recent news we hear of several cases;

(before anyone runs off on any number of tangential conclusions, my position is 100% neutral and this is being presented strictly in terms of law and religion)


So in recent cases, the government through its commercial venue and accommodation laws (etc) have now officially and effectively suppressed the very rights reserved in the constitution to us, the people, severally and jointly, and stand negligent in willful and knowing breach of contract.

The constitution is not about pandering to one political or religious group or another but to the strict interpretation of law based in equality under it. Without equality there can be no remedy under the law for all parties.

So first the US government unlawfully assumes jurisdiction over religious matters. Then the US government creates laws against blacks, women, and gays to name just a few categories of several.

Then recently to correct its violation against gays turns it guns of destruction attacking Christians and Muslims to perpetuate endless turmoil upon the people of this nation by its enforced political injustice, spewing endless inequality and animosity within throughout the nation among and between the people.

Recent cases in point;

The Kliens rightfully exercised their first amendment right to freely exercise 'THEIR' religion, which is outside government purview, causing them to recuse themselves from supplying and decorating a cake with gay ornaments to be used in a gay wedding because doing so would make them an 'accessory to the commission of a sin' which is a crime against the laws of their God. Laws which long predate by several thousands years the laws of the United States.

The gay women then filed a complaint against the Kliens for discrimination against the gays religion.

The government now comes in through it commercial back door, with its religious laws created through its 'commercial authority' choosing one religion over another, the gays religion over the kliens religion which is a direct assault and violation of the Kliens right to exercise their religion, and adjudicated within a commercial venue outside its 'lawful' jurisdiction.

Protecting the gays religious rights while discriminating against and violating the Kliens religions rights is NOT equal protection under the law.

The government through its agencies and courts clearly established itself as the national religion despite having no authority to adjudicate any religious matter, much less through its commercial venue as a result of the usurpation of the peoples exclusive reservation of jurisdiction outside their purview.

The only 'lawful' option the government had was to recuse itself since it has no jurisdiction over religions matters despite and regardless of any euphemistic label not withstanding.


One more case in the news is the Davis case. Here again Davis swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states as did every person in any government office throughout the country. Then when she exercised her reserved first amendment right to freely exercise her religion, the government under its established religion stepped in and threw her in jail for exercising her 'preexisting' rights established thousands of years before the constitution and reserved within the constitution.

Davis was not required to relinquish her right to exercise her religion to perform her duties as a county recorder.

Now, granted, in the case of the maxims with regard to necessity and on that basis only ie someone will die without heat... in which case I would agree that necessity to save a life without regard to race creed or religion is paramount, but in no case do the circumstances remotely approach that level of concern.

Therefore it is crystal clear that the government has established itself as the new national religion of the united states as it fails to accommodate its own employees to exercise their religion while destroying private citizens by protecting one religion matching its own while simultaneously violating another religion opposed to its own and all outside its lawful jurisdiction.

The government in its laws has become the source of the problems not a solution.

First the gays never should have been denied full status in the first place.

Second the Christians and muslims should not be violated and destroyed to correct the governments self inflicted political cancer that would not exist in the first place had they kept their nose out of religion as the covenant contract stipulates.

Third the government refuses to make accommodations for its own people while at the same time destroying its citizens who do not make accommodations with the same regard.

Fourth the government is in premeditated willful violation and breach of contract since it did not make provisions outside itself to adjudicate our religious matters outside its commercial venue since religion is a reserved right and is removed from its subject matter jurisdiction.



This is not a battle between God people trying to force their religion upon non-God people.

The battle is about God people defending and protecting their right to exercise and live according to THEIR long held religious laws that predate the united states and the magna charta and to do so without government overlord interference.

The government being subordinate to the supreme law cannot lawfully enforce its agenda regardless if one group attaches the 'bigot label' to it. When the bigot label falls under the right to exercise religion the persons actions [God or non-God] are sanctioned by the supreme organic law, and not governed by misapplied subordinate regulatory code of which without the supreme organic law the government could not exist in the first place.

Consequential and incidental damages against non-God religions (gays) is solely the product of the governments negligence in both its failure to accommodate peoples first amendment rights and worse its unlawful violation of the rights of gays in the first place, and still worse the ever growing cancer and now its violation of those practicing and exercising the rights of God based religions and finally the total destruction of the constitution through negligence and failure to accommodate with all else aforestated.

 

I am a bit surprised that advanced cutting edge issues as presented in the OP which require extensive multidisciplinary analytical research incorporating law, philosophy, metaphysics, and theology with regard to the core elements of constitutional law in the US would be met with this level of animosity, knee jerk summary dismissal and such strong rhetorical negative spin. I would have thought this discussion instead to be beneficial.

 

I didn't see animosity. Just disagreement. Faith is belief without proof within the purview of human proposed creation. No empiricism. Laws are that by which we ATTEMPT to govern ourselves into some form of civilized behavior. At least that's the principle. If I were gay and had been refused service , I would have gone elsewhere to get my sugar high.
However, conversely, if you serve the public , you serve the public. Everything is such a big fuckin' deal nowadays.

Anyone think we give a shit what religion our customers are? Hell, we even install new roofs for -----REPUBLICANS!

 

This is about law that people as individuals operate under that is expressly prohibited and exempt from from tampering by the United States.

If what you say is true then:

....we must agree that the first amendment and the oath taken to uphold the constitution was/is nothing more than a criminal hoax upon the people to gain their consent to be governed since:

1) The religious laws of individuals predate US Secular law by thousands of years.

2) The US is prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of a persons religion.


We cant have it both ways at the same time, the contract is crystal clear.


All secular law is contingent upon and stands under the original and supreme contract. You have agreed I presume from your observation that secular law stands over the original contract in contradiction and adverse to the contract.

What you said so far agrees with me that the US is in fact in breach of contract. Begs the question, are we victims of a coup?

 

Which begs the question of course, what incontrovertible set of 'facts' is this government sanctioned and enforced secular religion thrown upon us based upon?

What empirical facts are they believed to be operating with that they rely upon to make these religious decisions implemented as 'law'?

I cant find any, so I am forced to file these decisions under the government established 'secular' religion.

The black part if you serve the public of your statement applies to the Davis case since she is an elected official by the public, however I already made the case that the government has failed to make accommodations respecting peoples religions in accord with the supreme law.

Davis nor any other government official should be placed into a position which forces them to choose between their official duties and the duties to their God. [past present or future].

The construct of marriage like homosexuality has been based in religion long before any governments were invented. The fact that the interloper government has stuck its nose where it does not belong, means that somewhere along the line a living person abiding by their religious laws within some public (government) organization will have to put their personal signature certification on a document which in following the state requirements may and often does force officials to violate their religion if they want to do the job. in the davis case the government changed the rules after she accepted the job in which she had no say in the matter.

It would seem the only real solution is for the government to get out of their religion business lucrative that it may be for them. They have after all created the third party marriage 'license' to regulate the long held religious construct for profit.



Now if we look at the klien case, first and foremost they are serving themselves for the purpose of survival to feed their children by selling their goods and services to private individuals.

Neither do they provide any essential service nor are party to any contracts between themselves and the gay community to serve the gay community.

Entirely a different set of circumstances.

The government has distorted the use of the word public to include private individuals to force them under their commercial umbrella to gain jurisdiction over them contrary to the supreme law of the land, in support of the governments church and in violation of the kliens religion, destroying their lives with a 135,000 dollars judgment in fines and penalties awarded to the gay religion which the government sanctions over the Judeo-Christain religion. I explained this in the OP as they are the facts of the case.

Yes go somewhere else!

That imo was the proper solution since there is no emergency, or negligence, or human necessity at stake and the government should have recused itself dismissed the case without prejudice as religious and outside its jurisdiction, then 'suggested' the gays simply go about 3 blocks to another bakery who was more than happy to accommodate the gays religious principles. I digress.

 

"The religious laws of individuals predate US secular law by thousands of years."

And by observation, written history and the results of outrageous, often murderous religious laws, we can understand why our founders believed in and enacted the civil law, and is the reason we now have separation of church and state.

All of the ancient religions perpetrated horrendous acts upon citizens under religious law and I for one , am thankful for secularism.

 

Although I'm sure the cake makers are not wanting to hurt anyone ---we have secular based laws against that.

I will say that the world is as crazy as ever, when it comes to the actions of humanity.

 

Wonder what would happen in a courtroom if one were to disdain swearing on the bible. Lose the case? go to jail? I would aver that truth can be and IS being told without declaring fealty to a particular brand of belief.

 

freedom of religion was written into the constitution not only as a means to protect religion from the government but also to protect the people from religion. Therefore, while Kim Davis is protected by the US Constitution to practice her religion as she pleases, the people are also protected from people like Kim Davis who wish to abuse their position of authority in order to force their religion on others. It works both ways

 

First its not 'as she pleases'

again her religious affiliation existed before ANY governments.


the protection you seek from kim davis's religion can only be had if the government did not operate under a religious venue to begin with.

My question is why do so many blame davis for the problem the government created by its failure to keep its nose out of religion and worse made for itself a business out of religion?

 

Well the problem is that you are posting a contradiction since a religious test is now required to work for the government to be able to do the job or the government will throw you in jail which forces one to test its beliefs and practices against that of the beliefs and practices of the government.

Supreme law is organic law in the case of the constitution. Long story if we need to disect every diddle and twiddle on that one. It is a matter of legal understanding of the law not the law in and of iteslf.

So it seems in this thread we just took the next step forward in religious rights which I assume you are fully aware have nothing to do with privileges and immunities which in this case are in violation of of the religious rights of men and women.

They also fall under the 1st, or are you saying that citizens are victims of legal entrapment in which there is no remedy as well?

People are not ONLY citizens holding a commercial franchise they are also men and women who have religious rights.

oh and btw xpats are not us citizens, so how do you reconcile those issues to support your position?

But they did!

First with the kliens religion against homosexual activity versus the gays religion for homosexual activity.

We cannot within logic and reason say the same subject matter is a religion for one but not the other. That is nonsequitor unreasonable and totally illogical.


Then when they chose to not include gay marriages in their licensing scheme violating the gays religious principles and now violating the christain principles.

The government created a licensing scheme which will assuredly always violate someones religion, hence their licensing business itself is in violation of the constitution since people are not afforded equal protection under those rules.

Does any case you posted address specifically that issue?

I think not.

and the very second they chose one religion over another and enforce it they have in fact set up a state sanctioned church which is the point of this thread.

How was this allowed to happen and how can it be fixed? I believe its too late and those making money are so powerful it cannot be fixed at stage 4 cancer.

 

They have taken religious positions in violation of its creators rights.

 

You sound confused. Gay Rights are Civil Rights. "Gay" is not a religion.

 

However recent law over the last 100 years and court decsions have now required for you to practice government dictated religion.

Seriously I should not have to post such simple definitions for anyone who wishes to participate in advanced legal theory and discussion.

You should already understand the definition of organic law and without it the government would not exist at all.

The above is a contradiction in terms, there are many requirements swearing an oath being one of them.

 

The principles the gay lifestyle is founded upon is the antithesis to principles the Judeo-Christian religion and several others are founded upon.

Simply attaching a euphemism and category then enforcing it as law does not change that fact.


If you believe it does then you need to prove that homosexuality is not a religious matter.

 

I know non-hetero people of probably all the major religious groups and I also know non-hetero people who claim no religion.

There's the proof.