:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

Please be aware that: The Way of Kings™ Forum is back online; however, they were not able to salvage their old database for that forum. Wherefore, all of the registrations and content that was on that forum is gone; which means that you will need to re-register on that forum to communicate with them and to receive their forum based services.

Though we usually hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time); excluding emergencies and national holidays; such as, this coming Friday (November 10, 2017), Veteran's Day; therefore, there will be no Conference Call on Friday; because, the office will be closed for the national holiday.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call: Wednesday (November 8, 2017).

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Team Law and Religion

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

MarushiaDark
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Monday January 10th, 2011 6:35 am MST

Team Law and Religion

Postby MarushiaDark » Friday January 14th, 2011 6:06 am MST

I've noticed that, on your website, you use a lot of Christian references to the effect of, "The King of Kings wanted it this way," and "the Bible says ____" and so forth, i.e. statements that would lead one to believe that Team Law believes that Christianity is the true and correct religion. Now, I can understand the argument (and fact) that the Bible was used as a source of inspiration in crafting United States law, since much of our law derives from the Magna Carta and general British Law, which used the Bible as a guidepost. However, I know that it is not the only source for our law. For instance, part of the Age of Enlightenment was about studying the classics and ancient empires like Rome and Egypt, both of which were major influences on the Founding Fathers who gave us this great nation.

Indeed, many of the Founding Fathers were not Christian, but deists (such as Thomas Paine, who wrote many works regarding the errors in Christianity); and they were wise to include such things as the First Amendment and the last line of Article VI, both of which protect people from the tyranny inherent in recognizing just one religion as the truth.

So my question is thus. What is Team Law's position regarding the relationship between religion and law? Do you believe that Christianity is exclusively correct, or merely one possibility among many? Do you believe that the Bible is the literal truth and that Jesus was a real man born c. 4 B.C. who was the only son of God, or that the Bible merely an inspirational among several for our law system with some truths and some falsehoods and some allegories in it?

The United States is, after all, just a society of people that have come together in common cause and understanding for the purposes of fulfilling some common goal (such as defense). To further illustrate my meaning, let us say that I create a society, the rules of which are based upon the works of Shakespeare, Grimm's Fairy Tales, and Avatar: The Last Airbender. Though such works are the inspiration for my society's laws and though there may be some moral and social truths in those works, it is understood that they are, nevertheless, fictitious.

Now, I am not saying the Bible is fictitious, nor am I saying it is true. I believe we should keep an open mind and let people decide that for themselves, building up their own evidence. That is my position. Is that yours as well?

Please clarify.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Team Law and Religion

Postby Admin » Saturday January 15th, 2011 12:03 pm MST

:h: MarushiaDark:
To respectively respond to your inquiry we will separate our response into three parts, as follows:[hr][/hr]Point One: Team Law’s basic statement on religious beliefs in relation to our forum.
Outside of the effects upon the believer's sojourn through this life, the individual personal beliefs of any participant on this forum regarding religion, etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with any other party’s beliefs and/or interests as they may relate to Team Law. Accordingly, personal beliefs will effect an individual’s perception of laws and their effect; thus, such beliefs may be an elemental part of an inquiry posted on our forums. However, that in no way infringes on any other person’s beliefs or rights to believe whatever they desire. Still, the presentation of purely religious topics would not be relevant to the purpose of our forum as expressed in our Forum Rules.[hr][/hr]Point two: The false allegation.
Regarding your allegation that the Constitution protects from and or that there can possibly be:
MarushiaDark wrote:…tyranny inherent in recognizing just one religion as the truth.
The allegation is flawed in at least two ways:
  1. The Constitution limited the government from: making laws either “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and, from requiring a “religious Test” as “a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Such limitations in no way imply the allegation that an inherent tyranny may exist in recognizing one religion as true. They simply limit the government from imposing any religion upon the people or upon the officers of the government. Such limitations make no statement regarding the possibility of truth in any religion. In fact they promote the free exercise of the same so long as such exercises do not infringe upon the private rights of others. The founding fathers reasonably faced the dilemma of dealing with the potential of many different religions and those that follow none of them and the potential nations have had of fostering any particular religion as a basis for controlling the people. They simply determined it best to eliminate such elements from the powers of government.
  2. No such alleged tyranny can possibly be inherent to acknowledging truth; whether it be found through religious pursuits or by other means. If such a tyranny were possible then any recognition of the truth could be classified as tyranny; which classification would violate the very fabric of the purpose for those constitutional limitations. The simple facts remain:
    1. Religions are generally based upon a people’s belief in a gospel (way of life) as if it were dictated by a supreme power—God.
    2. Given such a gospel (God’s way of life) and given the presupposition that God is perfect and unchanging, there can be only one such true gospel.
    3. Yet the people follow many different religions; all of which have disparate beliefs when compared one to another.
    4. Thus, if any of the religions can possibly actually be God’s way of life only one can be.
    5. There can be no tyranny in following the truth—in following God’s one true way!
    Of course, that last paragraph becomes the chant of the populace that would believe in that version of “The Truth”. Tyranny would only come into the matter if anyone were given power to force that one way upon the people that believed differently. Thus, tyranny can never be found in following the truth.
However, the founding fathers recognized that when it comes to religions, it would be tyrannical to use governmental force to impose one person’s, or groups, beliefs upon the people that believed differently; regardless of the truth or its source. They recognized that the people’s right to their religious beliefs was a private right worthy of protecting from government. We agree.[hr][/hr]Point three: Team Law’s capacity and acknowledgment.
Team Law is a Trust; therefore, it does not have the capacity to believe or disbelieve anything. Of course, that simple fact does not limit it from acknowledging facts like: the fact that Torah comprises the first five books of the Bible; and, the fact that the Holy Bible stands at the foundation of the laws of the United States of America; which facts are foundations to the laws in this Constitutional Republic. [/list].

Even given that foundation to the laws of our Land and our government, the Constitution of the United States of America’s first Article of Amendment clearly acknowledges that the government formed by the Constitution for the United States of America is at least limited as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. However, that limitation does not limit Congressmen either from praying or from expressing the effects of their individual beliefs whatever they may be. Accordingly, Team Law functions in much the same way.

Still, it is impossible to study any relationship without knowing who the parties are as suggested in our Standard for Review. Law is no exception to that. In fact, properly following the Standard for Review is elementally necessary for the student of law to truly understand the origin of law and government.

Quite frankly, regarding that point, throughout history, the Torah presentation of the origin of man is the only viable description of man’s origin we have ever seen. We are aware of no other explanation that can even come close to standing against the scientifically acquired natural evidence that surrounds us. Thus, logically, it is quite easy to see why Christianity is the largest body of faith in all of the religions of the world.

Therefore, it would be unreasonable for an organization like Team Law not to acknowledge such a large body of believers; even though we also recognize every party’s right to believe how, where and whatever they may—so long as such beliefs do not trespass on other’s private rights.

Though most Team Law beneficiaries are naturally of the various Christian faiths (USA population is mostly Christian), we have many beneficiaries from other religions as well; including but not limited to: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Bahá'í, Sikhism, Agnosticism, Atheism and even those that believe in the storyline Corp. U.S.’ and the media religiously foist upon the population. The bottom line: the necessity of learning the law and learning how to properly apply it along with the desire to fulfill that necessity are not limited to any religion; accordingly, in Team Law, all are welcome and expected to be tolerant of others potentially varying beliefs.

In other words, considering that:
  1. All authority in law and in government are intimately bound to the origin of man and to the authority man receives from his Creator (historically best described in Torah)
  2. Torah comprises the first five books of the Bible.
  3. The Bible is foundational to the laws of our nation.
  4. Most people in the United States of America believe in the Bible and/or in Torah.
  5. In Public Law 97-280, the United States Government acknowledged The Bible is: “the word of God” and admonished all Americans to learn and apply it.
It is only reasonable that Team Law would reflect on elements of the Bible and its teachings as Holy Scripture and offer them to the people as they seem applicable in law and in the process of awakening the people to the necessity of learning and applying the law.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

MarushiaDark
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Monday January 10th, 2011 6:35 am MST

Re: Team Law and Religion

Postby MarushiaDark » Tuesday January 18th, 2011 1:44 pm MST

Just the idea of such a law as Public Law 97-280 suggests a violation of the First Amendment in which Congress is forbidden from making any law respecting the establishment of religion.

User avatar
CloseTheBoxQuick
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 12
Joined: Tuesday October 26th, 2010 10:49 am MDT

Re: Team Law and Religion

Postby CloseTheBoxQuick » Tuesday January 18th, 2011 9:04 pm MST

MarushiaDark,
I don't know much about the Public Law you're talking about, but I did follow the link and read it. I didn't read anything in it that sounded like an endorsement of religion. All the "whereases" are about the Bible's impact on our nation's history, which is a matter of historical fact, not personal belief. The First Amendment doesn't preclude Congress from acknowledging historical facts just because they involve somebody's religion.

When it says that: "renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people," again it is stating a historical fact. In America's past, the people's knowledge of and faith in God through the Bible DID strengthen the people and their nation; thus, it is not a religious statement to say so. If it's anything, it's a statement of sociological principle. The quotation is speaking to the Bible's effectiveness in creating certain social goods; the quotation is NOT talking about the Bible's effectiveness at, say, producing salvation in the souls of individuals, or anything else of a religious or spiritual nature.

When the document says, "in recognition of ... our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures," again, it is talking about the fact that the strength our nation and people used to possess due to their "knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture" was at a low point; thus, the authors saw the need to return to the source of that strength in order to strengthen the people and the nation again. What kind of strength? Again, we are talking about things that benefit society. Not personal salvation or other religious concepts. It is important to remember that the State has its own uses for religion, and if you are religious, it's important to keep your focus on the religious nature of your faith. What does God want from you? This is very different from what the government probably wants from you, although the government will exploit religion and the message of religion in order to get people to voluntarily produce the social goods (that benefit government) that may be associated with a particular set of beliefs.

When it refers to the Bible as "Holy Scripture" and the "Word of God," I don't think Congress is actually making a statement of faith that the Bible is holy or that it contains the actual words of God. I think the document uses those phrases simply because they are alternate names that people have used throughout the centuries for the Bible. The Bible is known as "the Word of God," not because it actually IS the words of God (although that could be true too) but just because that's a name that people use for it.

I read this Public Law as simply the Congress' request that people study and apply the teachings of the Bible because Congress thinks that such study and application would bring certain benefits to society as a whole. In the same vein, Congress might as well exhort us to study and apply the Constitution for the same reason; or to study and apply Tai Chi; or just to go to college and study ANYTHING (actually, Congress PAYS people to do that!). You see what I'm saying?
I'm not Chaotic Good after all -- TEAMLAW.NET is teaching me I am Lawful Good!! :-D

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Team Law and Religion

Postby Admin » Thursday January 20th, 2011 6:37 pm MST

:h: Closetheboxquick:
You nailed it!

There is a significant difference between “establishing a religion” and acknowledging the affect of either a religion or the historical documents canonized as the scripture of a religion. The same thing goes to recognizing the beneficial affect experienced by the followers of such a religion as they apply what they learn from studying such scriptures.

None of those things qualify as “establishing a religion”; in spite of Supreme Court rulings that imply that public schools can interfere with a student’s right to free exercise of the religion by limiting them from praying or reading such religious scripts while they are at school.

Further review of such rulings (as well as compelled subjects foisted upon the people through such educational institutions, the media and other such resources) does raise some question regarding the first amendment secured rights limiting Congress: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Regarding that matter we note the abundant reconstructed “educational resources” that preach the religious theory that alleges Great Britain ever ruled the people of the land today known as the United States of America. Sure, with that much political support, many people actually believe that as if it were true. However, most of us that learned our history in the 60’s or before were taught that the people that came here and settled through the instrumentality of Great Britain know that those people from the Mayflower Compact down acquired their Land in allodium; which secured their promised right to self-govern. Great Britain never overcame that simple fact even through its repeated efforts to occupy and/or war with the nation that became our Constitutional Republic. Thus, Great Britain never successfully acquired any legal or lawful authority to rule here.

Another such myth preached to the people as if it were a religion is the allegation that Corp. U.S. is the original jurisdiction government of our country. We have repeatedly shown the path to discover the truth and evidence of that fallacy.

Another such religious myth, patterned after the worship of Mammon (see The Seduction), is the allegation that the social security card is your card and it bears your social security number; however, a simple review of the laws and circumstances surrounding the cards presentation to the cardholder proves it is neither your card nor your number; even the respective laws regarding that matter proclaim the card belongs to Corp. U.S. and the cardholder merely holds the same in trust.

Though there are many other such myths religiously followed and politically forced upon the people through Corp. U.S.’ own style of Priestcraft, the one that most people in the United States of America would recognize as a religious myth is the allegation that mankind on this earth descended from pond scum over a period of billions of years; which is presented as if it was the purely derived scientific origin of man; sometimes blamed on Darwin (a devout Christian) as if it were his theory. How absurd!

I marvel that publications like National Geographic seem to largely support such a ridiculous theory in the face of the available evidence; not the least of which includes:
  1. The mathematical formula that the Carbon 14 dating system comes from has an error factor of something like 5,000 – 50 Billion years;
  2. The geological evidences on the planet show signs of E.L.E. (Extinct Level Events); impacts with asteroids, meteors, etc. not much over 6,000 years ago.
    • Proponents of this myth proclaim that such events were the cause of things like the extinction of the dinosaurs.
    • Quite frankly, E.L.E. of that magnitude kill off virtually every living thing on the planet; so, those theories are mutually exclusive.
    My personal favorite are the astrological evidences, like:
    • I remember going to a brand new planetarium some thirty years ago where the latest in lighting and reflection technologies for building such buildings provided just the right amount of reflection of light so the beam that provided the lights from the projectors could not be seen while still showing brightly lit stars on the ceiling as if they were in the heavens above; and, the computer linked projector pods could be programmed to track and show celestial body (stars, planets, etc.) movements over time even when no start charts are available. Such movement was made possible by programming the entire history of known star charts into the computer and then having the computer software use the known star charts to extrapolate movements over time where there are no start charts.

      After the new planetarium was up and running, I attended a show where they presented something they discovered purely by happenstance. When they ran the program back in time at the meridian of time, the year 0, a beam of light reflected off of the ceiling onto the projector pod. The coincidence with the time of the Biblical account of Christ’s birth and the story of the beam of light the wise men followed was simply too amazing! Thus, they plotted the location on the planet where such a light would have hit was, in fact, the City of David.

      What they learned from that scientific evidence, extrapolated from the known star charts, was the cause of the beam related in the Biblical account was the alignment of three primary stars effectively forming a photon cannon that projected the column of light the lit up Bethlehem.

      When they continued to run the projectors back in time they came to a point in time, a bit over 6,000 years ago, when the stars simply went whacko! Accordingly they imagined they were witnessing cascade failure (in the computer program); caused by using a very small amount of data from existing star charts that could not handle forecasting the nearly 6,000 years beyond the known star charts.

      Accordingly, they then reset the projectors to the present and had the computer plot the future movement of the stars. That worked well for some 1,000 years and again they ran into a similar demonstration of the imagined cascade failure. They expected the program did not work as well for the future because in the past they had several hundred years of known star charts followed by a significant span of time with no charts then more charts from stargazers like Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) who lived in AD 127-145. Thus, the imagined that gap in time gave the program the boost it needed to extrapolate further into the past than the future.

      However, one scientist decided to calculate what might have caused the appearance of cascade failure by assuming each star’s path had actually not changed and he looked at what would have had to have happened to make it appear to have so dramatically changed. In fact the result of those calculations indicated that it was not the star paths that had changed; rather, it was the movement of the earth in the frame of the consistent pattern of the Stars’ movement. Accordingly, he was able to plot the path of the earth as it moved through the stars to land in this solar system. There was no cascade failure. The affect was actually planetary motion.

      What the planetarium computer had shown was, sometime over 6,000 years ago star movement shows this planet came from somewhere else and landed in this solar system then at the time of Christ’s birth three primary stars beamed a pillar of light towards Bethlehem and finally in about one thousand years this planet will again leave its orbit in this solar system to return in the exact same direction from whence it originally came.

      Wow! I was blown away by the presentation. I later learned that the same experiment was made at other such planetariums each reporting the same effect. Accordingly, such events would certainly strip the atmosphere off from this planet and no living thing (as we know them) would have the capacity to endure such an E.L.E. Also, that evidence leaves the Moses Genesis revelation regarding the Origin of Man the only scenario that provides a reasonable story of man’s existence on this planet.
Still, that is not the point of this response. The point of this response is to acknowledge that forcing people to study and learn such theories that do not fit the historical facts of life while limiting them from exploring other evidences that contradict the favored theory, both favors the establishment of a religious belief in the theology of Mammon (see The Seduction) and limits people from practicing their own personally accepted faith; which is exactly what is being done in the schools of our time. Yet that Mammon theology so taught is not generally considered a religion even though it fits all of the aspects of one. Thus, the argument that is fits all of the elements of a religion will not be politically accepted until the people come to realize the truth regarding such myths.

Understanding such matters cannot excuse people from not obeying the established laws. Accordingly, if the people want a change in such matters they have to go to work learning and applying the law. It always comes back to that same thing—the people are required to know the law. Like Benjamin Franklin intimated, we can only keep our Constitutional Republic if we know it laws and how to apply them.

Thus, the establishment clause of the First amendment limits Congress from passing any laws that will make a recognized religion/church a national or state institution; still, that has never either limited Congress from acknowledging the effects of the people’s religions on those that follow them or from starting every session of Congress with prayer (which they have always done and continue to do).

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Wayne2195
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Wednesday December 22nd, 2010 11:32 am MST

Re: Team Law and Religion

Postby Wayne2195 » Tuesday January 25th, 2011 10:05 am MST

If our founding fathers viewed Progressivism and Socialism as religions, would that change the meaning of the establishment clause of the first article of the bill of rights?

My understanding of the establishment clause is that the federal government and the state governments are prohibited from dictating my beliefs and convictions in every branch of philosophy including science, education, art, history, and philosophy/religion.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Team Law and Religion

Postby Admin » Wednesday January 26th, 2011 10:40 am MST

:h: Wayne2195:
We cannot tell how things would have changed if something else might have happened; however, it should be quite obvious the founding fathers certainly believed in the rights of Life, Liberty and Property; not the least of which include the rights of free choice and self-government. Thus, it was important to them that though the factual realities of history could not be forced upon the people, the same must be available to the people to be known by them.

The political control concepts of Socialism and Democracy were certainly known by the founding fathers (self-evident in the Federalist Papers); which concepts were seen by them as the worst possible forms of government. They set up our Constitutional Republic system to retain the peoples’ charge over their own destinies; making it possible for the people to easily maintain their rights and their control over the government through the proper application of law.

They knew our Constitutional Republic’s claim to national sovereignty was the rightful claim of each individual sovereign man, woman and/or inherent heir in our country. They knew the governmental authority to wield that national sovereignty among nations and or in control over the respective states in the Union came collectively from the individual sovereign landowners as they granted only the portion of their sovereign authority that was necessary for the government to lawfully function in accord with our Constitution for the United States of America as that authority was limited by their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Of course, over time as the people relied more and more upon the officers of government to know and properly execute the law, they themselves forgot the law, its meaning, their responsibility to uphold it and their inherent sovereignty. Thus, through their ignorance, they vacated their rightful position as the controllers of the government.

Some people question our reference to that sovereign authority coming only from the “sovereign landowners”; of course, such questions are a direct result of the people forgetting what sovereignty is. “Sovereignty” is defined by its three combined elements:
  1. Dominion,
  2. Agency; and,
  3. Possession.
Thus, if a man stands alone and without landownership, his God given inherent right to sovereignty is limited to the domain defined by the exclusive confines of his own body; and, wherever he stands on the planet he does so on someone else’s land; thus, he remains there only by the tenancy the respective landowner permitted to him, so allowing him to stand. Thus, such a man stands with no external sovereign right or effect on any other party or land. Thus, the collective sovereignty of the nation comes from the landowning people within the nation. This is exactly why the founding fathers only recognized landowners as electors.

The bottom line: as you surmised, they set the respective limits of the Constitution of the United States of America on government officials to specifically preserve the rights of the people to: “worship how where and what they may, without governmental interference.” Such reservations must include, as you noted, a prohibition against the governments “from dictating … beliefs and convictions in every branch of philosophy including science, education, art, history and philosophy/religion.” The one limitation from that prohibition is the right to so worship and function does not permit trespass upon others rights.

Accordingly, it is that limitation that Corp. U.S. expands to the prohibition of religious related matters; based upon the allegation that governmental support of religion oriented public displays would limit others of different faiths in some way.

However, if a matter is not directly tied to a known religion they imagine it does not so limit people from their right to believe in facts well established as cornerstones to their religions. For example: the origin of man issue. Very little scientific evidence actually supports the theory of evolution between species; let alone the allegation that man evolved from pond scum. Yet, as we showed above, significant scientifically obtained evidence supports the basis of the creation story from Genesis. Still, that story is not available to be taught in the schools and pond scum evolution is so taught. It seems the exact opposite of what the constitutional limitation provides. The same thing goes for the allegation that Great Britain ever ruled here. They tried, but when they pushed hard enough the people cast them off in the War of Independence. The people in this country always had the right of self-government even if they have become so complacent to actually honor their obligation to learn and apply the law to lawfully control the government.

Thus, again, the remedy to our current situation is to take on that inherent responsibility we all share to actually know the law. So it is Team Law’s purpose to help people learn how to learn the law from its source, from their own firsthand experience studying the law and its history. To that end we hope you will support our effort.

We also hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests