| Patriots or Christians? | [Home] || [Contents] || [Feedback] || [V&FT] |
I have benefited greatly from your legal research and your dedication. Thank you.
We share a common faith in the Christ revealed in the Scriptures, and a common opposition to the Bush-Clinton regime of modern Secular Humanist legality.
However there is one presupposition that we apparently do not as yet share. This presupposition concerns the basic organizational paradigm of human society. I'm speaking about the State and our legal system.
This letter is an introduction to my web page describing a case I am litigating in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I bring it to your attention in the hopes of creating a "paradigm shift." I'm not as interested in telling you about my case as I am in turning you into a true radical. I think we've come to a crossroads, and the time has come to comlpetely re-think our political and legal world-view.
Even if you do not eventually accept this new paradigm of mine, I think this Web Site/Monograph will prove enlightening and challenging.
Consider The First Paradigm: In the ancient world, human society was organized ecclesiocentrically. Ancient societies were organized around religion and priestcraft. Emperors and pharaohs were part of a divine-human "chain of being" and their societies were governed by a priesthood geared to serving the divine Imperium. (Modern historians and anthropologists underplay the religious nature of ancient empires, but all students of Scripture are aware of the conflict between the religion revealed to Israel and the imitations which governed the nations around Israel.)
The Second Paradigm: In the modern world, a political paradigm holds sway. Just as ancient empires claimed to be the embodiment of true religion, modern empires claim to be the embodiment of true science, true neutrality, true secularism. The East embodies "scientific socialism;" the West might be said to be grounded in "scientific capitalism."
The ancient empires denied true religion with false religion. The empires of the modern world deny true religion with "non-religion": the religion of Secular Humanism.
The Third Paradigm lies quietly underground, like a seed ready to burst forth in organic growth; a small acorn called to be a mighty oak; a tiny mustard seed with the faith to become a tree so great that from East and West birds seek shelter in its branches from political and ecclesiastical tyranny.
This third paradigm expressly repudiates the false religions of the ancient world. This does not generate a favorable impression of the paradigm among many, even Christians, who are still defenders of an elite priesthood. Judaism, Catholicism, and the new converts to "Reconstructionist" ecclesiocentrism - all descendants of the ancient faiths -- denounce this third paradigm.
This third paradigm also repudiates the political paradigm of the modern world. This may be why Christian "patriots" are reluctant to embrace it. Consider:
Most Christians are political "co-dependents." They sense the destructive character of modern legal systems, but they do not confront them root and branch. They tinker with the system. Most Christians will not demand complete abstinence from socialism[1]; they tolerate dictatorship "in moderation." They defend statecraft in both the East and the West, "first world" and "third world." They hide their eyes from the absurdities and destructive failures of a political (polis-centered) approach to life, and cringe at the thought of being thought "eccentric" or "fringe" by the accrediting authorities of media and government. They are socialists at heart. Yes, all Christian "patriots" believe in some measure of totalitarianism. The problem is not that the Constitution has been "suspended." The problem is the Constitution's permitting the camel of socialism to get its nose in the tent.
I am appalled at the lawlessness and chaos I see around me. I am fed up with the liberal warfare/welfare State. But even though I'm fed up, and believe we're facing a crisis, I shake my head in disbelief at those who send innocent people to a fiery death -- in Waco and in Oklahoma City.
I don't think we need armed "Minutemen" to resist the State. I think we need Sons of Abraham to lay the foundations of lasting civilization. And I think taking an explicitly Christian "test oath" might be a place where many people can start to take a stand and make a difference.
I invite you to examine the Biblical basis for the Third Paradigm.
I deny the legitimacy of "pluralism." I am a Christian Theocrat. Courts have held that even if I were willing, I could not take the oath to "support the Constitution" in "good faith." I cannot be admitted to practice without taking that oath, so I'm out. For now.
Let me first give you an introduction to the oath of office which is required of attorneys.
For example, the "Free Market" system holds that the best way to produce automobiles -- quality cars for the greatest number of people at the lowest price -- is to allow men to form systems of production and distribution freely, voluntarily. The Socialist believes that the State should organize the work, decide which cars will be produced and at what price they will be sold.
A consistent "Free Market" advocate does not believe that there is any area of human life and society which is more effectively taken care of by the State than by voluntary cooperation among people. Even the most basic necessities of life, such as milk for children, are taken out of the hands of the State and placed in the hands of voluntary associations of farmers, truckers, and grocers. Or people are allowed to raise their own cows or goats, and to produce and consume their own milk. The Socialist cries, "But the children may starve if the production and distribution of milk is left to greedy capitalists!" The Free Market adherent knows from history that no greater threat to children can be imagined than to trust their well-being to the State.
I have never met a Christian "patriot" who was a consistent Free Market adherent. They all believe in some degree of socialism. They all believe that there are some areas of human life and society which are more effectively taken care of by the State than by the Free Market.
Take "National Defense" as an example. The technology exists today for every American to have a small unit the size of an air conditioner on their roof, which would contain a laser beam device and be connected to a private radar network. Should the radar network detect a hostile incoming ballistic missile, any one of the home laser units could quickly dispose of the nuclear threat. In short, the Free Market could successfully defend itself from Socialists.
In fact, as Antony Sutton, research fellow at the prestigious Hoover Institute at Stanford University, has demonstrated, the militaries of socialist nations could not exist if they were not propped up by "Free Market" economies. The Soviet military benefited from indispensable military, technological, and financial aid from the U.S., Great Britain, France, and other so-called capitalist nations. (Of course, they are really socialist nations, helping out a friend.)
If you can think of any area of human life which must never, ever, be left to voluntary associations, and should only and always be entrusted to bureaucrats, please write me at Kevin4VFT@aol.com and tell me what it is. I will cordially discuss your plea for socialism on this page.
I am about to lose my chance to practice law in the State of California. I am preparing to petition the U.S. Supreme Court. I solicit your prayers for the Court, for my preparation, and for organizations which might file a brief Amicus Curiae to help convince the Court to review my case.
I asked the State Bar of California to modify the oath required for admission to practice law. I wanted to use the words from the 1776 Delaware Constitution. This web site attempts to answer three questions:
Even if you disagree, I believe you'll find this web site challenging, and I hope that you'll keep me in your prayers.