Excellent reading; The Feudal Monarchy System v. Our Family of Man
The battle actually began when the Israelites demanded that the prophet Samuel appoint a king over them --- a king other than the Lord God. They had learned about this practice from their Canaanite neighbors who had kings--- and there were some obvious advantages to this system of monarchy.
There was always a judge on site, ready to render judgements about whatever question was facing the people. No waiting around for multiple days or months for God to reply through his prophets.
There was the opportunity to develop a stratified crony-based culture. Prior to this, one's position was based on seniority. Elders ruled. The only ones higher than the elders were the prophets, and of course, the Lord God.
Suddenly, with a king, all his cronies got social standing because of their proximity to him. Now you had princes and governors and Grand Poobahs --- and inevitably, a secular government.
The relationship of religion to monarchy has always been the same. Religious leaders (Samuel) choose the kings (Saul), To a greater or lesser extent all monarchies depend on authority garnered from theocracies that preceded them.
Even today, the British Monarchs are sealed into their office by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But what interest should God have in those who usurp his rightful position?
There have always been those who disagreed with the entire concept of kings-- whether approved by religious leaders or by birthright.
We have always served the True God, the Unseen, and have stood at odds philosophically with all kings --- even when we have been drafted to serve as kings ourselves.
In our view, the Creator is the only King.
In our view, it is oddly, singularly, inappropriate that men should choose other men to rule over them.
God created us all equal, brothers and sisters, all loved, all filled with our unique potential. Who are we to distort nature into an arbitrary pattern of monarchy, pledges, allegiances, and a caste system of social obligations?
This argument has raged for centuries.
I think you can now see why when the opportunity arose to try The Great American Experiment, and found a nation built on the principles of self-governance, we gave our fortunes earned in the Old World to fund a New World --- a world in which individual life was supremely valued, where religious freedom was a birthright, and where no man could stand over another and demand fealty.
America's real enemies have always been the monarchies and the Popes. Whether theocracies or monarchies taking their authority from theocracies, both these forms of government are eternally opposed to freeing mankind and teaching men to be responsible for themselves. Both thrive from making men dependent on them, instead.
So now, you see the two Nanny States on offer:
Candidate Number One: the war-profiteering British Monarchy, steeped in blood and destruction and oppression of "inferior races", which will tell you what to do and think every moment of your lives, cradle to grave, and tax you severely for the privilege of being a pawn in their games.
Candidate Number Two: the equally war-profiteering Papal Theocracy, steeped in blood and destruction and oppression of "infidel races", which will tell you what to do and think and shame and threaten you for every heretical thought from cradle to grave, tax you severely for your sinful nature, and withhold "eternal salvation" at a whim.
Or, you can support what we bravely began here --- a simple secular government in which free men and women accept the responsibility of governing themselves by committee and who hold the natural rights of every individual as something sacred to be protected and preserved and asserted in the face of all would-be kings and potentates.
The battle actually began when the Israelites demanded that the prophet Samuel appoint a king over them --- a king other than the Lord God. They had learned about this practice from their Canaanite neighbors who had kings--- and there were some obvious advantages to this system of monarchy.
There was always a judge on site, ready to render judgements about whatever question was facing the people. No waiting around for multiple days or months for God to reply through his prophets.
There was the opportunity to develop a stratified crony-based culture. Prior to this, one's position was based on seniority. Elders ruled. The only ones higher than the elders were the prophets, and of course, the Lord God.
Suddenly, with a king, all his cronies got social standing because of their proximity to him. Now you had princes and governors and Grand Poobahs --- and inevitably, a secular government.
The relationship of religion to monarchy has always been the same. Religious leaders (Samuel) choose the kings (Saul), To a greater or lesser extent all monarchies depend on authority garnered from theocracies that preceded them.
Even today, the British Monarchs are sealed into their office by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But what interest should God have in those who usurp his rightful position?
There have always been those who disagreed with the entire concept of kings-- whether approved by religious leaders or by birthright.
We have always served the True God, the Unseen, and have stood at odds philosophically with all kings --- even when we have been drafted to serve as kings ourselves.
In our view, the Creator is the only King.
In our view, it is oddly, singularly, inappropriate that men should choose other men to rule over them.
God created us all equal, brothers and sisters, all loved, all filled with our unique potential. Who are we to distort nature into an arbitrary pattern of monarchy, pledges, allegiances, and a caste system of social obligations?
This argument has raged for centuries.
I think you can now see why when the opportunity arose to try The Great American Experiment, and found a nation built on the principles of self-governance, we gave our fortunes earned in the Old World to fund a New World --- a world in which individual life was supremely valued, where religious freedom was a birthright, and where no man could stand over another and demand fealty.
America's real enemies have always been the monarchies and the Popes. Whether theocracies or monarchies taking their authority from theocracies, both these forms of government are eternally opposed to freeing mankind and teaching men to be responsible for themselves. Both thrive from making men dependent on them, instead.
So now, you see the two Nanny States on offer:
Candidate Number One: the war-profiteering British Monarchy, steeped in blood and destruction and oppression of "inferior races", which will tell you what to do and think every moment of your lives, cradle to grave, and tax you severely for the privilege of being a pawn in their games.
Candidate Number Two: the equally war-profiteering Papal Theocracy, steeped in blood and destruction and oppression of "infidel races", which will tell you what to do and think and shame and threaten you for every heretical thought from cradle to grave, tax you severely for your sinful nature, and withhold "eternal salvation" at a whim.
Or, you can support what we bravely began here --- a simple secular government in which free men and women accept the responsibility of governing themselves by committee and who hold the natural rights of every individual as something sacred to be protected and preserved and asserted in the face of all would-be kings and potentates.