Dear sir:

Please alert your people to the free book online at www.justicevscorruption.com for restoration of Constitutional rights.

hhammond

I don't, but such phrases as " dignity and worth of the human person and in
the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom," provide a wide
open corridor to provide welfare, not rights.   The UN promotes all types of
false rights like minimum standards of health, food, and medical care.

Joel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sterling D. Allan, RSICC Facilitator" <sterling.d.allan@...>
To: "RSICC 'Form of Government' Committee egroup" <rs_form@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:26 AM
Subject: [rs_form] U.N.'s Declaration of Fundamental Rights


> Joel,
>
> Do you have somewhere a point-for-point response for the United Nations'
> Declaration of Fundamental Rights?
> http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
>
> I was generally impressed with most of them until I got toward the end
where
> socialism was implied in nearly every point.
>
> Sterling
>
>
>
>
> ======================
>
> This message has been sent from a member of
> RSICC 'Form of Government' Committee forum
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rs_form/
>
> The forum is a publicly viewable, member-screened, committee discussion
board specifically for the purpose of debating, proposing, amending,
hammering out the ideal forms of government as indexed at
http://rsicc.org/Form/
>
> ======================
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Joel,

Do you have somewhere a point-for-point response for the United Nations'
Declaration of Fundamental Rights?
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I was generally impressed with most of them until I got toward the end where
socialism was implied in nearly every point.

Sterling

Hello Brother Sterling, Agree.
{snip}
Take care and God Bless you, your family and all
Patriot Saints. Benny, Christian Patriot Saint


>From: "Sterling D. Allan, Facilitator" <sterling.d.allan@...>
>Reply-To: rs_form@yahoogroups.com
>To: "RSICC 'Form of Government' Committee egroup"
><rs_form@yahoogroups.com>, "Remnant Saints Inter-Continental Congress
>egroup \(public\)" <rs_public@yahoogroups.com>, "RSICC Special Notices
>egroup" <rs_special@yahoogroups.com>
>CC: "Patriot Saints Newsletter" <patriotsaints@yahoogroups.com>,
>"Sterling's Friends" <SDAfriends@yahoogroups.com>, "Sterling's Newsletter"
><sterlingda@yahoogroups.com>, "David's Outcasts"
><davids_outcasts@yahoogroups.com>, "American Patriot Friend Network egroup"
><apfn@yahoogroups.com>, "God Bless America egroup"
><God_Bless_America@yahoogroups.com>, "Greater Things Newsletter"
><greater_things@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [rs_form] Fundamenta Rights Prologue: Rights continent upon
>responsibility
>Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:06:45 -0700
>
>I've added the following prologue to the "Fundamental Rights" document
>http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/
>which document is proposed to form the footings for the ideal government.
>http://rsicc.org/Form/
>
>In other words, this is proposed for the opening sentence of the beginning
>document.
>
>It is the fulcrum principle upon which all others follow pertaining to the
>exercise and protection of freedom.
>
><begin>
>
>FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS > PROLOGUE:
>
>The ability to choose is fundamental to existence, and cannot be separated
>from consequences.
>
>Rights are contingent upon responsibility. A person or entity that
>understands and honors the following rights has the right to exercise them
>all to their fullest extent. To the degree that a person or entity does not
>understand and honor fundamental rights, will be the degree that due
>restrain may be employed to keep that person or entity from hindering
>another from enjoying these rights.
>
><end>
>
>List of rights (penned by Joel Skousen) ensues at
>http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/
>
>I'm sending notification of this widely for the purpose of feedback,
>inasmuch as this is being set forth as the first core principle
>undirgirding
>the fundamental rights which government is ideally supposed to protect.
>
>Sterling D. Allan
>facilitator, RSICC
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Sterling's Edit of:
-----------------------
The Fundamental Rights of Man

Feb. 3, 2002 version
http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/Archive/020203.htm 

KEY: Inserted suggested text in Red Comments in {curvy brackets} and green text. deletion suggestions use strike-out font feature.

BEGIN TEXT

---

Condensed Listing

{Comment: We need the complete listing.}

It depends on the target audience.  The condensed listing is complete, but without as much clarification and commentary.  I suppose you are right, however, for those in this forum, who are more capable presumably, it would be better to have complete descriptions.

{Comment: Body, Mind, Spirit would be a good way to organize the flow of content of this document, making sure that each facet is adequately covered.}

In a non-religious legal document, one should not try to interject religious notions or comparisons)

Proposed by Joel M. Skousen, member <http://www.rsicc.org/Members/index.html> of RSICC
<http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/compact.html>
used with permission

1:

RIGHT TO LIFE

THE RIGHT TO LIFE, from conception to natural death, except as a consequence for a crime against the rights of others.

{Comment: need to be more specific about 'a crime' e.g. 'a capitol crime.'}

I think it is better left general here, since if you make it more restrictive, you foreclose the opportunity for more flexibility in what crimes justify the taking of life.  In self-defense situations, very often non-capitol crimes like theft can lead to death when the property owner cannot be sure whether an intruder has a weapon or not.  Statutory law is the appropriate place to more closely define this matter.

COROLLARY RIGHTS relating to man's innate life-related ability to think, believe, and reason:

{Comment: Needs to tie into the components of what makes us what we are: heart (feelings), head (thoughts), sinew (strength). You account for heart by "believe," and head by "think," and their relationship (though somewhat redundant with 'think') in the word "reason." Need to account for action -- the right to act (so long as such action does not impinge on the rights of another).}

Once again, you have to be careful not to make this an esoteric commentary that tries to push any particular paradigm.  I choose the least specific words only to point people to the concept that we are concerned with mental processes as opposed to taking physical actions.  I really didn't want to get people worried about whether or not I was trying to present some systematic view of human constructs.  Once you start down that path (head, heart, sinew) your going to have a lot of people complain about whether your description is accurate or complete.  We want to avoid any of that, I believe.  I also specifically avoid "action" since we are concerned here only with the protection of life in its passive forms (being and thinking).  All other rights are concerned with actions--so we don't want to mix actions here lest we be forced to put everything under the heading of right to life.  I could be done logically, but since everybody is used to the historical basic rights of Life, liberty (of action) and Property, we run into less opposition if we keep those separated out in like manner.  I separate out others, such as self-defense, just to make sure they get proper emphasis.  Defense could easily be lumped in with liberty--but with far less effect.

Also, "impinge" is a dangerous word relative to rights.  It's like "affect."   Many things affect other's rights but aren't a violation of those rights.  A wild colored house affects the value of neighboring homes, but it isn't a violation of rights. 

A. The right of FREE THOUGHT and JUDGMENT on the individual worth of ideas, people and things.

{Comment: body, mind, and spirit. Ideas = mind; body = things; people = spirit?}

Once again, you introduce extraneous comments that divert from the purpose of the statement.  I listed ideas, people, and things because those are the 3 basic areas people want protection from relative to other's judgement--as manifested in civil rights laws and anti-discrimination statutes. 

B. To BE FREE to BELIEVE according to each person's one's own conscience, without restriction, except when actions based upon that belief would violate the fundamental rights of others.

{Comment: Grammatically, "each person's" does not work. I don't believe according to each person's conscience. Last part of sentence should be a separate item, not part of same sentence. There is a big difference between holding a belief and acting on that belief.}

Good comments.  Agreed.

C. To be FREE to WORSHIP God according to the dictates of conscience.

{Comment: should be allowed to worship whatever, according to dictates of conscience.}

Agreed

2:LIBERTYTHE FREEDOM TO ACT WITHOUT EXTERNAL OR PRIOR RESTRAINT when those actions are not in direct and harmful conflict with the rights of others.

This we need to change "Direct and Harmful conflict" to "when those actions do not violate the rights of others."  Direct and Harmful conflict is too easy to interpret in a way allowing multiple people to control other's actions. 

COROLLARY RIGHTS:

A. To be solely RESPONSIBLE for one's own health, life, education and safety.

{Comment: re: "health, life, education, safety." (1) is this list complete?,

No list is "complete" but these are the historical areas in which government claims a "state interest"

 (2) is it in the right order?}

Probably not.  How about Life, health, safety and education?

B. To engage in any ECONOMIC ACTIVITY desired as long as such activity does not involve compulsion upon others or the assistance of an enemy of these fundamental rights.

1. To engage in voluntary CONTRACTS, written or verbal, without restriction or regulation except where direct and harmful non-contractual consequences to others occur;

2. To unrestricted SELECTION and PURCHASE (from a willing seller) of all available goods and services desired,

3. To circulate and negotiate any tangible asset or sworn evidence thereof as money or a MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE as long as it is voluntarily accepted by another and fraud and misrepresentation are not present.

4. To PUBLISH any written, photographic, or electronic material, as long as others are not involuntarily exposed to such material on their own or contractual property.

We should insert "one's own" after publish to make sure we don't infer a right to publish other's material.

5. The TO STATE ANY OPINION about another person or product without providing proof or evidence as long as such statements are labeled clearly as opinion.

 Remove "The" at beginning

C. To ASSOCIATE with other persons without coercion as long as that association is desired by all parties, does not constitute a direct and harmful threat to another's rights, and where such association is not in violation of the desires of the property owner.

{Comment: "is desired by all parties" is problematic. Very often one person might wish another of the assembly were not there.}

How about "...is voluntary, and..."

{2nd Comment: re: "the property owner." I realize you mean the property where such association is taking place, but perhaps you would explicitly state this so as to avoid a possible over-extension: one property owner impinging on events on another property not his own.}

I think that is implied, but I would mind the change.  How about,  "...desires of the owner of the property where such association is taking place." ?

1. Individuals may PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE in groups without criminal or treasonous intent as long as private property rights and free movement on public property are not infringed or impeded.

{Comment: need to define "treasonous," lest thought crimes become subject to this stipulation.}

All key words will be defined elsewhere so that this doesn't occur.  But it is cumbersome to put the definition here, and in every other place where that word may occur. 

D. To DISASSOCIATE with other persons without public reason or justification

3:

OWNERSHIP

THE RIGHT TO OWN, DISPOSE OF, AND CONTROL ALL PROPERTY AND ASSETS which are earned by the honest fulfillment of voluntary contracts, received as a gift, inherited, or earned in proportion to the application of one's labor to unowned property.

{Comment: . . . so long as not guilty of impinging the rights of others.}

This is the universal caveate underlying all rights, and is stated at the beginning of each major right--so you are right.  It should be added here too.  "...and where such use of property does not violate the rights of others."

COROLLARY RIGHTS relating to or restricted to ownership and property rights:

A. TO BE FREE FROM BEING ACTED UPON or involuntarily influenced in a harmful manner, when on one's own or contractual property and not directly and harmfully affecting the rights of others.

{Comment: no comma between "manner" and "when."}

OK

B. To exclude all persons not desired from one's own property.

C. To make any WRITTEN OR VERBAL EXPRESSION, on property within one's ownership or control, whether for personal or commercial intent.

D. To act in PRIVACY, within one's own or contractual property, free from search, seizure, regulation and internal surveillance except when acting to infringe upon another's rights.

4:

SELF-DEFENSE

TO DEFEND one's person, rights, and property[, family and community] against any overt and imminent threat, and to use the minimum, appropriate force required, of the alternatives immediately available at hand, to eliminate such threat, when no immediate recourse is available to assistance or constitutional adjudication.

excellent

5:

FAMILY RIGHTS

Families possess total SOVEREIGNTY OVER FAMILY AFFAIRS that do not infringe upon other's rights and that do not constitute an imminent threat to the life of the children therein

Children have the right to demand of their parents, minimum CARE, AND PROTECTION until reaching an ability, or desire to be self-sufficient--as long as the child is not acting in rebellion with the requirements of his parents which do not constitute physical cruelty, or gross negligence

We probably ought to delete "or desire to be self-sufficient" and say, "ability to take responsibility for themselves."  If desire to leave home is a criteria, parents could be slaves for life to some lazy adult children.

{Comment: child must have adequate ability/responsibility for "desire" to be carried out.}

Parents have the right to ultimate RESPONSIBILITY and AUTHORITY for the health, education, and welfare of their dependent children without interference or prior restraint from government, except when proven guilty of gross physical cruelty, or gross negligence, as defined by constitutional law, and where the child does not willfully object to such interference.

{Comment: Is this list complete and in proper sequence: "health, education, welfare"?}

Welfare is so comprehensive that it alone would suffice--the other two are added because they are common targets of state social services.

{2nd Comment: re: "as defined by constitutional law." The fundamental rights document needs to be the highest appeal, final authority. A constitutional law document is a more specific definition of parameters.}

Yes, Let's go with, "as defined herein"  --definitions could immediately follow.

{Comment: re: child objection -- needs to be willful, not manipulated.}

Absolutely

Sterling's edit completed March 4, 2002

---

See also

• "Fundamental Rights of Man" - Feb. 3, 2002 edition of which the above is an edit.
• Return to 'Forming the Ideal Government -- Blueprints'

Hello Brother Sterling.
1)As for Parental right, if stated child willfully demands separation, how
will other party(ies0 determine guidliens and who will these party(ies) be?
2)>Children have the right to demand of their parents, minimum CARE, AND
PROTECTION until reaching an ability, or desire to be self-sufficient--as
long as the child is not acting in rebellion with the requirements of his
parents which do not constitute physical cruelty, or gross negligence
>
>{Comment: child must have adequate ability/responsibility for "desire" to
>be carried out.}
a) Who will determine stated child's ability/responsiblity for desire?
b)How and whom will determine minimum child's demand for seperationto be
self seficient?
c)Whom and how will party(ies determine if a child is not acting in
rebellion with the requirements of their parents?
Your insight, help and input(and anybody else) for clearity is highly
appreciated.
Take care and God Bless you, your family and all Patriot Saints. Benny,
Christian Patriot Saint


>From: "Sterling D. Allan, Facilitator" <sterling.d.allan@...>
>Reply-To: rs_form@yahoogroups.com
>To: "RSICC 'Form of Government' Committee egroup" <rs_form@yahoogroups.com>
>CC: "Joel Skousen" <jskousen@...>
>Subject: [rs_form] SDA EDIT: Fundamental Rights of Man
>Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:23:16 -0700
>
>
>http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/Edits/sterling020404.htm
>
>Sterling's Edit of:
>-----------------------
>The Fundamental Rights of Man
>
>Feb. 3, 2002 version
>http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/Archive/020203.htm
>
>       KEY:
>         a.. Inserted suggested text in Red
>         b.. Comments in {curvy brackets} and green text.
>         c.. deletion suggestions use strike-out font feature.
>
>
>BEGIN TEXT
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
-
>
>Condensed Listing
>
>{Comment: We need the complete listing.}
>
>{Comment: Body, Mind, Spirit would be a good way to organize the flow of
>content of this document, making sure that each facet is adequately
>covered.}
>
>Proposed by Joel M. Skousen, member
><http://www.rsicc.org/Members/index.html> of RSICC
><http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/compact.html>
>used with permission
>
>1:
>
>RIGHT TO LIFE
>
>THE RIGHT TO LIFE, from conception to natural death, except as a
>consequence for a crime against the rights of others.
>
>{Comment: need to be more specific about 'a crime' e.g. 'a capitol crime.'}
>
>COROLLARY RIGHTS relating to man's innate life-related ability to think,
>believe, and reason:
>
>{Comment: Needs to tie into the components of what makes us what we are:
>heart (feelings), head (thoughts), sinew (strength). You account for heart
>by "believe," and head by "think," and their relationship (though somewhat
>redundant with 'think') in the word "reason." Need to account for action --
>the right to act (so long as such action does not impinge on the rights of
>another).}
>
>A. The right of FREE THOUGHT and JUDGMENT on the individual worth of ideas,
>people and things.
>
>{Comment: body, mind, and spirit. Ideas = mind; body = things; people =
>spirit?}
>
>B. To BE FREE to BELIEVE according to each person's one's own conscience,
>without restriction, except when actions based upon that belief would
>violate the fundamental rights of others.
>
>{Comment: Grammatically, "each person's" does not work. I don't believe
>according to each person's conscience. Last part of sentence should be a
>separate item, not part of same sentence. There is a big difference between
>holding a belief and acting on that belief.}
>
>C. To be FREE to WORSHIP God according to the dictates of conscience.
>
>{Comment: should be allowed to worship whatever, according to dictates of
>conscience.}
>
>2:
>
>LIBERTY
>
>THE FREEDOM TO ACT WITHOUT EXTERNAL OR PRIOR RESTRAINT when those actions
>are not in direct and harmful conflict with the rights of others.
>
>COROLLARY RIGHTS:
>
>A. To be solely RESPONSIBLE for one's own health, life, education and
>safety.
>
>{Comment: re: "health, life, education, safety." (1) is this list
>complete?, (2) is it in the right order?}
>
>B. To engage in any ECONOMIC ACTIVITY desired as long as such activity does
>not involve compulsion upon others or the assistance of an enemy of these
>fundamental rights.
>
>1. To engage in voluntary CONTRACTS, written or verbal, without restriction
>or regulation except where direct and harmful non-contractual consequences
>to others occur;
>
>2. To unrestricted SELECTION and PURCHASE (from a willing seller) of all
>available goods and services desired,
>
>3. To circulate and negotiate any tangible asset or sworn evidence thereof
>as money or a MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE as long as it is voluntarily accepted by
>another and fraud and misrepresentation are not present.
>
>4. To PUBLISH any written, photographic, or electronic material, as long as
>others are not involuntarily exposed to such material on their own or
>contractual property.
>
>5. The TO STATE ANY OPINION about another person or product without
>providing proof or evidence as long as such statements are labeled clearly
>as opinion.
>
>C. To ASSOCIATE with other persons without coercion as long as that
>association is desired by all parties, does not constitute a direct and
>harmful threat to another's rights, and where such association is not in
>violation of the desires of the property owner.
>
>{Comment: "is desired by all parties" is problematic. Very often one person
>might wish another of the assembly were not there.}
>
>{2nd Comment: re: "the property owner." I realize you mean the property
>where such association is taking place, but perhaps you would explicitly
>state this so as to avoid a possible over-extension: one property owner
>impinging on events on another property not his own.}
>
>1. Individuals may PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE in groups without criminal or
>treasonous intent as long as private property rights and free movement on
>public property are not infringed or impeded.
>
>{Comment: need to define "treasonous," lest thought crimes become subject
>to this stipulation.}
>
>D. To DISASSOCIATE with other persons without public reason or
>justification
>
>3:
>
>OWNERSHIP
>
>THE RIGHT TO OWN, DISPOSE OF, AND CONTROL ALL PROPERTY AND ASSETS which are
>earned by the honest fulfillment of voluntary contracts, received as a
>gift, inherited, or earned in proportion to the application of one's labor
>to unowned property.
>
>{Comment: . . . so long as not guilty of impinging the rights of others.}
>
>COROLLARY RIGHTS relating to or restricted to ownership and property
>rights:
>
>A. TO BE FREE FROM BEING ACTED UPON or involuntarily influenced in a
>harmful manner, when on one's own or contractual property and not directly
>and harmfully affecting the rights of others.
>
>{Comment: no comma between "manner" and "when."}
>
>B. To exclude all persons not desired from one's own property.
>
>C. To make any WRITTEN OR VERBAL EXPRESSION, on property within one's
>ownership or control, whether for personal or commercial intent.
>
>D. To act in PRIVACY, within one's own or contractual property, free from
>search, seizure, regulation and internal surveillance except when acting to
>infringe upon another's rights.
>
>4:
>
>SELF-DEFENSE
>
>TO DEFEND one's person, rights, and property[, family and community]
>against any overt and imminent threat, and to use the minimum, appropriate
>force required, of the alternatives immediately available at hand, to
>eliminate such threat, when no immediate recourse is available to
>assistance or constitutional adjudication.
>
>5:
>
>FAMILY RIGHTS
>
>Families possess total SOVEREIGNTY OVER FAMILY AFFAIRS that do not infringe
>upon other's rights and that do not constitute an imminent threat to the
>life of the children therein
>
>Children have the right to demand of their parents, minimum CARE, AND
>PROTECTION until reaching an ability, or desire to be self-sufficient--as
>long as the child is not acting in rebellion with the requirements of his
>parents which do not constitute physical cruelty, or gross negligence
>
>{Comment: child must have adequate ability/responsibility for "desire" to
>be carried out.}
>
>Parents have the right to ultimate RESPONSIBILITY and AUTHORITY for the
>health, education, and welfare of their dependent children without
>interference or prior restraint from government, except when proven guilty
>of gross physical cruelty, or gross negligence, as defined by
>constitutional law, and where the child does not willfully object to such
>interference.
>
>{Comment: Is this list complete and in proper sequence: "health, education,
>welfare"?}
>
>{2nd Comment: re: "as defined by constitutional law." The fundamental
>rights document needs to be the highest appeal, final authority. A
>constitutional law document is a more specific definition of parameters.}
>
>{Comment: re: child objection -- needs to be willful, not manipulated.}
>
>Sterling's edit completed March 4, 2002
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
-
>
>See also
>   a.. "Fundamental Rights of Man" - Feb. 3, 2002 edition of which the
>above is an edit.
>   b.. Return to 'Forming the Ideal Government -- Blueprints'
>


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Joel Skousen" <jskousen@...>
Reply-To: rs_form@yahoogroups.com
To: <rs_form@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [rs_form] Re: Skousen response to Joseph comments on listing of
rights
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:18:51 -0700

.

   I much prefer to limit our ideal government to an
  > enumeration of the legitimate powers of government, like our current
  > Declaration of Principles.

My proposal also employs enumerated powers in the Constitutional
proposal--but the two are not mutually exclusive. Both are important. A
listing of rights does completely different and more basic things that
enumerated powers--which address a diferent level of government action.

JOE'S REPLY:  I think the enumeration of powers is important.  A laundry
list of rights is a necessary evil at best and a disaster at worse.  Madison
resisted including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution.  History has borne
out his fears IMO.  How often have you heard someone say "There's no such
right.  It's not in the Constitution."  I think we ought to stay away from
anything that suggest are rights come from or are delineated by any document
made-by man rather than our Creator.  We the People have the right to do
anything we choose and those rights may be limited by government only
insofar as they are constitutionally authorized.

Anything that the international government is
  > not empowered to do by those principles should be reserved to the people
or
  > to the local branches.

This is the same dangerous concept as was contained in the original
constitution--no level of government should be allowed carte blanche powers
to enact any kind of law they want.  The states and local jurisdictions have
been notorious for violations of property and contract rights.  Are we to
feel better about our local leaders taking away our rights, rather than the
federal government?  The result is the same.  Local leaders may be more
responsive to the electorate, but when the electorate cries for benefits,
that responsiveness is detrimental to liberty.

JOE'S REPLY:  On the contrary, from what I've seen so far it seems like you
are the one who is recreating what we already have.  A top-down system where
power is concentrated in the central government and rights are enumerated by
that government.  Our approach aims to be a grass-roots one:  The members of
each Patriot Saint branch are free to delegate authority to the local
government and those who believe too much authority has been delegated can
vote with their feet and join a community more to their liking (or none at
all).  The danger I see with your model is that we aim to be an
international body and if our predetermined list of 'rights' are
unsatisfying to an individual, there is no place he can go to escape our
tyranny.


   I WOULD support an amendment to the DofP
  > indicating that all powers not specifically granted to the government
  > therein are reserved to local governments and ultimately to the people.

This imprecise wording (either to the local gov or the people) always leaves
nothing to the people.  Even local governments can be rapacious.  We have
200 years of history to demonstrate that the 10th Amendment has hardly ever
been used to reserve any rights to the people.  None of the higher levels of
government (including the judiciary) have any incentive to pass down any
rights to the people.


JOE'S REPLY:  I would not be opposed to different wording, but this seem to
me an issue for each of the local branches to deal with.  As I see it, our
role in the RSICC is to say:  "Your rights come from God , not us.  Since
they come from God, we can't possibly list them all because we can not
comprehend the mind of God.  However as God has ordained government for the
benefit of mankind, we, with your (the people's) consent, will have these
few specific powers.  What you do in terms of enumerating powers, rights
etc. at the local level, is up to you.



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Skousen" <jskousen@...>
To: "Sterling D. Allan, Facilitator" <sterling.d.allan@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: Fundamenta Rights Prologue: Skousen response


I'm quite ambivalent about this prologue statement.  I gives me the
impression of a series of loosely connection statements and comments
surrounding the topic of rights, but there are tens of other equally valid
comments one might make.  In other words, one doesn't get the feeling this
is necessary or crucial as an introduction since none of the comments are
complete, fleshed-out ideas.  Some even allow for dangerous interpretations
or government regulatory mischief (rights related to consequences,
responsibilities ) if not carefully defined as to whether we mean natural
consequence or government penalties or both.  Once you start expanding any
of these comments, you run into an essay.  I think this needs to be better
thought out.

  In a skeletal framework of tight legal language we don't want to start
adding lots of extraneous commentary.  Remember--this listing of rights is
not meant to be a stand-alone piece, but part of a larger package.  By
adding prologues and intros, one tends to view them as stand-alone issues.
People have difficulty understanding some of the language because they don't
know what legal evils it is meant to counter.   I talked to Art James at
length today by phone, and that was one of the problems he ran into.  After
a couple of quick examples he easily picked up on it.

Joel



----- Original Message -----
From: "Sterling D. Allan, Facilitator" <sterling.d.allan@...>
To: "Joel Skousen" <jskousen@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: Fw: Fundamenta Rights Prologue: Rights continent upon
responsibility


> Joel,
>
> I sent this out around 9:00 am, but with the backlog in YahooGroups it
will
> be several hours before it shows up on the various lists to which I
> submitted it.
>
> Sterling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sterling D. Allan, Facilitator" <sterling.d.allan@...>
> To: "RSICC 'Form of Government' Committee egroup"
<rs_form@yahoogroups.com>;
> "Remnant Saints Inter-Continental Congress egroup (public)"
> <rs_public@yahoogroups.com>; "RSICC Special Notices egroup"
> <rs_special@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: "Patriot Saints Newsletter" <patriotsaints@yahoogroups.com>;
"Sterling's
> Friends" <SDAfriends@yahoogroups.com>; "Sterling's Newsletter"
> <sterlingda@yahoogroups.com>; "David's Outcasts"
> <davids_outcasts@yahoogroups.com>; "American Patriot Friend Network
egroup"
> <apfn@yahoogroups.com>; "God Bless America egroup"
> <God_Bless_America@yahoogroups.com>; "Greater Things Newsletter"
> <greater_things@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:06 AM
> Subject: Fundamenta Rights Prologue: Rights continent upon responsibility
>
>
> I've added the following prologue to the "Fundamental Rights" document
> http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/
> which document is proposed to form the footings for the ideal government.
> http://rsicc.org/Form/
>
> In other words, this is proposed for the opening sentence of the beginning
> document.
>
> It is the fulcrum principle upon which all others follow pertaining to the
> exercise and protection of freedom.
>
> <begin>
>
> FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS > PROLOGUE:
>
> The ability to choose is fundamental to existence, and cannot be separated
> from consequences.
>
> Rights are contingent upon responsibility. A person or entity that
> understands and honors the following rights has the right to exercise them
> all to their fullest extent. To the degree that a person or entity does
not
> understand and honor fundamental rights, will be the degree that due
> restrain may be employed to keep that person or entity from hindering
> another from enjoying these rights.
>
> <end>
>
> List of rights (penned by Joel Skousen) ensues at
> http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/
>
> I'm sending notification of this widely for the purpose of feedback,
> inasmuch as this is being set forth as the first core principle
undirgirding
> the fundamental rights which government is ideally supposed to protect.
>
> Sterling D. Allan
> facilitator, RSICC
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Nate, I appreciate your helpful input.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Allan" <nathan@...>
To: <sterlingda-owner@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: [sterlingda] Fundamenta Rights Prologue: Rights continent upon
responsibility


Ster

"...fundamental to [human] existence..."  ...more precise

The grammer of this doesn't flow very well:

"To the degree that a person or
> entity does not
> understand and honor fundamental rights, will be the degree that due
> restrain may be employed to keep that person or entity from hindering
> another from enjoying these rights."

Perhaps something like:
"The degree to which a person or entity honors the fundamental rights of
others, is the degree to which they, themselves are allowed to keep them."

Above uses positive instead of negative.
No need to "understand" the rights, so long as they do not violate them....
really.
The original quote is a jumble of meanings that could easily be multiply
interpreted.

This is really what our current system of government is and does, it just
doesn't spell it out so clearly.

my .02

-Nate

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sterling D. Allan, Facilitator
> [mailto:sterlingda@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:07 AM
> To: RSICC 'Form of Government' Committee egroup; Remnant Saints
> Inter-Continental Congress egroup (public); RSICC Special
> Notices egroup
> Cc: Patriot Saints Newsletter; Sterling's Friends; Sterling's
> Newsletter; David's Outcasts; American Patriot Friend Network egroup;
> God Bless America egroup; Greater Things Newsletter
> Subject: [sterlingda] Fundamenta Rights Prologue: Rights
> continent upon
> responsibility

I've added the following prologue to the "Fundamental Rights" document
http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/
which document is proposed to form the footings for the ideal government.
http://rsicc.org/Form/

In other words, this is proposed for the opening sentence of the beginning
document.

It is the fulcrum principle upon which all others follow pertaining to the
exercise and protection of freedom.

<begin>

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS > PROLOGUE:

The ability to choose is fundamental to existence, and cannot be separated
from consequences.

Rights are contingent upon responsibility. A person or entity that
understands and honors the following rights has the right to exercise them
all to their fullest extent. To the degree that a person or entity does not
understand and honor fundamental rights, will be the degree that due
restrain may be employed to keep that person or entity from hindering
another from enjoying these rights.

<end>

List of rights (penned by Joel Skousen) ensues at
http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/

I'm sending notification of this widely for the purpose of feedback,
inasmuch as this is being set forth as the first core principle undirgirding
the fundamental rights which government is ideally supposed to protect.

Sterling D. Allan
facilitator, RSICC

Joel,

You have a reply for this, but I can't recall what it is.  Would you mind
refreshing us?

Thanks

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Liberty" <joseph_liberty@...>
To: <sterling.d.allan@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Fundamenta Rights Prologue: Rights continent upon
responsibility


I am uncomfortable with a laundry list of rights.  The danger is that any
such list will come to be seen as all-inclusive, wherein in reality are
rights are limitless.  I much prefer to limit our ideal government to an
enumeration of the legitimate powers of government, like our current
Declaration of Principles.  Anything that the international government is
not empowered to do by those principles should be reserved to the people or
to the local branches.  At the very least, our bill of rights ought to
include the provision that the rights it enumerates are not exhaustive (if
it's there, I didn't notice it) but I think it best just to dispense with a
bill of rights altogether.  I WOULD support an amendment to the DofP
indicating that all powers not specifically granted to the government
therein are reserved to local governments and ultimately to the people.

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Sterling D. Allan, Facilitator" <sterling.d.allan@...>
To
I've added the following prologue to the "Fundamental Rights" document
http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/
which document is proposed to form the footings for the ideal government.
http://rsicc.org/Form/

In other words, this is proposed for the opening sentence of the beginning
document.

It is the fulcrum principle upon which all others follow pertaining to the
exercise and protection of freedom.

<begin>

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS > PROLOGUE:

The ability to choose is fundamental to existence, and cannot be separated
from consequences.

Rights are contingent upon responsibility. A person or entity that
understands and honors the following rights has the right to exercise them
all to their fullest extent. To the degree that a person or entity does not
understand and honor fundamental rights, will be the degree that due
restrain may be employed to keep that person or entity from hindering
another from enjoying these rights.

<end>

List of rights (penned by Joel Skousen) ensues at
http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Fundamental_Rights/

I'm sending notification of this widely for the purpose of feedback,
inasmuch as this is being set forth as the first core principle undirgirding
the fundamental rights which government is ideally supposed to protect.

Sterling D. Allan
facilitator, RSICC




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Joel,

Quick note (comes to mind as I'm composing editorial comment on your text).

When you were here last, I brought up something about referring to your
text.  I do not think I communicated clearly.  Your response shifted the
conversation in the direction of who should get credit.  I'm not concerned
about that, though I do believe a general acknowledgement would be in order
for those who contribute significantly to the development of the document.

The purpose for my comment was to say that at this stage, it would be best
for us to consider this "your" document, and we are editors.

If the time comes that you do not implement a change we feel ought to be
implemented, then we can diverge on that point so far as what we post at
RSICC.

For now, though, I hope we can make it easy by just going with your version,
noting in a separate file or in a footnote, where we diverge.

Sterling

Please review: http://www.rsicc.org/Discussion/rs_form/

comments below.

 

Love & Healing

1. Each individual, capable of being self-responsible, can rightfully claim as fundamental rights any action or state of being that all others can simultaneously claim without forcing others to serve their needs.  Agree or disagree?

 

    There are very few individuals around. Virtually everyone is a person - a civil law creature who is not a son or daughter of God beholding to God and God alone. This has happened by leaving God's family for Social Security and other benefits only belonging to Ceasars family. A person is a dependant child of Ceasar and is the very Cause of Ceasar's debts and CAN NOT disregard the duties he has taken up him by joining that other family.

    An individual is one who accepts the duties God requires of him and thus has the freedom to carry out those duties. This is all a Right is - the freedom to carry out a duty required by God. Anyone who does not carry out those God required duties has no God granted Rights in Ceasar's eyes. A PERSON becomes subject to Ceasar by taking that which is not due to him - STEALING - and thus even God holds the person accountable ofr the use thier free will.

    Also, being CAPABLE and ACTUALLY BEING self responsible are to only be know by thier bahavior, not thier words.

    Agreed for INDIVIDUALS NOT PERSONS.

 

 

2. Individual sovereignty is the underlying authority behind every legitimate form of cooperative government.  Agree/disagree?

 

    Strongly disagree. All there is is God as the Creator and individuals as his children. God as the Creator is the source of authority, not individuals as the ceation. God gratned Rights still only come form one place: God. Men loose those Rights the moment they get adopted into Ceasar's family and become the cause of his family debt. The 14th Ammendment is nothing more or less than the Roman Empire's law of the father. It REVERSES AND ANNUALS the policy of the original constitution according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 14 Ammendment says that anyone born in D.C. / Ceasar's family or who is NATURALIXED / ADOPTED  AND is subject to he jusisdiction thereof (by taking benefits that only his children can get) IS A U.S. Person (Read: adpted and dining from Ceasar's table and thus obligated to pay the debt he is ceating).

    When men become fathers in God's family, then the above is true. Untill then they subject to the creators will. Dependant children have no rights, only duties.

 

    Remeber, all proper authority is the natural law of the parent child / creator creation relationship. God uses it and so does all other proper government.

 

 

 

3. Families have a special, temporary form of sovereignty over the health, welfare and education of their children until those children are capable of being responsible for themselves.  Agree or disagree?

    Disagree. All families have is a duty from God to act as He would. This Stewardship is close to sovereinty, but is not. Sovereignty is having conquired all enemies under you and acting with out being acted upon. God is the ONLY SOVEREIGN.  Are families God? Hardly.

 

 

 

4. The only proper way to establish a government among free and sovereign individuals, with police powers of enforcement, is by initial mutual agreement of all parties, and the subsequent agreement, on the same terms, of all those joining the compact at a later date.  Agree or disagree?

 

    Somewhat disagree. It is consent that makes the law. You give consent by taking the benefits of your father such as food, protection and provisions. If one wants to leave while harming no one, there MUST be the free will to seperate. Equality as described above requires equality of behavior in not becoming a dependant child in another family by taking that which only children recieve. It is behavior that determines one's standing NOT paper.

    The above would be true is all were INDIVIDUALS and FATHETRS in thier own right. A dependant child is never free of the will of he whose existance he is dependant upon. God is only pleased with one form of government : the one He established perfectly in the garden of Eden - a patriarchal one, a family. Civil Governments and Kings in the old trestiment are a departure form what God ceated. All proper government in the Book of Mormon was partiarchal or the authority of a father over his offspring. All the Kings of England claim as the basis of thier authority is as father of thier family via King David and Jesus Christ.

    To make a family with proper partiarchal authority may only be done with the consent of the fahter who claims devine right of kings on the given piece of land (the state of Utah, for instance is claimed by the king of Englands appointee, the Governor) or by conquest / aquiesnece of the same.

 

 

5. Nothing done under government authority has any validity if it violates or limits a fundamental right, unless such limitations have been specifically agreed upon by all citizens participating in the governmental process.  Agree/disagree?

 

    Agree if the term fundamental Right is defined in terms of God's natural and devine / revealed law that upholds the free will belonging to ALL FLESH. Anything more or less cometh of evil.

 

 

Three common objections:

 

6. "Those of us who believe in God and acknowledge his ultimate sovereignty in the universe may be tempted to make God’s sovereignty the basis of authority for earthly government. There are several major problems with this strategy."

    Stronly disagree.

 

 

 

 

7.  First, it violates God’s purpose in creating this earth as a proving ground for man.     AGREE or DISAGREE

 

    Disagree. One is completely free to be a follower of natural law and believe as he wills. He is not free to behave as he wills without consequences. The choice of free will is to serve God or to be in debt to God by having misapropriated His Stewardship over God's land. Eihter way, voluntarily or by force, he owes a duty to the Creator. Ceasar knows this and does an excellent jod of taking care of those who reject thier God required duties. There is still freedom of CHOICE but NEVER freedom of consequeences

 

 

8.  Second, despite interpretative claims to the contrary, we do not have any definitive revelation from God, common to all believers in God, that establishes either fundamental rights or an outline of secular government   AGREE or DISAGREE

    Disagree. We have the parent child relationship as all the definative revelation of God's proper goverment. That is ALL that is needed. One is free to choose one's parent or adoptionn at any age.

 

 

 

9.  Third, God has never supported the concept of enforcing purely religious punishments upon non-believers by secular government.  AGREE or DISAGREE.

    Thier can be no punishment for believe, only actions that result in a harm. Withdrawls of fellowship is the removal of a privilage, not a punishment. There is a God required duty to protect one who is innocently beiong harmed, this is called ordinary protection of life, liberty and property and all flesh pay for and recieve it the very same. Other goverment programs that replace God as man's father by STEALING or CONSENTING to the new father may justly carry with them punishments for behaviors NOT beleives.

   

 

 

10.  "God Himself has not only refrained from establishing an earthly secular government, by revelation, but he has given every indication that He wants to remain in the background as much as possible so as to maintain a level playing field."  AGREE?

 

    Disagree. God established a perfect patriarchal goverment in the garden of Eden called a family. ALL other goverments are a departure from the legitimate one. The departures are based on or owe a duty to the original since they are dealing in it's property.

 

 

 

11.  "Many Christians mistakenly look to the Old Testament as an example that God established an earthly government. He did establish an earthly kingdom, it is true, but it was clearly a covenant religious society, not a secular government intended to be implanted upon the rest of the world against their will."  AGREE or DISAGREE

 

    God created a family and then men rejected that family government on mount Siani. So God reluctantly ALLOWED a temporary goverment that split the roles of dad (elders of each tribe), mom (the Levites) and God (prophet). The land and people of Israel were the dependant children untill they could know God themselves as intended. The establishemt of a King was a FURTHER rejection of God.

    It was most clearly NOT a mere religous society. It held all of the authority of a father over his dependant children, including that of corperal puishment. This departure kingdom was not intended to cover all the earth. The original family in the garden of Eden DID cover all the earth. But, God allows men to find out what live is like without God's providence and protection if the y want to.

 

 

 

12.  "Secular government can only prosecute violations of basic fundamental rights related to protecting life, liberty and property."  AGREE or DISAGREE

    If by secular goverments you mean the original family in the Garden, that would be true. If you mean civil societies like the 14th Ammendment, they can do what they need to collect on thier debts thier children create also.

 

 

13.  "When groups wish to live by more restrictive standards that don’t violate a fundamental right when the standard is transgressed, they can only enforce those higher punishments upon those who have covenanted to abide by such punishments from the beginning."  Agree or disagree.

 

    Disagree. All thier is is natrual law. Punishments beyond removal of fellowship - under natural law - require consent and exchange of goods and an injured party.

 

14.  "As long as our definition is inherently non-conflicting each of us can simply claim proper rights and defend them without recurring to any other authority [including God]--except that which we may form by mutual consent to protect our rights. This is one of the basic tenets of cooperative government, that we create our own authority to defend rights."  Agree or disagree

 

    Agree. Self defense is the inhearnt right of an individual.

 

 

15.  This effort is worthwhile.  Agree/disagree

 

    Agree. ;-)

 

Thanks for perservering to the end.

 

Susan

 

 

 

=========================

Most recent messages:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rs_public/messages

REMNANT SAINTS INTER-CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
"For the government of God on Earth"

http://rsicc.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

comments below.

 

Love & Healing

1. Each individual, capable of being self-responsible, can rightfully claim as fundamental rights any action or state of being that all others can simultaneously claim without forcing others to serve their needs.  Agree or disagree?

 

    There are very few individuals around. Virtually everyone is a person - a civil law creature who is not a son or daughter of God beholding to God and God alone. This has happened by leaving God's family for Social Security and other benefits only belonging to Ceasars family. A person is a dependant child of Ceasar and is the very Cause of Ceasar's debts and CAN NOT disregard the duties he has taken up him by joining that other family.

    An individual is one who accepts the duties God requires of him and thus has the freedom to carry out those duties. This is all a Right is - the freedom to carry out a duty required by God. Anyone who does not carry out those God required duties has no God granted Rights in Ceasar's eyes. A PERSON becomes subject to Ceasar by taking that which is not due to him - STEALING - and thus even God holds the person accountable ofr the use thier free will.

    Also, being CAPABLE and ACTUALLY BEING self responsible are to only be know by thier bahavior, not thier words.

    Agreed for INDIVIDUALS NOT PERSONS.

 

 

2. Individual sovereignty is the underlying authority behind every legitimate form of cooperative government.  Agree/disagree?

 

    Strongly disagree. All there is is God as the Creator and individuals as his children. God as the Creator is the source of authority, not individuals as the ceation. God gratned Rights still only come form one place: God. Men loose those Rights the moment they get adopted into Ceasar's family and become the cause of his family debt. The 14th Ammendment is nothing more or less than the Roman Empire's law of the father. It REVERSES AND ANNUALS the policy of the original constitution according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 14 Ammendment says that anyone born in D.C. / Ceasar's family or who is NATURALIXED / ADOPTED  AND is subject to he jusisdiction thereof (by taking benefits that only his children can get) IS A U.S. Person (Read: adpted and dining from Ceasar's table and thus obligated to pay the debt he is ceating).

    When men become fathers in God's family, then the above is true. Untill then they subject to the creators will. Dependant children have no rights, only duties.

 

    Remeber, all proper authority is the natural law of the parent child / creator creation relationship. God uses it and so does all other proper government.

 

 

 

3. Families have a special, temporary form of sovereignty over the health, welfare and education of their children until those children are capable of being responsible for themselves.  Agree or disagree?

    Disagree. All families have is a duty from God to act as He would. This Stewardship is close to sovereinty, but is not. Sovereignty is having conquired all enemies under you and acting with out being acted upon. God is the ONLY SOVEREIGN.  Are families God? Hardly.

 

 

 

4. The only proper way to establish a government among free and sovereign individuals, with police powers of enforcement, is by initial mutual agreement of all parties, and the subsequent agreement, on the same terms, of all those joining the compact at a later date.  Agree or disagree?

 

    Somewhat disagree. It is consent that makes the law. You give consent by taking the benefits of your father such as food, protection and provisions. If one wants to leave while harming no one, there MUST be the free will to seperate. Equality as described above requires equality of behavior in not becoming a dependant child in another family by taking that which only children recieve. It is behavior that determines one's standing NOT paper.

    The above would be true is all were INDIVIDUALS and FATHETRS in thier own right. A dependant child is never free of the will of he whose existance he is dependant upon. God is only pleased with one form of government : the one He established perfectly in the garden of Eden - a patriarchal one, a family. Civil Governments and Kings in the old trestiment are a departure form what God ceated. All proper government in the Book of Mormon was partiarchal or the authority of a father over his offspring. All the Kings of England claim as the basis of thier authority is as father of thier family via King David and Jesus Christ.

    To make a family with proper partiarchal authority may only be done with the consent of the fahter who claims devine right of kings on the given piece of land (the state of Utah, for instance is claimed by the king of Englands appointee, the Governor) or by conquest / aquiesnece of the same.

 

 

5. Nothing done under government authority has any validity if it violates or limits a fundamental right, unless such limitations have been specifically agreed upon by all citizens participating in the governmental process.  Agree/disagree?

 

    Agree if the term fundamental Right is defined in terms of God's natural and devine / revealed law that upholds the free will belonging to ALL FLESH. Anything more or less cometh of evil.

 

 

Three common objections:

 

6. "Those of us who believe in God and acknowledge his ultimate sovereignty in the universe may be tempted to make God’s sovereignty the basis of authority for earthly government. There are several major problems with this strategy."

    Stronly disagree.

 

 

 

 

7.  First, it violates God’s purpose in creating this earth as a proving ground for man.     AGREE or DISAGREE

 

    Disagree. One is completely free to be a follower of natural law and believe as he wills. He is not free to behave as he wills without consequences. The choice of free will is to serve God or to be in debt to God by having misapropriated His Stewardship over God's land. Eihter way, voluntarily or by force, he owes a duty to the Creator. Ceasar knows this and does an excellent jod of taking care of those who reject thier God required duties. There is still freedom of CHOICE but NEVER freedom of consequeences

 

 

8.  Second, despite interpretative claims to the contrary, we do not have any definitive revelation from God, common to all believers in God, that establishes either fundamental rights or an outline of secular government   AGREE or DISAGREE

    Disagree. We have the parent child relationship as all the definative revelation of God's proper goverment. That is ALL that is needed. One is free to choose one's parent or adoptionn at any age.

 

 

 

9.  Third, God has never supported the concept of enforcing purely religious punishments upon non-believers by secular government.  AGREE or DISAGREE.

    Thier can be no punishment for believe, only actions that result in a harm. Withdrawls of fellowship is the removal of a privilage, not a punishment. There is a God required duty to protect one who is innocently beiong harmed, this is called ordinary protection of life, liberty and property and all flesh pay for and recieve it the very same. Other goverment programs that replace God as man's father by STEALING or CONSENTING to the new father may justly carry with them punishments for behaviors NOT beleives.

   

 

 

10.  "God Himself has not only refrained from establishing an earthly secular government, by revelation, but he has given every indication that He wants to remain in the background as much as possible so as to maintain a level playing field."  AGREE?

 

    Disagree. God established a perfect patriarchal goverment in the garden of Eden called a family. ALL other goverments are a departure from the legitimate one. The departures are based on or owe a duty to the original since they are dealing in it's property.

 

 

 

11.  "Many Christians mistakenly look to the Old Testament as an example that God established an earthly government. He did establish an earthly kingdom, it is true, but it was clearly a covenant religious society, not a secular government intended to be implanted upon the rest of the world against their will."  AGREE or DISAGREE

 

    God created a family and then men rejected that family government on mount Siani. So God reluctantly ALLOWED a temporary goverment that split the roles of dad (elders of each tribe), mom (the Levites) and God (prophet). The land and people of Israel were the dependant children untill they could know God themselves as intended. The establishemt of a King was a FURTHER rejection of God.

    It was most clearly NOT a mere religous society. It held all of the authority of a father over his dependant children, including that of corperal puishment. This departure kingdom was not intended to cover all the earth. The original family in the garden of Eden DID cover all the earth. But, God allows men to find out what live is like without God's providence and protection if the y want to.

 

 

 

12.  "Secular government can only prosecute violations of basic fundamental rights related to protecting life, liberty and property."  AGREE or DISAGREE

    If by secular goverments you mean the original family in the Garden, that would be true. If you mean civil societies like the 14th Ammendment, they can do what they need to collect on thier debts thier children create also.

 

 

13.  "When groups wish to live by more restrictive standards that don’t violate a fundamental right when the standard is transgressed, they can only enforce those higher punishments upon those who have covenanted to abide by such punishments from the beginning."  Agree or disagree.

 

    Disagree. All thier is is natrual law. Punishments beyond removal of fellowship - under natural law - require consent and exchange of goods and an injured party.

 

14.  "As long as our definition is inherently non-conflicting each of us can simply claim proper rights and defend them without recurring to any other authority [including God]--except that which we may form by mutual consent to protect our rights. This is one of the basic tenets of cooperative government, that we create our own authority to defend rights."  Agree or disagree

 

    Agree. Self defense is the inhearnt right of an individual.

 

 

15.  This effort is worthwhile.  Agree/disagree

 

    Agree. ;-)

 

Thanks for perservering to the end.

 

Susan

 

 

 

=========================

Most recent messages:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rs_public/messages

REMNANT SAINTS INTER-CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
"For the government of God on Earth"

http://rsicc.org

As I learn more of Joel's and Greg's approaches, it seems to me that Greg's
is a higher approach suitable to a community that may wish to live by more
elevated principles than what the populace at large is ready to abide by.
Joel's approach is all-encompassing.  It reaches the least common
denominator.  The way these approaches would be "married" per se, is that
within the all-encompassing government structure Joel proposes would be the
allowance for a citizen compact of a particular community that may wish to
implement the sort of principles Greg is espousing.

I do not see that the world at large would be ready for something along the
lines the Greg proposes, even with the major leap forward that is going to
take place after the tribulations.  But pockets of communities would be, and
they would be free to do so under Joel's proposed government system.

Hence Joel of necessity needs to dot every i and cross every t in spelling
out precisely what a government can and cannot do.  Greg, on the other hand,
is right to keep it more nebulous so that each person 'gets it' themselves.
His system is not designed for the world at large.

Just a thought.

Sterling


----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Carter" <crtrfam@...>
To: <rs_public@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 5:15 PM
Subject: [rs_public] Summary #3


http://www.hisholychurch.info/study/polity/article7.html  (actually articles
5 -9)

The Firstborn of a family usually serves as the high priest of that family.
In practical terms that means that the head of a family is ultimately in
charge of the family and is referred to as the elder (being the oldest and
wisest), but the eldest son is in training to become the head of the family.
The Levites were acting as the firstborn of that family, Israel.  Like the
Levites, the ministers must belong only to God and not be entangled in
Caesar's government or ways.  He must only be doing God's work and
ultimately
answers only to God.

The individual families of the congregation may be a part of the other
government and a part of the congregation, but it would be better if they
were
like the Levite, and only belonged to God's governement.  At the very least
each family should be diligently working to come out from under the bondage
of
Caesar's government.

The ministers are total servants to their people.  As such they don't have
an
estate or in modern day terms a job to tend to.  They are dependent solely
upon the charity of those they serve for their sustenance.  As the minister
helps the people do better and better they have more to give to the minister
for his needs (along with his family).

The ministers should stand as strong examples of those who do the will of
God
no matter what their congregation may choose to do.  They should also be
trying to teach those outside of their congregation (Gentiles) so that all
may
know God.

Bishops and Archbishops are ministers to ministers.  They help the ministers
of the congregations do their job.  Another way of saying that is that they
are the servants to the servants.  Just as the ministers are chosen by their
congregation, so are the Bishops chosen from among the ministers.

The hallmark of these offices of Minister (sometimes called Deacon), Bishop
and Archbishop is service to those that elected them.  They were to act
within
certain bounds, but were not to be forced to use certain proscribed rituals
or
doctrines within their congregations.  "As with the law it is not the letter
that is important but the Spirit. These outward signs should be uniform to
the
point where the Church may be visible but never at the expense of the
Spirit."

Some of the services of ministers are as follows:  "Services as acts of
worship include but are not limited to any activity that is a true service
to
the people: Healing and caring for the sick; teaching the truth;
distributing
knowledge; cleansing the soul, body and minds of the congregation of envy,
hate, ignorance, apathy, avarice...; Baptism and the washing of feet.
Distribution of Charity; breaking of bread. The unification of the
brotherhood
of man into one accord through arbitration and a holy kiss of love and
patience with the nature of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Assisting in
the
daily administration of the fatherless and homeless."

There are also other matters that the Ministers, Bishops and Archbishops
will
be concerned with as far as ceremonies go:

"transaction of affairs of state, including but not limited to Letters or
documents of recognition and identification, and the celebration, recording
and recognition of notable events, including but not limited to birth,
rebirths, adoptions, marriages and deaths, as well as the anointing of
ministers, bishops and archbishops."

The main difference between God's government and Caesar's government is that
Caesar's seeks to control others and God seeks to have every man be under
his
own control.  "Jesus wanted his called out Church not to exercise authority
or
bring people under their power but like Moses they were to seek to lead
people
to freedom under God."  Anytime the people seek a benefit from the
government
of Caesar, Caesar becomes their benefactor and they become Caesar's slave.





=========================

REMNANT SAINTS INTER-CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
"For the government of God on Earth"

http://rsicc.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Joel,

I posted your update.

http://www.rsicc.org/Form/Citizen_Compact/

Issues.

For the purposes of the website, we will keep the "fundamental rights" and
"principles" as separate documents, and link to them, rather than post them
to the same page.

We should, though, make the downloadable doc file be complete.

By the way, the file you sent me was not complete but truncates part of the
way through.

Could you resend?

Also, I need to know if you made any changes to either the "fundamental
rights" and "principles" section.  In other words, do I need to update those
pages too?

Sterling