Posted on 04/03/2012 5:22:44 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Communism requires an answer. The Church has never failed to give it one. In today’s jargon, it goes something like this - “NO SALE”.
Neither in jot nor tiddle is compliance and cooperation with evil an option in Catholic teaching, even with “nuance”.
Let our yes be “yes”, and our no be “no”.
In fact, let our “No” be “NO - NO - NO” :o)
All y'all, I'm interested in your thoughts, and sorry if I've pinged multiples. I have fast but fallible fingers on the keyboard today.
The military, police, and most especially the federal agencies WILL fire on us, arrest us, round us up and drag us off to the reeducation camps if ordered to do so.
Count on it.
The leftist secular media will cheer them on, and the 0bama voters will say we’re a bunch of terrorists who deserved it.
Your opening statement observing government's assuming a role that "forbids what God requires" and "requires what God forbids" describes a role inconsistent with the Founders' ideas and of those the sources and minds from which they drew their ideas.
Perhaps this is illustrated by the "Natural Law" concept described in the following essay, which is reprinted with permission.
"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)
The Founders DID NOT establish the Constitution for the purpose of granting rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, and property.
Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.."
Herein lay the security for men's individual rights - an immutable code of law, sanctioned by the Creator of man's rights, and designed to promote, preserve, and protect him and his fellows in the enjoyment of their rights. They believed that such natural law, revealed to man through his reason, was capable of being understood by both the ploughman and the professor. Sir William Blackstone, whose writings trained American's lawyers for its first century, capsulized such reasoning:
"For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the...direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws."
What are those natural laws? Blackstone continued:
"Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due.."
The Founders saw these as moral duties between individuals. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society . their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."
Americas leaders of 1787 had studied Cicero, Polybius, Coke, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, among others, as well as the history of the rise and fall of governments, and they recognized these underlying principles of law as those of the Decalogue, the Golden Rule, and the deepest thought of the ages.
An example of the harmony of natural law and natural rights is Blackstone's "that we should live honestly" - otherwise known as "thou shalt not steal" - whose corresponding natural right is that of individual freedom to acquire and own, through honest initiative, private property. In the Founders' view, this law and this right were inalterable and of a higher order than any written law of man. Thus, the Constitution confirmed the law and secured the right and bound both individuals and their representatives in government to a moral code which did not permit either to take the earnings of another without his consent. Under this code, individuals could not band together and do, through government's coercive power, that which was not lawful between individuals.
America's Constitution is the culmination of the best reasoning of men of all time and is based on the most profound and beneficial values mankind has been able to fathom. It is, as William E. Gladstone observed, "The Most Wonderful Work Ever Struck Off At A Given Time By he Brain And Purpose Of Man."
We should dedicate ourselves to rediscovering and preserving an understanding of our Constitution's basis in natural law for the protection of natural rights - principles which have provided American citizens with more protection for individual rights, while guaranteeing more freedom, than any people on earth.
"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." -John Locke
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
here
(End of quoted material)
Mrs. Don-O, hope this contributes to the discussion you have begun here. Easter Blessings!
This is a great and thought-provoking gift.
““Who wants to live forever, anyway?” “Brave up, my brothers - this is a good day to die!” “I am Breitbart!” “Your mother was a gerbil and your father smelt of elderberries!” “Bite me, you (redacted)!”
I already have what most people are freepin terrified of: ten children. (Chorus of omg omg, and the little running-around-in-circles guy.) I’m supposed to be scared of Darth Sebelius and that little homosexual twink who calls himself President? Sorry, not happening.”
I would give a weeks pay, to know what you redacted : )
Rest easy. Obama castigated the SCOTUS, because
the “Bulldyke” told him O Care is toast. There is no other
reason for O to have thrown a “fag fit” on SCOTUS.
” The military, police, and most especially the federal agencies WILL fire on us, arrest us, round us up and drag us off to the reeducation camps if ordered to do so”
Won’t last long...we out gun them 500 to 1..and most of the military is on our side.
“The leftist secular media will cheer them on, and the 0bama voters will say we’re a bunch of terrorists who deserved it.”
I have read on leftist blogs their objection to bowing to “Catholic Sharia Law.” I’m afraid you may be right.....
Well, I don’t know if it will involve going to prison with the bishops or not.
But I do know that active cooperation with evil is not an option. This is not a prudential choice. This is a matter of complicity with killing babies. And complicity with attacking and attempting to destroy the Roman Catholic Church.
Incidentally, this is one reason why I can never vote for Romney, either. Because he is responsible for exactly the same evils in the state of Massachusetts. He was the pioneer, and Obama is following in his footsteps. Not that either one of them ever saw a baby he didn’t want to kill—and make Catholics pay for it.
Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Vespasian respected the legions. Even the Soviet and Chinese Communists celebrated their military. Our Democrats (pfui) are openly contemptuous of soldiers. If they try to use them against Americans, I think the last words of some "elites" will be, "What happened?"
Three boys from my street are in the local National Guard unit. One's from a family with five children, one with seven, and the Ukrainian evangelical family has ten. (They live in two houses!)
I have a large vocabulary of Shakespearean invective.
I hope I would have the courage to be martyred for the Faith, but you can’t really know how you will respond until the test arrives. Peter couldn’t imagine that he would ever deny his Lord but did so three times in one night.
But...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2867430/posts?page=16#16
” Our Democrats (pfui) are openly contemptuous of soldiers. If they try to use them against Americans, I think the last words of some “elites” will be, “What happened?”
Yeah, the Dems are that obtuse : )
“Our Democrats (pfui) are openly contemptuous of soldiers. If they try to use them against Americans, I think the last words of some “elites” will be, “What happened?”
No doubt : )
I pray you are right. When it comes (note that I did not say "if it comes") it will be the sorest test of America since 1861. I hope we can stay strong.
I would like to think I would be given the grace.
But now, of course, not paying the fines is not an option. They’ll just take then unless I convert everything to gold and bury the gold.
Bless you for starting this thread and helping us all do some soul searching!
I undersrand that the IRS is going to be the enforcement/collection agency. If about 10 million ordinary people, well-prepared and well-versed in such things, got out of withholding somehow, and then invested a lot of energy in questionable, corner-cutting hiding, loop-holing, obscuring and off-shoring (like I guess rich people do)(or so I'm told), wouldn't that make enforcement and collections get all twisty-tailed around and effectively impede the IRS' abilty to carry out their mission? I'm told that just filing for extensions would shut down the IRS System, if a million people did it.
But I don't know about such things. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to turn the 10,000 page tax code to our own advantage via its labyrinthine built-in complexities?
Serious question from a seriously unknowledgeable person.
Enlighten me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.