Basic Jurisdictional Principles
A Theological Inventory of American Jurisprudence
Previous Page Next Page
  Amendment I: The Emperor’s "Parade of Horribles"  
"Marxian socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of opinion – how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men and, through them, the events of history." 1
"I think that capitalism, wisely managed, can probably be made more efficient for attaining economic ends than any alternative system yet in sight, but that in itself it is in many ways extremely objectionable." 2

Amendment I (cont’d):

The Emperor’s "parade of horribles":

After Boerne – except for the improved legal status of American Indian peyotism via the American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994 — we are legally in much the same situation we were in immediately after Smith. The general government’s exemption for the Native American Church – from controlled substance laws – is now mandatory in all the States as well. Exemptions on free exercise grounds – from neutral, generally applicable laws – are still deeply hated by a majority on the supreme Court. Exemptions based on the establishment clause are more rarely sought, but the opinion in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987) shows that they are possible. The RFRA still applies at the general level, but through Boerne, the Court stridently refused to apply it to the States. 3 Some States have adopted RFRA-like legislation, which means that they mandate that State judiciaries use the compelling interest test to create free-exercise based exemptions to neutral, generally applicable laws wherever the courts deem it appropriate. But there is something deeply wrong with this whole process of exemption-creation, just as there is something deeply wrong with refusing to create exemptions when a religion is clearly burdened.

(i)If either a State or the general government refuses to grant an exemption to a religion that is obviously burdened, that religion’s recourse is to seek relief in the legislature. "What [the exemption process] means is that politically powerful religions will be able to lobby successfully for exemptions from burdensome legislation in Congress and the state legislatures, while the free exercise of politically powerless religions – those most in need of constitutional protection from the majoritarian political process – will be wholly dependent upon the goodwill of political majorities. Reynolds and Smith themselves are evidence that politically powerless religions will often fail to obtain legislative exemptions for their religious practices." 4 Politically disabled religions by definition have little impact on legislatures. It is miraculous that a religion as politically disabled as the Native American Church was able to move mountains to get the AIRFAA passed. 5 It’s attributable to a providential mix of stupendous leadership and effort, circumstances related to the existence of the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion (CFER) – a coalition the likes of which we might never see again, – the unique status of Native Americans, and the overwhelming degree of oppression that the mega-state was exerting against NAC. The ordinary oppressed religion is unlikely to marshal such resources, and is unlikely to find such legislative relief. So ordinarily, when a religion is oppressed by a law the religion has little viable recourse. In the words of President Johnson, the best they can do is act like a "jackass caught in a hail storm". If the law is specifically targeted at that specific religion, then that’s a violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, and the courts should remedy that. But legislative bodies know this, and – unlike the City of Hialeah in Lukumi – they are generally able to use stealth, crafty words, and majoritarian politics to get what they want through neutral, generally applicable laws. The politically powerless religion’s recourse then is to carry on their religion the best they can, knowing that bad laws are oppressing them.

(ii)When a burdened religion acquires an exemption from a neutral, generally applicable law – regardless of whether it’s by a traditional Sherbert-Yoder-based judicial decision, a judicial decision based on RFRA statutes, 6 or a statutory or administrative exemption – the exemption establishes the exempted religion, in violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause as well as the 1st Amendment. One could argue that American Indian peyotism is an established religion because it is exempt from the controlled substance laws. It’s our view that it is absolutely preferable for NAC to be established rather than driven into oblivion by bad laws. But it’s also unavoidably obvious that it is established. In part such establishment derives from the fact that this is an American Indian religion, and American Indians rightfully, lawfully, and legally have a unique status. But where does this leave people like Galen Black, the white guy who got invited to a Native American Church service and absolutely fell in love with it? He’s obviously in a dangerous grey area. He’s what Indians call a "wannabe". He may wish he had all the rights and privileges of being Indian, but he never will, because he’s not an Indian. People like Galen Black have a legitimate complaint: NAC is an established religion and it’s difficult for me to participate in it because this established religion is exclusively for Indians.

It’s absolutely critical for American Indians to retain their special status for as long as they want it. To whatever extent they receive special benefits from general and State governments, by way of treaties and legislation like AIRFA (1978) 7 and AIRFAA (1994), 8 such benefits should continue indefinitely, because they are the law and such laws are lawful. But that doesn’t mean that people like Galen Black should be victimized by bad laws. 9 The problem with this exemption – establishment on one hand, and heavy-handed government oppression on the other – has little or nothing to do with Native American legal status. But it has everything to do with bad laws. The bad laws are the fruit of governmental ignorance of basic jurisdictional principles. They are the by-product of secular governments’ belief, and acting out the belief, that it’s OK for secular governments to exercise religious police powers. It’s not OK!

Since Boerne, the supreme Court has repeatedly enforced not only its constricted conception of free exercise, but also its anemic view of 14th Amendment §1 (i)privileges and immunities, (ii)due process, and (iii)equal protection. It has thereby rejected and overridden Congress’s sometimes broader view of these rights. The supreme Court’s posture undermines not only these constitutional rights, but also these unalienable Rights, and in so doing, it undermines the health and safety of the republic. Every human being has an unalienable Right to practice whatever religion they choose (assuming that it doesn’t condone bloodshed), and they also have an unalienable Right to be free from tyranny. Free exercise is a right that MUST be available not only to dominant, majoritarian religions, but also to minority religions, American Indians, and people who claim to be secular. — Given the magnitude of the mega-state, the salvage of such unalienable Rights looks like a huge undertaking.

To conclude our examination of the present religion clause predicament, we’ll go through a short exercise to share our thoughts about how to simultaneously gain free exercise and avoid the parade of horribles. 10 We’ll look at each of the "horribles" mentioned by Justice Scalia in Smith. We’ll examine each of these "horribles" to answer two overriding questions: (i)What should existing governments do to remedy the current predicament? (ii)What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? According to Scalia and company, "The rule respondents favor [(compelling interest test)] would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind" (494 U.S. 872, Scalia’s Part II-B), including the following:

(a) Compulsory Military Service:

According to our reading of Scripture, all human beings have an obligation to avoid perpetrating bloodshed, and to execute justice (retribution, restitution, or injunction) against people who DO perpetrate bloodshed. But not all people are qualified to execute such justice because they might be too weak, too sick, too old, too young, too stupid, or too much of any number of other things. So many people lack capacity to execute such justice. So since the beginning of civilization, societies have found people with capacity, and calling, to work in this field. In the investigation, we call the people who work in this field the social compact’s jural society. Citizens of the social compact who have not been participants in the jural society have paid taxes to pay jural society members, and to relieve their personal obligations to execute justice. — Military service is one lawful way to execute justice against perpetrators of bloodshed. The difference between police who work to execute justice against bloodshed, and military people who execute justice against bloodshed, is that the military branch of the jural society deals with large groups of people who as a nation or group are perpetrating bloodshed on a massive scale, while police deal with smaller groups and individuals, usually within the geographical jurisdiction of the social compact.

There are at least two big problems with compulsory military service: (a)Nations don’t always, even usually don’t, distinguish military actions that are responses to bloodshed from military actions that are rationalized in some other manner. Military actions that are responses to bloodshed are perfectly justified, as long as excessive force is avoided and as long as a thorough cost-benefit analysis is done before the action – where such cost-benefit analysis shows the action to be relatively beneficial. But numerous military actions executed by the general government in American history have not conformed to these criteria. So numerous military actions have NOT been justified. Military actions that are not justified by both of these two criteria are usually perpetrations of bloodshed by our nation against some other nation. Under such government-sponsored bloodshed, compulsory military service essentially forces the inductee to perpetrate bloodshed against other people. (b)Compulsory military service is more than a mere tax. It is coercing someone into a vocation. It is coercing someone into a pretended contract. All people are obligated to pay taxes based on the universal obligation to execute justice against bloodshed. But all people are NOT obligated to military service unless execution against bloodshed is proven a priori to be the motive behind the obligation. The accepted concept of compulsory military service does not allow for such examination of motive. So modern compulsory military service is in fact bloodshed against the conscripted individual, perpetrated by secular government.

In order to remedy this situation, secular governments should eliminate all attempts at compulsory military service. This suggestion obviously looks like a "horrible" to Justice Scalia and company. No doubt they’re convinced that such an action might leave the nation undefended. After 9/11/01, this may seem especially scary to defenders of the status quo like Scalia. But if secular governments acknowledged that they are lawful only when they observe the jurisdictions of secular social compacts, secular governments would eliminate all their spending on everything but those things that are essential to secular social compacts. By eliminating all this wasteful spending, they would have ample funds available to provide "top dollar" to people who volunteer for military service. That would eliminate the perceived need for secular compulsory military service, by making voluntary military service an attractive, honored, and admirably remunerated vocation. But a better-paid general military is not the optimal source of security when the united States are under daily terrorist threats. When threats are at the grass roots, that’s where defense needs to be. By (i)acknowledging that general, State, and local governments are secular; (ii)acknowledging that religious social compacts have an unalienable Right to have jural societies that are fully armed; and (iii)developing and arming such grass-roots jural societies; the American people – both denizens and citizens – will be able to defend themselves far more effectively than through Scalia’s compulsory military service.

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. As implied in Boerne v. Flores, land, i.e., a defensible geographical jurisdiction, is essential to having a functional religious social compact. Every social compact, including religious social compacts, are composed of both a jural society and an ecclesiastical society. The jural society might be the bare minimum (a)to ensure that the parties to the religious social compact are not guilty of bloodshed, and if they are, to either execute justice against them or hand them over to a secular jural society to do the same; and (b)to defend the religious social compact against any outsiders, including secular governments and terrorists, that might attempt to damage or destroy anything within the geographical jurisdiction of the religious social compact. Given that this is the reasonable calling to every Christian jural society, it’s reasonable to believe that the jural society might form a militia to execute the jural society’s latter, defensive duty. It might even be written into the social compact that every able-bodied male of a certain age might be required, as a party to the compact, to participate in the militia. It might also be written into the social compact that if called upon to help an umbrella secular social compact to execute a bloodshed-motivated military action against some threat, the religious jural society’s militia would, in fact, lend such assistance. Here is another remedy to this "horrible" seen by Scalia and company. (For more about religious social compacts having jural societies armed to defend their community against external threats, especially "terrorists", see the 2nd Amendment. 11)

(b) Payment of Taxes:

As mentioned above, every human being is obligated to execute justice against perpetrators of bloodshed, and to avoid being a perpetrator oneself. Given our resulting attempts at living in a civilized society, these obligations translate into the following obligations: Every human being (with capacity) is obligated (a)to pay taxes to his/her local jural society to execute justice against perpetrators of bloodshed, and/or (b)to work actively as a member of a jural society to execute justice against perpetrators of bloodshed. These are the only tax obligations that are universal, i.e., that have a global in personam jurisdiction. So these are the only tax obligations that a secular social compact – like whatever is still lawful about the general government of the united States – is lawful to collect by coercion. According to the hermeneutic used in the investigation, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that confiscatory taxation is lawful when revenues are spent to execute justice against bloodshed, but at no other time is confiscatory taxation lawful.

At this point we could draft our own parade of horribles that would be composed not merely of futuristic "horribles", but would, in fact, be real and present perpetrations of bloodshed by agencies like the IRS and the BATF. But for the sake of brevity, we’ll forgo the Welfare State "parade" for now. The much bigger problem is not with how revenues are collected, but with how they are spent. Most of the revenues of all secular governments in the united States are NOT spent on executing justice against bloodshed. They are spent on an overabundance of good-seeming projects that have nothing whatever to do with bloodshed. If the funds spent on such projects were collected from voluntary donations, then such good-seeming projects might be lawful. But they are not collected through voluntary donations, and they are not lawful. They are collected through confiscatory taxation. They are collected through government-sponsored bloodshed.

In order to remedy this situation, secular governments should start by making a direct linkage between taxing and spending. Revenuers should calculate the percentage of the secular government’s budget that is spent specifically on bloodshed (especially on gross delicts), and should make that portion of the tax-base confiscatory. The rest of the tax-base should be voluntary. No doubt this suggestion sounds "horrible" to Justice Scalia and company. No doubt they’re convinced that an action like this would surely be the demise of the nation. If secular government manages the process properly, it will not be the demise of the nation, but the liberating of it. All the functions of secular governments that are not lawful functions of secular social compacts, would necessarily be privatized. The attitude to take in this privatization process is that such agencies, properties, etc., already belong to the American people, not to secular governments. The problem lies in finding capable management for the rightful owners. It’s not a good idea to go the same route that the Soviet Union went at its dissolution. Giving collectivist agencies to private operators for a pittance doesn’t give the real owners, the American people, adequate say in how the agencies will be managed in the private sector. Selling to the highest bidder is also not always the best way to go. For every such agency or function, there will probably be some variation on how best to transfer such functions from the public sector to the private sector. One way might be to assume that every citizen has a voting share in the organization, and citizens will be able to vote on how the privatization process should proceed. The real problem is not the transfer process. The real problem is the resolve to do it. The resolve to do it comes from the American people being aware of what our present circumstances are. One of the most potent ways to make this awareness widespread is to repeal all tax withholding laws. This delivers employers from being coerced into being tax collectors. It makes employees genuinely aware of how much of their paychecks they’re giving to secular government.

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. One of the big obstacles that Christian churches now have is that they are almost universally obligated to operate as 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3), "tax-exempt not-for-profit" corporations. 12 This – along with numerous other misconstructions of American law – makes it clear that most churches have a corrupted status. Under present circumstances, their ability to own truly private land, and thereby establish genuine geographical jurisdiction is limited. Their legal ability to take actions that directly impact secular governments is limited. Their ability to form truly functional jural and ecclesiastical societies, and therefore functional religious social compacts is limited. It is therefore critical for every American Christian to either (a)abandon their §501(c)(3) church, and form a non-§501(c)(3) church instead, or (b)convert their §501(c)(3) church into a non-§501(c)(3) church. It’s critical for every American Christian to then take their non-§501(c)(3) church to the next step: The non-§501(c)(3) churches need to form religious social compacts, meaning that they need to form jural and ecclesiastical societies. These religious social compacts need to assume all religious police powers over their geographical jurisdiction. All health, safety, education, morality, and welfare functions need to be taken care of locally, within the geographical jurisdiction. By becoming a party to such a religious social compact, a person gives prior consent to pay taxes to the religious social compact for religious police powers. Many of these religious police powers are the same religious police powers that should be denied to secular social compacts. — It’s much more important for God-fearing people to form religious social compacts than it is for them to push secular governments to change. It’s prudent for us to believe that "judgment must begin at the house of God" (1 Peter 4:17; KJV). So it’s important for us to change "the house of God" first. Whether any given individual party to such a religious social compact continues paying taxes to pay for functions of secular government that are not lawful functions of a secular social compact, needs to be decided privately by each party, according to their own conscience. But it’s important to understand that a mechanism already exists for religious social compacts to pay for the umbrella services of the general secular social compact: the "direct" tax of Article I §2 cl 3 and §9 cl 4. 13 If the religious social compact pays "direct Taxes" for the lawful services of the general, State, and other secular governments, then individual members of the religious social compact should be relieved of having to do so.

(c) Health and Safety Regulations:

Health and safety regulations are police powers that are unlawful when executed by a secular social compact. As such, all health and safety regulations of secular governments need to be privatized or abolished. Without a doubt, Scalia and company think this proposal is close to treason. They certainly assume that such a "horrible" would result in social chaos. But if the privatization / abolition proceeds as outlined in (ii) above, the process would be orderly, and the result would be liberating.

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. This means that we will attempt to implement "health and safety regulation" – as well as other religious police powers – within our religious social compacts. Again, the advantage of doing it this way is that religious social compacts operate, by definition, on consent, while secular governments, by obvious experience, do not. — More and more, Scalia’s parade of horribles looks like a parade of paper tigers and hallucinatory bogeymen. 14

(d) Compulsory Vaccination Laws:

For decades now, secular governments have been using compulsory education as an opportunity to force vaccinations on children. Compulsory education is wrong, because it is compulsory, and therefore bloodshed. "[C]ompulsory vaccination laws" are wrong for the same reason. Secular, confiscatory taxation to pay for "public education" needs to be stopped, and "public schools" need to be privatized. Likewise, whether children are vaccinated needs to be left to the prerogative of parents, not to secular governments who have an unlawful claim on all children as wards of the mega-state. So all "compulsory vaccination laws" need to be repealed. — Once again, we see Justice Scalia rolling his eyes and grimacing at the thought of what a "horrible" idea this is. What can we think, except that he and his company have been exalting positive law above morality for far too long?

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. This means that each of us needs to be party to a religious social compact that implements religious police powers. Such a religious social compact might require parties to send their children to a school located within the religious social compact’s geographical jurisdiction, and operated according to a curriculum consistent with the beliefs of the religious social compact, or it might not. Likewise, such a religious social compact might require parties to have their children vaccinated, and it might not. — Hard core advocates of vaccination believe that vaccination should not be voluntary. But the fact of the matter is that a percentage of all who are vaccinated get sick from the vaccination, and some die. This means that such an act of government-perpetrated bloodshed demands retribution. Hard core advocates for compulsory vaccination claim this is too bad, because it’s a small price to pay for the elimination of contagious diseases. But people who practice alternative medicine have totally different views. The bottom line is that every human being owns their physical body as an unalienable Right. Any claims of secular government to the contrary are criminal. All adults therefore have an unalienable Right to decide for themselves whether they and their children will be vaccinated. Secular governments are way out-of-bounds in overriding this unalienable Right to consent.

(e) Drug Laws:

Jesus said,

"Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. … Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated? … That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man." (Mark 7:14b-20b; NASB)

This is admittedly a controversial passage, because it’s essential for it to stand against a large body of literature in the Tanakh that appears to contradict it. We have no intention of entering into this theological debate here. We posit it here only to show that "drug laws" inhabit a theological grey area that is dangerous for any secular social compact. It’s not only dangerous. It’s a direct violation of globally prescribed human law. That’s because the global covenant makes it unavoidably obvious that every human being owns his or her physical body. For a secular government to mandate what a person can or cannot eat, drink, wear, shoot up, snort, absorb as suppositories, or consume in any other way is for the secular government to violate property rights. People either own their bodies, and get to do what they want with them (assuming no bloodshed), or they don’t. If they don’t, then they have either contractually volunteered through prior consent to curtail consumption of certain substances, or they are being forced by non-consensual laws to curtail consumption of certain substances.

We don’t doubt that it’s stupid to consume some things. People are not made to eat rocks. Cyanide consumption is suicidal. Consumption of many substances is almost always poor stewardship of what God has given us. Even so, who gets to decide what’s good for us, and what’s not? When we were children, our parents decided. When we grew up, we, as adults, should decide. Regrettably, in our country at this time, adults are not allowed to make such decisions for themselves, or for their children. That’s because the secular governments make de facto claims that all people within their respective geographical jurisdictions are wards of the mega-state. This claim plays itself out as bloodshed perpetrated by secular governments on a massive scale. — The type of economic system that is the automatic by-product of any serious implementation of the investigation’s view of human law, is not a capitalist system, and not a communist system. It’s a free market. This doesn’t mean that we have open borders, and it doesn’t mean that we don’t have rules. It means that we have borders that are controlled by social compacts, and these social compacts embody the rules. It doesn’t mean that we have no black markets. It means that secular social compacts minimize the existence of black markets within their own immediate jurisdictions, by eliminating non-consensual laws. But religious social compacts still get to control their borders according to their own, internal positive laws. If people want to continue the status quo regarding FDA / DEA regulations and controlled substance laws, then they can band together in religious social compacts with like-minded people, and maintain such status quo. Even so, all "drug laws" – including all the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration and all controlled substance laws – MUST be repealed by these secular governments that purport to be secular. That’s because – if the existence of such secular governments is lawful under the investigation’s hermeneutic – they are secular social compacts. As such, they have no lawful power or authority to impose "drug laws" on anyone. — Here again, it’s easy to imagine Scalia and company bent over their toilet seats in disgust. The thought of relinquishing such power, and the social chaos that would ensue, is too much for them to bear. They might rather be criminals than allow it.

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. Regarding food, drugs, medicines, and practically anything else that people put into themselves, Bible-believing Christians are spread all over the map. There is a multitude of different preferences, and a variety of ways of rationalizing such preferences based on Scripture. Since this is an application of the Bible’s global prescription of human law to the Constitution – and not a full-blown systematic theology – we’ll not make recommendations about what people should eat, drink, or consume in any other way. We’ll instead make general statements about how we should proceed. Now, regardless of what secular governments do, Bible-believing Christians should consensually compact themselves into religious social compacts. Christian jural societies should do the bare minimum (a)to ensure that the parties to the religious social compact are not guilty of bloodshed, and if they are, to either execute justice against them or hand them over to a secular jural society to do the same; and (b)to defend the religious social compact against any outsiders that might attempt to damage or destroy anything within the geographical jurisdiction of the religious social compact. Christian ecclesiastical societies should, by the prior consent or acquiescence of all parties, establish and enforce religious police powers that accord with the preferences of all parties to the religious social compact. — If the religious social compact is composed primarily of Bible-believing Native American Church members, then the religious police powers would allow peyote to cross the borders of the religious social compact’s geographical jurisdiction, and peyote would be completely legal within that jurisdiction. But the same religious social compact might disallow entry of other substances into the community. For example, alcoholic beverages might be banned. — If the religious social compact is composed primarily of Bible-believing people who want to live by the present FDA / DEA regulations and controlled substance laws, then they could consensually have religious police powers that reflect that. If the FDA were privatized, then this same community might subscribe to whatever the FDA decided about any given substance. The police powers of the religious social compact would allow community police to stop substance smugglers at the borders of the compact’s geographical jurisdiction. — This approach allows the continuation of diversity and free exercise. It also allows people to protect their children and themselves against undesirable influences. It ensures that Christians, in surrendering the ownership of their bodies to God – and thanking Him for the stewardship authority over the same that He gives in return – are less likely (i)to subject themselves to un-Godly temptations, and (ii)to impose their biblical standards of morality on other people without the latter’s consent.

(f) Traffic Laws:

In accordance with our view of Article I § 8 cl 7, 15 we believe that all roads and highways that are presently owned, operated, and policed by secular governments should be privatized. This doesn’t mean that the roads and highways should be sold to the highest bidder, or given for a pittance to the most prominent ex-collectivist. It means that the American people own these roads, not the government. It means that the current administration of these roads is de facto bloodshed, because the funds that support the administration of these roads are collected by confiscatory taxation. Confiscatory taxation is unlawful for the purpose of administering roads and highways. So this confiscatory taxation is theft. So the roads are administered through bloodshed. The American people own these roads. It’s absolutely essential that these roads be administered in a manner that is not bloodshed. They must be privatized, because road administration is outside the lawful jurisdiction of secular social compacts.

Here’s one idea about how they could be privatized: For a given secular government – and the roads that are presently under the immediate jurisdiction of that secular government – certificates of ownership could be presented to every citizen of that secular government. Each certificate allows one vote. A committee could be formed through existing political processes (meaning open to public scrutiny and recommendations), specifically for the purpose of designing a variety of privatization options. Everyone with a certificate would thereafter have the option of voting on the various plans. The plan that receives the majority of the votes would be the privatization option / plan that would be implemented. — After the roads are privatized, the big question becomes, who owns, operates, and polices them, and how are these administrative functions performed? These are questions that would be decided by the voting process. But most people, because they use the roads so much, are most concerned about how they are maintained and policed. Would it automatically mean tollbooths everywhere? Would it mean that drunk drivers got off without any punishment whatever? — If it were left up to us, the maintenance of these roads would not change much, and payments for such maintenance would be made by the people who owned and used the roads. There wouldn’t be tollbooths, because there are plenty of other ways to pay for roads and highways. We wouldn’t change the policing process much either, except in one very important respect: The organization that would form out of this voting process would be a religious social compact. For this hypothetical voting process, the parties of the new religious social compact would be anyone with a certificate who agreed to abide by the by-laws of the new organization / religious social compact. This new organization / religious social compact would have religious police powers. This means that parties to this social compact would be giving prior consent to abide by these contractual positive laws. These contractual positive laws would probably include laws about speed limits, driving while intoxicated, stop signs, etc. People would be giving prior consent to abiding by such positive laws, rather than being forced by a form of government that appears to the ordinary person to be out of control, and to be abusive on many fronts. — Are Scalia and company likely to approve of this kind of plan? Absolutely not!

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. The type of religious social compact / organization that would develop out of the above sketch of highway privatization, would not be like the kind of religious social compact that we would live in, raise our kids in, educate our kids in, work in, worship in, etc. But we should encourage the development of that kind of highway religious social compact as an adjunct to the religious social compact that we live in.

(g) Social Welfare Legislation:

Scripture makes it unavoidably obvious that Christians are obligated by their covenant with God to do whatever is within our means to take care of widows, orphans, poor people, disabled people, and other dependent and frail people of every kind. For generations now, instead of doing this, nominal Christians have been turning such responsibilities over to secular governments. The result is the American Welfare State. This Welfare State has more in common with an Orwellian Tower of Babel than with anything upon which God would put His stamp of approval. As He does with much of human iniquity, He may allow it for a time. But in the end, He will make sure that it’s destroyed. If we are wise, we will turn it into something that glorifies Him before He destroys it.

All "social welfare legislation" (at least on its face) is justified as part of a religious social compact. None of it is justified as part of a secular social compact. That’s because – among other things – of the way that funds for the administration of secular "social welfare legislation" are collected. They are collected through confiscatory taxation. Since such taxes are not collected through voluntary means, and since involuntary means are justified only for enforcement against bloodshed, taxation for the administration of the "social welfare legislation" is theft. In other words, such taxation is government-perpetrated bloodshed. Therefore, all administrative agencies that spring from such "social welfare legislation" need to be privatized or abolished. Likewise, all such "social welfare legislation" needs to be repealed.

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. All the good-seeming objectives of secular "social welfare legislation" deserve to be implemented locally within our religious social compacts, on a consensual basis. So as Bible-believing Christians, that’s what we should do. But there’s one other aspect of this that we might consider. — If the secular social welfare agencies were privatized – in a manner similar to the process recommended above for roads and highways – then these administrative agencies would be funded by voluntary mechanisms. It might behoove Christian social compacts to consider such newly emancipated social welfare agencies as adjunct religious social compacts, for the sake of fulfilling our obligations to minister to poor and dependent people.

(h) Child Labor Laws:

It’s important for all people to start learning how to work while they are still young. But some types of child labor are clearly abuse, and worse, some are clearly bloodshed. Turning children into prostitutes is a hideous breed of bloodshed that deserves retribution. Putting them into hazardous work that endangers their lives is also bloodshed. For an adult to volunteer for hazardous work, is his or her prerogative. But children have not reached the age at which their consent should work in anyone’s favor other than the child’s. So if a child consents to crawl into a mine that is known to be dangerous, child-endangerment laws should override his consent, and whoever put the child up to that act should be prosecuted by the local jural society. But if a six-year old is instructed by his parents to milk his goat regularly, no child labor laws should have jurisdiction. But if a child is sent to work in some sweatshop, where he’s likely to get "repetitive motion syndrome", that endangers the child’s health and should be stopped by the local jural society. — These are the kinds of criteria that should be used in determining what child labor laws should be repealed by secular governments, and which of them to keep.

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. These religious social compacts have huge advantages over present circumstances, regarding care given to children. If children go to schools that are located within the geographical jurisdictions of Christian religious social compacts, and are run by standards set by the parties thereto, then the children are spared exposure to bad influences from bad curricula, drug abusers, bad media, Columbine killers, and secular limitations on what kinds of constructive activities children are allowed to do. Each such community can develop its own "child labor laws". They could be stricter than those enforced by secular jural societies. But they would never be more hazardous to the child’s welfare.

(i) Animal Cruelty Laws:

Generally, animals are chattels. This derives from the attributes with which God endowed human beings, relative to animals. For example, in Genesis 1:26,

God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (NASB).

In other words, human beings are endowed with the ability and calling to take dominion over the animal kingdom. We are called to take possession of them, and treat them as property. Does this mean that we are called to abuse them, and be cruel to them? No! It means that we are called to be good stewards of them. This calling is a global attribute of humanity. All human beings are called to be good stewards over the animal kingdom, and especially over whatever animals may come into our immediate possession. But is this global attribute enforceable by way of globally prescribed human law? — No! Globally prescribed human law pertains to bloodshed, and to bloodshed alone. Bloodshed is inflicted upon humans, not upon animals. — So if someone comes into possession of an animal, and is cruel to that animal, according to the investigation, does a secular social compact have grounds for imposing its positive law upon that person?

The only conditions under which a secular social compact could have jurisdiction over animal cruelty is (a)if the animal cruelty exists in the immediate geographical jurisdiction of the secular government, and certain other conditions are met; or (b)if the animal is somehow subject to a contract over which the secular ecclesiastical society has jurisdiction. — (a)Suppose Freddie Limp-Wit takes his horse into a police station belonging to the general government. Suppose he there beats the horse with a cat-o’-nine-tails. Without a doubt, there would need to be some rules governing this secular property. Anything that constituted a major distraction to these police-people – that would sidetrack them from doing their job – would probably need to be restricted. So certain limited types of laws against mala prohibita would be lawfully applicable on such pieces of geographical jurisdiction. If, across the street from this police station, there was the geographical jurisdiction of a religious social compact, and Fred took his horse there and did the same thing, the secular social compact would not have jurisdiction, because it would lack subject matter jurisdiction, even if the religious social compact was within the umbrella geographical jurisdiction of the secular social compact. But on their turf, the secular police would reasonably have a legitimate reason for stopping Fred from abusing the horse, and for removing both the horse and Fred from the premises. But that’s about the only penalty that they would be within reason to enforce. — (b)Suppose Fred buys a horse from a stranger. Suppose the purchase agreement stipulates that the buyer will never perpetrate animal cruelty against the horse. Suppose the penalty stipulated for violation of this term is that the horse will automatically become the possession of the seller again, and there will be a 1000 "dollar" fine, payable to the seller. Now suppose that Fred is cruel to the horse. Suppose he beats the horse with a cat-o’-nine tails. Suppose the seller discovers this incident of animal cruelty. The seller brings an ex contractu action against Fred in a secular ecclesiastical court, to enforce the contract. Under this kind of condition, a secular social compact would have jurisdiction over Fred’s case of animal cruelty.

Only these two kinds of situations would allow a secular government to have jurisdiction over animal cruelty. So secular governments should repeal all animal cruelty laws – other than these types of limited positive laws. Given our history, this probably sounds appalling to many people. We can think about how cock fights, dog fights, dog-and-bear fights, starvation of livestock, and many other types of "animal cruelty" that are now illegal, would be legalized. Surely there is no redeeming moral value to allowing these things, and they should remain illegal. Or should they? — Generally, what is moral to one person is disgusting to another. As we scan all the things that would become legal under the standard set by the investigation, most people will applaud some, and be absolutely disgusted by others. But legal neutrality does not imply moral approval. It just removes the enforcement of morality out of the hands of secular police, and puts it into the hands of religious social compacts. These issues essentially pertain to religious police powers, not to secular police powers.

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. We are called to be good stewards of what God gives us. All religious social compacts formed by Bible-believing Christians should therefore have religious police powers to curtail and punish culpable people within the respective geographical jurisdictions, regarding animal cruelty. Religious social compacts should also be committed to using every possible free market economic mechanism available to drive animal abusers out of business. But the real problem with the relationship between humanity and the animal kingdom doesn’t pertain to animal cruelty. It pertains to the annihilation of wild species.

(j) Environmental Protection Laws:

In American history, we’ve witnessed the infamous extinction of the passenger pigeon, and the lesser-known extinction of the blue pike, the heath hen, and other species. We’ve witnessed the near extinction of the bison, the bald eagle, the whooping crane, and numerous others. Given that virtually all of these extinctions and near-extinctions were caused by humans, they epitomize poor stewardship. That some of the people who did these things claimed to be Christians is yet one more defamation of the belief system, and the Name, established by Yeshua HaMeshiach. — Wildlife is one of at least four features of the earth over which humanity has not yet taken full dominion, and therefore, genuine stewardship. Others are wild aspects of the vegetable kingdom, air, inland water, and the oceans. 16 Given the extreme dangers of genetically modifying wild species, the perilous nature of poor stewardship is more menacing than ever. So people far more friendly to this Bible-based jurisprudence than Justice Scalia and company are wary of eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency, and its State and local counterparts.

At present, the law does not treat wild animals, wild plants, outside air, inland waterways, and oceans as private property. Generally, secular governments claim de facto ownership of such things. So according to our view, all these things are owned collectively by the American people, because they exist outside the lawful jurisdictions of secular social compacts. — Secular governments also claim de facto ownership of vast tracts of land, especially in the western united States. All the land owned by secular governments that is not used specifically for secular jural or ecclesiastical purposes is owned unlawfully by these secular governments, because ownership of land for no lawful purpose is not within the lawful jurisdiction of a secular social compact. Secular governments may be lawful in exercising complete ownership powers over things like secular police stations, secular court houses, secular capitol buildings, military bases, etc. But they don’t have lawful ownership powers over vast tracts of land in the West or smaller tracts elsewhere. That’s because they only have secular police powers over such land, which means that secular governments are limited almost totally to jural police powers within such secular geographical jurisdictions, and they lack subject matter jurisdiction for any other purpose. So all this land is also owned collectively by the American people. For the sake of brevity, we’ll call this land commons land. — For the sake of brevity, we’ll call all these things – wild animals, wild plants, outside air, inland waterways, adjacent oceans, and commons land, the American commons. Because it’s obvious that wild animals, wild plants, outside air, inland waterways, adjacent oceans, and commons land exist in every nation, we’ll call the general term for such things commons.

Environmental forebodings fall into essentially two categories: (a)genuine, real, and serious threats of bloodshed that demand standing injunctions. (b)apparent threats that might be real, but might also be imaginary (like Scalia’s parade of horribles). 17 Generally, any agent of probable bloodshed that is set in motion in the American commons demands a standing injunction by a secular social compact.

(a)Here’s an example of an environmental threat that demands a standing injunction: During the 1950s and 60s, farmers used huge amounts of DDT and other toxic fertilizers and insecticides on their crops. These substances were washed by rain into streams, rivers, and lakes. Microscopic organisms ate these substances. Larger organisms ate the microbes. Still larger organisms ate the organisms that ate the microbes. And so on, until toxin-infected organisms were consumed at the top of the food chain. By the end of the 1960s, the bald eagle population in the contiguous united States was devastated because of these substances. Many predatory birds in the Great Lakes region are manifesting genetic deformities to this day. All this absolutely signals poor management of the American commons. But does it signal a threat that demands standing injunctions from secular social compacts? — Irrefutable evidence that humans have suffered genetic defects from the same toxins has never been produced. Perhaps the fact that humans tend to wash farm produce before they eat it, maybe this is why these defects have never shown up clearly in human populations. Or perhaps there are other reasons why such genetic defects have never shown up in humans. But it has definitely been proven that these toxins accumulate at the top of the food chain. It has also been proven that when these toxins are used, they generally escape from what’s normally private property into the American commons. Perhaps the only reason such genetic defects have never been proven in human populations is because DDT, etc., were banned before defects started showing up. Whatever the reason for the lack of evidence, the facts (i)that these substances accumulate at the top of the food chain, (ii)that these substances cause genetic defects at the top of the food chain, and (iii)that these substances escape into the American commons, should be taken as sufficient evidence that these substances demand standing injunctions. If their usage were allowed without restraint, the result would probably be bloodshed on a massive scale. Early in the third millennium, agri-business pundits are claiming that the banning of these substances was caused by irrational hysteria, and that we should go back to using them, and encouraging the developing world to use them. The evidence shows that this is extremely foolish talk. We need standing injunctions against these kinds of substances in the American commons. So this "horrible" would not exist if we had free exercise.

(b)Here’s an example of an apparent environmental threat that is in a grey area, and deserves to be watched carefully by secular jural societies, but doesn’t yet rise to the level demanding a standing injunction: There is evidence that if certain genetically modified salmon were to escape their fish farms to roam the seas freely, there would probably be a collapse of certain wild salmon populations. Whole eco-systems might be destroyed as a result. Commercial fisheries might be destroyed. But thus far, there is a lack of evidence that bloodshed would result from this mishap. Part of the problem is that commercial fishermen generally don’t own what they harvest until they catch it. In other words, they procure their livelihood from the international commons or from the American commons. They harvest wild seafood from international or American waters. They have no claim to such waters, or such fisheries, unless they can enforce such claims. In order to enforce such claims, they need to form social compacts that claim such waters as their geographical jurisdictions. They need to find ways to protect the borders of these geographical jurisdictions, and enforce the police powers of such jurisdictions. They need to use free market mechanisms at every possible opportunity to curtail this kind of mishap by salmon farmers. Until bloodshed can be shown against the property of American people, this danger doesn’t rise to the level demanding a standing injunction. But it definitely deserves thorough observation by secular jural societies – without intervention – until real danger to real property can be proven.

These two examples show that all "environmental protection laws" will not automatically become ineffectual if free exercise is granted. Instead, they show that the American commons can be abused in such a way as to cause genuine bloodshed. Standing injunctions – environmental protection laws – deserve enforcement by secular social compacts when such standing injunctions are based on real threats, as genuine as nuclear suitcase bombs. — In addition to this curtailment of Scalia’s paranoia regarding "environmental protection laws", there are several other observations that we should make here: The American commons belongs first to the American people, not to secular governments. In the same way that roads and highways, postal systems, internet, welfare agencies, the FDA, "public" schools, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), OSHA, etc., should be privatized, the American commons should be privatized. This doesn’t mean that they should be handed over to organized criminals, Soviet style. It also doesn’t mean that they should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. It means that the American people should decide, probably by majority rule, how to divest what is lawfully private property – i.e., what is lawfully the property of religious social compacts and/or individuals – from secular governments, converting such governments into lawful secular governments. Religious social compacts should be formed to administer the protection of wild animals, wild plants, outside air, inland waterways, adjacent oceans, and commons land. This might be one means by which commercial fishermen could get control of their livelihoods.

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. We are called to be good stewards of what God gives us. All religious social compacts formed by Bible-believing Christians should therefore have religious police powers to punish people within their respective geographical jurisdictions who endanger the property of people who live outside those geographical jurisdictions. Such religious social compacts should also work in concert together to make sure that the existing American commons is transferred into the hands of people who will be good stewards over such newly privatized property. If done properly, the American commons will be transferred over to much safer hands than those that now administer it. — Again, so much for Scalia’s parade of horribles. 18

(k) Laws Providing for Equality of the Races:

There is no doubt that racism exists in America. For all we know, it may exist for as long as America exists. All Americans have an obligation under the global covenant to make sure that secular social compacts enforce global human law in a way that manifests equal protection. Such equality of rights is a global mandate. Even so, confusion about the difference between rights and privileges has caused secular government to abuse rights, rather than protect them. Generally, rights are given by God. They derive from the fact that people are created in the image of God, and all people are equal in them. But generally, privileges, both natural and conventional, do not delineate equality, but uniqueness. Privileges that are given by governments and other man-made agents are part of a person’s conventional disabilities.

There are numerous huge mistakes that the supreme Court made with regard to race relations. To start with, the justices should never have tolerated slavery. From that reprehensible position, their decisions went downhill. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson are monuments to the de facto Protestant establishment’s abuse of African-American rights. There are other decisions that show that other races and ethnic groups were abused. But after the New Deal, after private property was no longer properly defined, the Court shifted from abusing the rights of Blacks, Indians, Asians, etc., to abusing the rights of everyone. This new breed of abuse has been based on the idea that retribution and restitution can be executed with justice against people-groups. In wars, perhaps that’s true. But Jim Crow, "Black codes", etc., were not war by the entire nation. They were unjust laws perpetrated by specific States. Abuse of rights is abuse of rights, regardless of race or ethnic group, and it needs to be stopped, emphatically, by secular governments. Abusing everyone’s rights doesn’t help anyone.

One of the biggest mistakes the supreme Court made in the last century was to define private property in a way that makes it public, and in such a way as to create a "federal" commerce jurisdiction everywhere, even when "commerce" is nothing more than a private contract between private people. People who are engaged in private contracts are totally outside the lawful scope of secular social compacts. But, "During the fifty years following the post-New Deal era Congress expanded national regulation into myriad aspects of the national life, using the Commerce Clause as the constitutional base, all with the Supreme Court’s approval.". 19 Every usurpation of the private property rights of people who live within the geographical jurisdiction of the united States is a violation of such rights, and is therefore bloodshed. But it’s helpful to see this general abuse of property rights from both a moral perspective, and from a more deterministic or fatalistic perspective.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade segregation in interstate commerce." 20 There’s no doubt that segregation based on race is stupid. People who are genuinely interested in progress – regardless of whether that progress is financial, commercial, religious, educational, or whatever – will go for that progress regardless of what another person’s race or ethnic group is. They will attempt to find the best people to work with, regardless of all other irrelevant factors. Even so, the way the free market works is that people get to choose whom they do business with, instead of having secular governments tell them whom they may or may not do business with. That’s a moral fact that should be a legal fact. But from a deterministic perspective, perhaps Jim Crow was so entrenched that the general government needed legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and similar legislation, to continue correcting the huge mistakes it made in the process of ridding the nation of slavery. — In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Court forced a segregationist motel to desegregate, based on the fact that it was located adjacent to Interstate 85, which was defined by law as a commercial, interstate thoroughfare. In Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), the Court forced a segregated barbecue restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, to desegregate, even though it was eight blocks from a federal highway. Both of these cases relate both to the expansion of the commerce clause jurisdiction, and to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) the Court upheld the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when "all justices agreed Congress had Fifteenth Amendment power to suspend state-prescribed voter literacy tests and authorize the attorney general to appoint voting examiners in low turnout states.". 21 — Since the 1960s numerous supreme Court cases have upheld such race-related cases, based both on the expanded view of the commerce clause, and not.

At what point do we decide that the deterministic attempts at remedying the injustices relating to slavery have run their course? When is this form of retribution over? One of the advantages of due process is that there is a clearly defined beginning and end to the retribution process. But this counter-racism racism seems to have no end. It seems to have become a permanent part of American jurisprudence. How can anyone claim that this is justice? It’s not. It’s extremely counterproductive, for everybody. The secular governments need to eliminate all these racially motivated, "affirmative action" violations of the equal protection clause. It’s not the job of secular social compacts to deal in non-contractual, non-bloodshed issues. Racism is a moral issue that is not an issue that should ever be included, by a secular social compact, within the subject matter of its jurisdiction.

What should Bible-believing Christians do regardless of what secular governments do? — God has called us to be a covenant-keeping people, meaning that we who volunteer to follow His ways voluntarily obligate ourselves to live in religious social compacts with one-another. For any Bible-believing Christian to be a racist is for someone to claim to be a Christian and to claim not to be a Christian at the same time. It’s hypocrisy on a stick. No Christian religious social compacts should tolerate it. But on the other hand, if some white supremacists, or black supremacists, or any other kind of hard-core segregationists, demand that their religious social compact maintain racist religious police powers, it should be recognized as legitimate, though stupid and immoral, for them to do so. It’s practically certain that Christian religious social compacts should maintain an attitude towards racial and ethnic minorities that is essentially corrective and affirmative to the decades and centuries of white-instigated racism. But that’s totally different from attempting to do the same by way of a secular social compact.

(l) Summary Regarding the Emperor’s "parade":

Now that we’ve examined the parade of horribles, 22 it’s clear that the Court is seeing this "parade" strictly as defenders of the mega-state. After Boerne, the view of these issues from the investigation’s Biblical perspective is radically at odds with the Court’s. The justices of the supreme Court – in an attempt at retaining a blending of the de facto Protestant establishment, the de facto secular humanist establishment, and State’s rights – has set itself at odds with sound Biblical theology. Some of the justices have in some respects been trying to push religious police powers away from the general government, thereby forcing the States to take them. But States are also lawful only as secular social compacts, and there has been no recognizable grass roots development of lawful religious social compacts that could lawfully assume responsibility for such religious police powers. The nation is in a quandary. The quandary revolves around this question: Who, or what, best enforces religious police powers? The supreme Court justices who vote relatively consistently for State’s rights, in essence, indicate that the States do. Those who vote for religious liberty – or at least a compelling state interest test – vote in essence for elevating individual liberty above the powers of either the general or the State governments. To many people, the latter justices are promoting secular licentiousness. Obviously we need some way curtailing libertine behavior. 23 The latter set of justices may claim that that’s not true, that we don’t need to curtail licentiousness. But the other camp is trying a remedy for licentiousness that is ineffectual, obsolete, and rife with abuse. Part of the remedy lies in recognizing that the States are secular social compacts as much as the general government is. To push religious police powers to them therefore makes no sense. If the nation is to be preserved, it’s imperative that people of all faiths compact themselves together within their respective faiths, and exercise religious police powers over their particular geographical jurisdictions, in whatever manner they see fit (assuming that they don’t perpetrate bloodshed). This would deliver the nation out of this quandary by relieving all secular governments of all responsibility for religious police powers. This inevitably requires that each religious social compact acquire genuine allodial title to the geographical territory over which it is to exercise its geographical jurisdiction. — No doubt this plan sounds like "pie in the sky" to many who hear of it. Such accusations have not deterred real Christians in the past. It should not deter us now. Bible-believing Christians need to develop genuine religious social compacts even if the nation is doomed as another Tower of Babel. No, regardless of whether the nation is doomed, even especially if the nation is doomed. All governmental decision-making needs to take place at the level of government where the most accurate and precise perception and definition of the action or property exists. These days, this automatically excludes secular governments for religious subject matters.

At the local level, a huge obstacle to the formation of religious social compacts is the de facto abolition of allodial title. Most of the State constitutions in this nation contain clauses that guarantee that all land in the State’s jurisdiction is allodial. Boerne is proof that such land is not really allodial, in violation of the State’s constitution. The status of most land has been corrupted by a combination of the banking system, the monetary system, irresponsible mortgages, local powers to tax, zoning, feudal concepts of dominion and eminent domain (including the "doctrine of discovery" — See Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823.), and judicial sophistry at all levels. In some respects land has never been truly allodial. 24 Zoning officials – like those in Boerne – are now habituated to imposing their ordinances without sustainable opposition. They get away with practically whatever they want within their own fiefdoms. How can a religious social compact exercise its police powers if it’s beholden to such feudal strictures?

Although the Roman Catholic abuse scandal is likely to make State RFRAs irrelevant to the practical formation of religious social compacts, State RFRAs still offer some hope of aiding such formation in each State that has an RFRA. 25 State RFRAs require that whenever the State’s imposition of its secular, unlawful restrictions on a dedicated religious social compact is challenged by the latter compact, the State must prove that the State has a compelling interest in restricting free exercise. It must also prove that it is restricting with the least intrusive means possible. This is another possible opening in secular government’s extremely narrow conception of free exercise. — The Catholic sex abuse scandal manifests what many people are likely to see as a serious flaw in the view of government generated by the investigation: the vulnerability of dependent people. — In 2002, a boy from a faith-healing family in Philadelphia got a broken ankle. Secular authorities mandated that the parents take the boy for medical care. Apparently the mandate came too late, because the boy died of the injury. Secular humanists typically claim that secular authorities should have intervened earlier to wrest the boy from the parents’ custody. But this is not a case of bloodshed. It is a case of the parents trying to do what they think is best for the boy, and being wrong. We live in an imperfect world, and secular humanists and secular authoritarians are as capable of being wrong as this boy’s parents. For them to sit in judgment after the fact demands the indignation of Bible-believing Christians based on the fact that they have so little regard for compacts and contracts. The whole Bible is about a compact, a covenant. Children are the products of compacts between parents (assuming a lack of rape, bloodshed). Children remain such products until (i)they reach the age of majority; (ii)they become financially independent and remove themselves from parental custody, with the consent or acquiescence of the parents; or (iii)they are given by the parents into the custody of someone else. Because children are products of such compacts, secular governments have no lawful authority to interfere unless bloodshed is suspected. If the government suspects that children are not being fed properly, being medicated properly, being schooled properly, being cleaned properly, etc., these are not grounds for assuming bloodshed. If government suspects they are being sexually abused, this IS grounds for assuming bloodshed. But even in cases in which a child is the product of a broken marriage, or of no marriage at all, secular social compacts have no grounds or authority for taking custody. If such minors cannot support themselves lawfully and financially, then they are candidates for adoption by religious social compacts.

Since G. W. Bush became president, many people who claim to be Christians have been gleeful about "federal" funding for "faith-based initiatives". Orphanages, schools, religious missions, drug abuse counseling, and many other projects are now receiving funds from secular government. The supreme Court decisions in Mitchell v. Helms (2000) and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) maintain that such transfers of secular "money" are legal. If this president were interested in lawful government, and genuine Christian religious social compacts, he would be recommending precisely the opposite: the weaning of such projects off secular government. He is in essence expanding the Welfare State and pretending that he can reduce taxation at the same time. Perhaps with the Federal Reserve’s slight of hand, it’s true. That’s one more reason to get rid of the Federal Reserve. 26 — In Europe, this kind of sharing of secular funds with presumably religious institutions is common. There, they have a history of state-established churches and national religions. European nations have been subsidizing "faith-based" institutions for decades. There, the consensus is that orphanages, schools, religious missions, hospitals, drug abuse counseling, etc., are secular. Any reasonable reading of Scripture makes it obvious that this is not true, that on the contrary, these things are essentially religious. The Europeans generally claim that because these things are essentially secular, there is no problem in church-state relations with regard to this type of funding. But the Bible seen through the investigation’s hermeneutic makes it unavoidably obvious that this type of funding creates HUGE problems in church-state relations. It is yet more evidence that the existing governments are working overtime to establish a witch’s brew of secular humanism and nominal "Christianity" as our national religion.

Since the so-called "war on terror" is on practically every American’s mind, it’s easy to see how such establishment issues might be neglected. The average American might want to cut the President plenty of slack because of his burden in prosecuting this "war". They might therefore think it best to postpone addressing such issues for the sake of staying focused on the "war on terror". We have a different view. We believe that if secular governments grant unalienable free exercise rights to all Americans, and establish only the secular religion, the "war on terror" will be prosecuted much more effectively and efficiently. (To see how, see the 2nd Amendment.) 27

On top of all the problems with freely exercising our religion that are caused by the main three branches of government, we have big and serious problems with the fourth, pseudo-constitutional branch. About half of all adjudication that’s done directly under the general government is done in administrative courts, rather than in judicial branch courts – in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. This means that any church that’s signed up with the secular government as a §501(c)(3) organization is especially vulnerable to police powers exercised by administrative agencies. Despite claims to the contrary, administrative agencies, especially the IRS, are sometimes used as political weapons. In other words, if a 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3) church has a dispute with government, there is a very real possibility that the IRS could be used by political hacks to crush the church’s opposition. 28 Unlike judicial branch cases, these are usually low profile cases that receive little or no recognition from local or national media. So very few people become aware of such abuses of power. — The bottom line is that any church that is, or ever has been, a §501(c)(3), has a status that is removed from a pure 1st Amendment church. The judicial branch often demands that parties pursue remedies at the administrative level before ever allowing a case to be heard by a judicial branch court. Over 99.9% of all churches are §501(c)(3) churches. They have a corrupted status like that of the Greek / Russian Orthodox Church under the Soviets. They are extremely vulnerable to control by the mega-state.

If you’ve read this far, then you probably understand that one of the most important things you can do to remedy these dismal circumstances is to get informed. Many of the remedies in secular governments have been exhausted, or are close to being exhausted. Under such circumstances, what do we do? Start a revolution? — When all remedies in secular government are exhausted, the next step is not violence. Violence is the last resort. The next step, after full exhaustion of secular remedies, is non-violent civil disobedience. We should hope that we would never need to contemplate any remedies beyond non-violent civil disobedience. In the meantime, it’s important for us to maintain a posture of respect for the ruling authorities. It’s important for us to remember that being a judge is not an easy job. If it were, then anybody could do it. As Americans, we get the best people we can into positions of judicial authority. If such authorities make imperfect decisions, it should surprise no one. We should be compassionate, respectful, and honoring towards them, because they have been given a difficult job. Even so, bad decisions generate bloodshed. Every human being is called to terminate bloodshed. So when judges go awry, we need to correct the resulting bloodshed in the least destabilizing manner possible.


1The End of Laissez-Faire, Part III.

2The End of Laissez-Faire, Part VI.

3RFRA URL:​103/​bills/​hr1308/​BILLS-103hr1308eas.pdf.

4The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, pp. 724-725, "Religion", by Frederick Mark Gedicks.

5AIRFAA URL:​uscode/​text/​42/​1996a.

6RFRA URL:​103/​bills/​hr1308/​BILLS-103hr1308eas.pdf.

7AIRFA URL:​uscode/​text/​42/​1996.

8AIRFAA URL:​uscode/​text/​42/​1996a.

9It also doesn’t mean that it’s in the best interest of Native Americans to remain on the big-government plantation. It’s in the best interest of American Indians to dump that dependence when they’re ready, rather than when non-Indian treaty-breakers (Christians should read this as "covenant breakers".) say they should dump it.

10This treatment of the "parade of horribles" was introduced at URL: ./0_8_3_Am_I_(Smith).htm​#ParadeOfHorriblesIntro.

11URL: ./0_9_Am_II-IV.htm​#AmTwo.

1226 U.S.C. §501(c)(3) URL:​uscode/​text/​26/​501.

13Article I §2 cl 3 URL: ./0_2_0_Art_I_Sec_1-7.htm​#Art1Sec2Cl3.

14URL: ./0_8_3_Am_I_(Smith).htm​#ParadeOfHorriblesIntro.

15URL: ./0_2_1_5_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_6-18.htm​#Article1Sec8Cl7.

16If we weren’t speaking specifically about American jurisprudence, we might also include Antarctica.

17URL: ./0_8_3_Am_I_(Smith).htm​#ParadeOfHorriblesIntro.

18URL: ./0_8_3_Am_I_(Smith).htm​#ParadeOfHorriblesIntro.

19The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, pp. 168-169, "Commerce Power", by Robert J. Steamer.

20The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, pp. 833-834, "State Sovereignty and States’ Rights", by A. E. Keir Nash.

21The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, p. 400, "History of the Court: Rights Consciousness in Contemporary Society", by Stephen L. Wasby.

22URL: ./0_8_3_Am_I_(Smith).htm​#ParadeOfHorriblesIntro.

23Because there is so much confusion about such issues, it’s important to distinguish, in passing, libertarian behavior from libertine behavior. The former has a high view of human rights, while the latter is too preoccupied with sensual hedonism to hold this high view.

24We’ll examine this more fully when we study the 5th Amendment, URL: ./0_A_0_Am_V_(Intro).htm​#FifthAm.

25RFRA URL:​103/​bills/​hr1308/​BILLS-103hr1308eas.pdf.

26Study The Creature from Jekyll Island to see why it’s critical for us to rid ourselves of the Federal Reserve.

27URL: ./0_9_Am_II-IV.htm​#AmTwo.

2826 U.S.C. §501(c)(3) URL:​uscode/​text/​26/​501.

copyright © 2013 Charles Raleigh Porter, III
[Copyright pertains to both software and literary content.]