Posted on 06/15/2015 6:44:40 AM PDT by xzins
Allow me again to place a critical piece of my thoughts at the top, so that there is clarity about what I'm saying.
At the time of the Revolution, which of the offenses of the British do you agree were justly met with force by the revolutionaries?
(FWIW, I've had a missile and a mortar shot at "me" (our location. The missile while I was, stangely for a member of the army, aboard a naval vessel.)
Just what “hard persecution” do you expect?
By all means, if they come around to round you up for a camp, fight. If they crowd your door and demand your visiting friends, fight.
But if they fine your business for refusing to bake a cake they want, who do you shoot? And what is your justification for shooting?
I’ve been turned down for post-retirement jobs. It could be my wrinkles or bifocals. It could, in some cases, be some liberal weenie didn’t want to hire ex-military. From some comments I’ve heard, I wouldn’t be surprised if some people really believe the military is full of robots.
I’ve never been asked for my views on homosexuality. I doubt I will. If they do, I’ll tell them to their face that if they anticipate a problem, they would probably get one since I will not accept an ‘in my face’ activist on homosexuality, transsexuality, or ANYONE who wants to go on and on about their sex life at work. I’ll tell them that if they want to hire someone who wants to talk about sex, to hire someone else.
But I doubt it will happen. All I’d need to do is slip in a letter of recommendation from a Baptist preacher, and a business like that won’t hire me.
But by all means, if they come to take or kill your family, fight. If they fine you...who do you plan on shooting? Or do you?
But the armed conflict was their last resort.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Thrilling.
Again: Who do you intend to shoot, and for what?
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”
Sounds like your armed insurrection should have started in the 1800s. Certainly by the time of FDR.
My ancestor refused to take up arms against the British. He was a pacifist, not a loyalist, but he lost almost everything he owned and died in poverty. I assume you approve. But since the US Government could be accused of many of the abuses that are in that list, in what sense was my ancestor wrong?
Francis Cardinal George said ...” I will die in my bed......my successor will die in Prison....and his successor will die a Martyr”.......I believe Frankie is right.
There needs to be a PRO TRADITIONAL MARRAIGE SUNDAY through out this nation. Priest and preachers would resoundingly state the churches age old position based on marriage between men and women. And this should not be kept within the walls of the churches either. Congregations need to come out of their churches and march down Mine Street where they will be seen. Take lots of pictures and let local news media know shortly before the procession. We have to flex our muscles.
I get the sense that you are misconstruing my frequent reminder, but I could be wrong. Perhaps you’re truly interested in when the list of usurpations call for rebellion. My position would be that it must be a defined point and not something that is simply in the eye of a beholder.
A “Krystallnacht” type event would definitely be a sign, but should the German Jews have responded prior to that?
The key would be the government exhibiting both ‘hate’ AND ‘persecution’ in actions.
Common law marriage exists in a handful of states. For the rest, whether you have a religious ceremony or not is of little if any legal consequence. The legal consequence is tied to the license. If you want the legal advantages without the license, hold property as joint tenants with right of survivorship and write a will.
As for your ministerial relation with caesar, I might suggest looking at whether having that bond is worth it.
As for CD, I’m not a fan of it in the classical sense (e.g. MLK). Why make caesar’s pals in the prison industry happy when there are more than enough perfectly legal responses that haven’t been looked at. If it makes folks happy to call that approach CD, then I won’t quibble over it.
The bonding is required in most states to solemnize marriages...or something like it. And there was never before a concern with the state violating the very nature of marriage itself. However, you make a good point.
I’m even thinking of changing my wedding service: “Good people we have gather together in the sight of God and in the presence of these witnesses to join this man and this woman in NATURAL marriage. (Adding the word natural). The bond of NATURAL marriage was established by God at creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ Himself adorned this manner of life by His presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. NATURAL marriage signifies to us the union between Christ and His Church, and Holy Scripture commends it to be honored among all people...”
The prayer on caesar’s lips is that Christians will do something incredibly stupid and provide an excuse. Lord I hope that people are not so demon possessed as to consider such insanity.
Interesting take on the vows.
Keep in mind that in western Europe, several countries already do the civil and religious ceremony separately. Its the norm for them. As I noted, there have been times when the Catholic churches and other churches in the US have foregone the license and just married folks. It hasn’t been the norm, but there is some precedent for it.
I conducted weddings in Germany. They first did the legal paperwork with the state at the government building.
The religious ceremony was separate.
It’s an abomination, like I said.
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.