What do I mean by "Fight every single ticket?" Well here's what I don't mean:

• Don't cause an accident and then try to get out of your responsiblities to the other person.
• Don't infringe upon others rights while trying to secure yours.
• Don't think by successfully defeating a statute or ordinance it relieves you of your responsiblities as a parent and/or citizen.

Here's what I do mean:

You were born with a truck-load of God granted rights. You have them no matter what, up and until you either infringe upon someone elses rights or God takes them away from you. You have them whether or not you go to Church. Whether or not your voted in the last election. Whether or not you contribute to the Salvation Army. It's just that simple. Now, if you infringe upon others rights, you should expect to have your rights removed or restricted. It's just that simple again. If you have your rights taken away, but you didn't infringe on anyone elses rights, then FIGHT IT. Your rights can only be taken away by your infringement of others rights. Since government is charged w/the duty to see to it all our rights are secured, it's the one who will problably take them away from you. However, this is not a carte' blanche for the government. It can only take them from you in the instance of you infringing upon someone elses rights. Absent that, you FIGHT IT. How do we FIGHT IT? I, with the devine providence of the Lord and the events He has put into place, have developed a philisophy.

For me, all rights are religious in nature. I believe God gave me life, liberty and the rest of my rights. If we had a Godly government, none of us would ever have to deal w/the infringements. But our present government institution is not a Godly one. How do we know? Does government respect the rights God grants you? For me, it's been 99% NO. So what am I to do? I distance myself as best I can.




2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and lawlessness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

2 Corinthians 6:16 What ageement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: I will live with them and walk amoung them, and I wil be their God, and they will be my people .

2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean things and I will receive you.

So far, I've been very fortunate in these things. But they have, by and large, been on a personal, one to one level. For the most part, they envolve little or no government authorities. They do however, require some interesting ways of doing things.


Matthew 10:16 I am sending you out like sheep amoung the wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

Matthew 10:17 But be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues.

Matthew 10:18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentils.

Matthew 10:19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say,

Matthew 10:20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

I can attest to that last line personally. Now I've ventured out into some areas that are not so easy. Many times I have been able to limit my contact w/the officier or government official. That's the best way, and actually like the first ones, where it is "one on one." You simply present your case to them w/sincerity and honesty, and they respect your rigths. However, as time goes on, I have more and more contact, so inevitably, I end up in contact w/the government in a more official way. Also, there are times when you will run into those who do not respect your beliefs. These are not so simple.

Thus, I eventually end up in court or a hearing. I don't like to be there, but I don't mind too much either. When I get here, I want to maintain that distance, as best I can. I'd like to build a wall as high as heaven to insulate me from them. I do this in several ways.

1. Use their own "laws" against them. My opinion is that Godless government has a serious shortcoming: it lacks foundation. Thus, many of the rules and regulations it creates are flawed from the start. This could be something as simple as proceedural arguments to language that is uncomprehensible. Read every line of every statute cited critically. Don't take anything for granted. Don't rush; read every word, one at a time, w/complete understanding. Use their own bricks to build the wall.

2. I rely upon the times and people in our government when it was a Godly government. They left legacies for us to use. Even during some of the worst times, you can find people who had God in their hearts and their decisions show us that. There are many Supreme Court decisions and opinions that support a Godly government. So I use them to build the wall. (US v. Texas 1966 is one such case, even tho it doesn't mention "God" anywhere.)

3. I rely on my freedom of religion. So far, they have not been able to dimish that one to the point that I cant use it to build the wall. Yes, they have diminished it enough to effect my life, but I can still pull out the Armour of God when I need it.

You'll notice I keep refering to a wall. Well I do this for several reasons. But the one I'd like to mention now is this: The Supreme Court has declared there is a "wall of seperation between church and state." Okay, I'll accept that as Public Policy in the 90s. I disagree with it, but that is the reality of our current system. So, I choose to be on this side of the wall; the Lord's side. They want to build a wall between our people and the government? So be it. I'm on the this side of the wall, the state is now on the other.

(Bible Quotes from The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament)

If you would like an excellent reference for the history of religion in our country, God and The Americans was one of the very best you could find (if you can find it, it's no longer online and not on Amazon). It was fair, unbiased and supported by quotes and facts. It was also very complete, going from well before the discovery of America to present day. It was written by Paul Johnson, an eminent British author. I strongly recommend it if you can find it. Here's a few excerpts:

In 1645, Winthrop delivered a speech setting out the ideology of this holy commonwealth and defining the limitation imposed by religion on the liberties of the people. Man, he insisted, had "a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest.... This liberty is maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority, it is the same kind of liberty whereof Christ hath made us free.... If you stand for your natural corrupt liberties, and will do what is good in your own eyes, you will not endure the least weight of authority... but if you will be satisfied to enjoy such civil and lawful liberties, such as Christ allows you, then you will quietly and cheerfully submit unto that authority which is set over you... for your good."

In Winthrop's opinion, therefore, there could be no question of religion being a "private" matter. It was a public matter, because religious belief, society, and the state were inseparable. Government was not just a secular institution but a religious one, too. Another architect of America, William Penn, wrote in 1682 in his Preface to the Frame of Government of Pennsylvania:

Government seems to me a part of religion itself, a thing sacred in its institution and end... . It crushes the effects of evil and is as such (though lower yet) an emanation of the same divine power that is both author and object of pure religion, government itself being otherwise as capable of kindness, goodness, and charity as a more private society.

It is important, I think, to grasp that these early settlements of English-speaking America were both individual and collective contracts with God to set up a church-state, not just a religious settlement. The earliest, the Mayflower Compact of 1620, reads:

We, whose names are underwritten... having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves together in a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid.

The church was formally constituted in exactly the same manner, as at Salem in 1629:

We covenant with the Lord and with one another; and do bind ourselves in the presence of God, to walk together in all His ways, according as He is pleased to reveal Himself unto us in His blessed word of truth.

Here we come to the most important point of all. The multiplicity of America's religious structure, and the continuance of the millenarian ideal, gave religious revivalism the opportunity to act as a unifying, national force. The revival known as the Great Awakening, which began in 1719 and continued for the next quarter-century and more, was the formative event in the history of the United States, preceding the movement for independence and making it possible.

The Great Awakening crossed all religious and sectarian boundaries, made light of them indeed, and turned what had been a series of European - style churches into American ones. It would almost be true to say that it created an ecumenical American type of religiosity which affected all groups: certainly it gave a distinctive American flavor to a wide range of denominations. This might be summarized under the following heads: evangelical vigor; a tendency to downgrade the clergy; little stress on liturgical correctness, or on parish boundaries; and above all an emphasis on individual spiritual experience. Its key text was Revelations 21:5, "Behold, I make all things new," which was also the text for the American phenomenon as a whole.

Nor is the American Revolution conceivable without the religious background. The difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution is that the American Revolution, in its origins, was a religious event, whereas the French Revolution was an antireligious event. As John Adams was to put it long afterward, in 1818: "The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people: and change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations."

So America's freedom and independence were brought about essentially by a religious coalition, which provided the rank and file of a movement led by a more narrowly based elite of Enlightenment men. John Adams, who had lost his original religious faith, nonetheless recognized the essential role played by religion in unifying the majority of the people behind the independence movement and giving them common beliefs and aims:

One great advantage of the Christian religion is that it brings the great principle of the law of nature and nations, love your neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would have that others should do to you-to the knowledge, belief, and veneration of the whole people. Children, servants, women, and men are all professors in the science of public as well as private morality.... The duties and rights of the man and the citizen are thus taught from early infancy.

What in effect John Adams was implying, albeit he was a secularist and a nonchurchman, was that the form of Christianity which had developed in America was a kind of ecumenical and unofficial state religion, a religion suited by its nature, not by any legal claims, to be given recognition by the republic because it was itself the civil and moral creed of republicanism.

Hence, though the Constitution and the Bill of Rights made no provision for a state church- quite the contrary-there was an implied and unchallenged understanding that America was a religious country, that the republic was religious not necessarily in its forms but in its bones, that it was inconceivable that it could have come into existence, or could continue and flourish, without an overriding religious sentiment pervading every nook and cranny of its society. This religious sentiment was based on the Scriptures and the Decalogue, was embodied in the moral consensus of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and manifested itself in countless forms of mainly Christian worship.

The Moral Theology

of the Melting Pot

Alexis De Tocqueville in his Democracy in America, published in 1835, said that the first thing which struck him in the United States was the attitude of, and toward, the churches. At first he found it almost incredible:

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other: but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.

He added: "Religion... must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of [the United States]; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions." And Americans, he concluded, held religion "to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."