Brother Of Yeshua/Jesus

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Is North Carolina Constitutionally Immoral?

What is Constitutional Immorality?  This is when a Constitutional God-Given Right that by American Jurisprudence is UnAlienable, is dismissed and negated without so much as even a reason provided.  And while Atheists and Marxist Secular Progressives routinely extend their middle index finger upward at God in their attempt to undermine the American Spirituality that formed the foundational bed-rock of God-Given UnAlienable Rights based upon the Laws of Nature and Nature's God (see American Spirituality), when the actions of a state which is sworn to uphold the Constitution in the name of representing the Will of the People, parallel that of the Atheists, then truly we have a tyrannical American abomination that can only be portrayed as Constitutional Immorality!  The Atheist agenda is to incrementally undermine the people's individual rights -- removing even the mention of God and Constitutional Rights from the American cultural arena -- in order to inaugurate a European type socialist state.   While this has been largely accomplished in states such as New York and California, the South is the next target.  Thus, if the South Rises Again, it will be to save the Nation from the Atheist folly that strives to undermine the whole of our Constitutional form of government.  

Black's Law Dictionary defines Religious Freedom as: "Within  Constitution embraces  not only the right to worship GOD according to the dictates of one's conscience, but  also the right to do, or  forbearing of which is not inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society."  And with respect to these organic Constitutional Rights of Man, the Court has ruled that “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as Legal Principles to be applied by the courts” (West Virginia State Board of Education vs Burnette 319  US 624, 638, [1943]).  As an Atheistic symbol of the paradigm of thought which rejects the biblical doctrine of Divine Providence -- which symbol is in direct conflict with everything that I know to be true -- unless it can be demonstrated that my religious objection to wearing a seatbelt is “inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society”, then the state is Constitutionally duty-bound to provide me with a religious exemption from the law.   And this is especially true when it is realized that the law already provides exemptions to  “Persons with a certified phobia of seat belts; Persons tending to a child's personal needs; Situations where all seating positions equipped with seat belts are occupied.”  Further, the state of North Carolina even permits people not only to ride in the open bed of a pick-up truck, but also permits children under the age of twelve “If an adult is present in the bed or cargo area of the vehicle and is supervising the child”.   An Internet search on children riding in the back of a pickup truck provides factual statistics of alarm.   Quoting one article: “Any pickup passenger is better protected when riding in the cab of the truck than when riding in the bed” ( Read more: Child Safety in Pickup Trucks |  ).   Which means that if there existed any consistency in the laws, a child in an open bed would be required to wear an approved motorcycle helmet.  Again, none of these exemptions to the existing law have a claim of a higher order than that of First Amendment Protection which the court has chosen to ignore without so much as providing even an explanation -- i.e., for an American, a blatant violation of fundamental principles that can only be portrayed as being Constitutionally Immoral.   

What is a Paradigm of Thought?  As I use the term above?  Its like the fruit of a mindset or school of thinking.  Not only does the Atheist and Secular Humanism and Progressive mindset reject God -- but there exists a whole philosophical school of thought that provides the Atheistic mindset an environment to spawn and manifest.  And in the case of the seatbelt, the Atheist Paradigm of Thought rejects Divine Providence and the biblical doctrine of predestination.   What the Atheist Paradigm of Thought does, is reject the many statements of Jesus.  As an example: When Jesus told the woman to "sin no more, lest a worst thing come upon you", Jesus was making reference to The Laws that react to each person's actions (see The Laws That Perfect Mankind - Cause And Effect).   Because of their own self-imposed ignorance of the Laws, the Atheist Paradigm of Thought maintains that Jesus was in error.    Where the Atheist attributes all events to chance, luck, natural selection or the unknown, the early Church maintained that all events have a preexisting cause -- and that not even a sparrow can fall to the ground, apart from the Will of God.   In the same way that a Swastika is a symbol of Fascist Socialism, the seatbelt is a symbol of the Atheist Paradigm of Thought that rejects the biblical doctrine of Divine Providence. 
While on the surface the refusal to wear a seat belt on religious grounds may appear odd, this is because governments have so thoroughly imposed their dogma upon the Church over the course of the last 1700 years, that the majority of believers who call themselves Christians have totally lost sight of what the original teachings and objectives were.   Rather than submit to the emperor, the first Christians chose death in the lions den.   Why?  As a Spiritual Religion, the original teachings had virtually little in common with modern government imposed Church dogma.  Thus, A. Powell Davies warned that the Dead Sea Scrolls had confirmed what biblical scholars had suspected and believed all along -- i.e., that the Emperor Constantine and the Pagan Church of Rome created a religion of blind faith and belief where he wrote that: “Biblical scholars were not disturbed by what they found in the Dead Sea Scrolls because they had known all along that the origin of Christianity was not what was commonly supposed to have been (quoted by Millar Burrows in More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls).  And with respect to what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that remains ignored by the Church, Prof. John Allegro acknowledged that the facts “...may upset a great many basic teachings of the Christian Church.   This in turn would greatly upset many Christian Theologians and believers.   The heart of the matter is, in fact, the source and originality of Christian doctrine” (August 1966 issue of Harpers Magazine).   And the Adam Clark Bible Commentary stated that if one of the core doctrines imposed upon the Church by 4th century Pagan Rome is not true, that  "...the whole Christian system is vain and baseless" (see The Ten Words).    Which means that the question that is presently being raised in a North Carolina Court, is not only whether the practice of religion is subject to the whims of the state, but also the decrees of the Roman Emperors who forced their edicts upon the Church with the sentence of death.  As detailed at this   American Spirituality link, our (Deist) Constitutional Framers saw Christianity as the highest source of spiritual truth, and the very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to impose restrictions upon government, and created the necessary environment for Spiritual Christianity to again be reborn and established -- fulfilling its potential to lead mankind out of the dark ignorance of this world, and into the Light of True Enlightenment.    

Thus, these long ignored statements prompts us to pose the question: Why didn't the biblical scholars understand the true origin of Christianity prior to the discovery and examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls?   To answer this question we must consult the findings of Prof. Elaine Pagles who correctly writes: “It is the winners who write history - their way. No wonder, then, that the viewpoint of the successful majority has dominated all traditional accounts of the origin of Christianity… It suggests that these religious debates - questions of the nature of God, or of Christ - simultaneously bear social and political implications that are crucial to the development of Christianity as an institutional religion. In simplest terms, ideas which bear implications contrary to that development come to be labeled as heresy; ideas which implicitly support it become orthodox”  (see Pagles, The Gnostic Gospels).    In not learning the lessons of history, modern believers have overlooked the fact that when despots rule, they not only annihilate all opposition -- but they "...write history - their way" -- and they corrupt and burn whatever writings stand in opposition to their supremacy and rule. Which means that those doctrines of belief that are seen as orthodox and promoted by the modern-day Church today, is drawn from the side of "...political implications that [were] crucial to the development of Christianity as an institutional religion" under the direct control of Pagan Rome.    

In the case of the Christian Church beginning in the fourth century, to disagree with the doctrines affirmed by the Emperor Constantine, carried with it the sentence of death.   Thus, Edward Gibbon writes in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: ”Constantine easily believed that the heretics, who presumed to dispute his opinions or to oppose his commands, were guilty of the most absurd and criminal obstinacy... Not a moment was lost in excluding the ministers and teachers of the separated congregations from any share of the rewards and immunities which the emperor had so liberally bestowed on the orthodox clergy. But as the sectaries might still exist under the cloud of royal disgrace, the conquest of the East was immediately followed by an edict which announced their total destruction.    Thus, in the same way that whoever did not embrace the religion of the emperor met with the sentence of death, whatever scriptures did not conform to the approved version, was immediately destroyed (see ).  

The State Master Encyclopedia lists the original cause of action on religious grounds when I opposed the New York seat belt law in 2004, but New York never set a hearing on the issue.   Upon retiring to North Carolina, I was again ticketed -- even though I explained to the officer that I held a Constitutionally protected religious objection to the mandatory seat belt law which I oppose on the grounds that it is anti-biblical, anti-spiritual, and exists as an Atheist quasi-religious symbol that promotes a mindset and paradigm of thought that is founded upon abject ignorance of the Laws of God.   

In the initial trial before Judge James K. Roberson in Alamance County, the court was provided biblical citings, detailed scientific proofs, as well as testimony that demonstrated my Constitutionally protected position (see North Carolina Motion Papers).    Further evidence was submitted to the court that demonstrated that (1) the Spiritual Christians were hunted down and murdered in the fourth century because of their rejection of the  pagan religions dogma of the Roman Emperor Constantine (see The Corruption Of The Church); (2) that the original pre-Nicene Church was a purely Spiritual Religion that taught the believer a process founded upon  "...a religion of the spirit that expressed itself in the heightening and enlargement of human consciousness” (see Expansion Of Mind); (3) to the degree, that documentation was presented which demonstrates that the primary objective of the pre-Nicene Church was the spiritual maturation and enlightenment of the believers (see Religion As A System Of Education).   And that when Jesus taught that all his followers were to seek out and learn exclusively from the One Teacher (see Spiritual Intuitive Development) that reveals all truths to the mind of the sincere and faithful seeker, the wearing of a seatbelt to appease the fruit (Paradigm of Thought) of Atheism, is a rejection of Divine Providence and the direct Teachings and Revelations of the True Prophet -- all to appease and worship at the altar of  the  government ordained Atheist Paradigm of Thought. 

Further evidence was presented to demonstrate that while the spiritual essence of the Church was put to death in the fourth century, the dogmatic rulings by the Emperor Justinian in the 6th century cast the Church into the abyss of absolute ignorance with respect to the functional workings of the Laws which control every aspect of life in this world.   And because the faith-based Christians no longer possessed the necessary knowledge to understanding the movement of the Laws in the lives of mankind and all things (see The Spiritual Castration Of The Church), they became totally alienated from the true spiritual meaning of the Gospels.   Now, when the spiritual essence of the Gospel is once again in the process of being reborn, those who travail in TheWay find themselves confronted by the prevailing cultural Atheist Paradigm of Thought, and government officials who will impose UnConstitutional restrictions upon the people. 

Allan Cronshaw
aka Brother Of Yeshua/Jesus