|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
WHICH CONCEPT OF 'LAW' ARE YOU THINKING OF?
MAGNA CARTA AND THE SUPREME LAW
The circular confuses the laws of a State (man-made 'law') and the Supreme Law of God. John Mitchell's article clarifies the confusion and also explains that western man, though he pays 'lip-service' to God, has lost the great concept of 'Law' as his forefathers once understood it. Men of good will are guided by a higher Law than the law of the land. For ease of flow I won't continually "quote" Mitchell but will draw from his article.
The 'Supreme Law' to which Mitchell refers is not man-made law at all, but the 'Law' which runs through the very warp and woof (threads of the fabric) of the Universe. Clifford Hugh Douglas wrote of it in "Realistic Constitutionalism". "Constitutionalism must be organic; it must have a relation to the nature of the Universe." Jesus referred to it when he said: Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will never pass away."
The conception held by our forefathers was that there is in fact a kingdom of God to which we mortals are subject while on earth. Even if we ignore the kingdom of God, we are subject to it and by breaking its laws suffer the penalties. Call it Truth, call it objective Reality or call it natural law, it is there. History and experience has shown mankind "the laws of God grind slowly but they grind exceedingly small". In other words God's laws work out over time. Eric Butler often referred to this Truth. In his Social Dynamics lectures he speaks of the fellow who thought he could defy the law of gravity by jumping off the top of a very tall building. The fellow was okay half way, but eventually he would hit the ground! Thus demonstrating the law of gravity. And so with human relations.
Considered in their proper perspective the circumstances which led up to Magna Carta, are just as important to us today. The stand taken by the Barons and the Church did not mark a victory of one power bloc against another, but established a principle of objective right in English politics.
Until recent times, the pursuit of this principle, by honest men through all the clashes for power, can be traced through the centuries as decisively moulding our civil laws. It has been written of the Great Charter, "Those positive laws and institutions of later times, which secure our rights and liberties, all have their root in this charter." In fact, they all have their root in the Christian Faith and its outworking over the centuries.
misused the power of his position:
The chief cause of the Charter was that a king had misused the power of his position to impose grossly wicked taxation, and, in other ways, had used arbitrary power to achieve his ends. Just as we see politicians of all persuasions using arbitrary political power today.
But our forefathers understood that even had that arbitrary power been covered by laws imposed on the nation by the King (Executive); even though the acts had been "legalised" by Acts of parliament, they would still have been lawless by the great conception which formed a background to political thinking and political action in England for centuries.
These men had a conception that there is a kingdom of God to which we mortals are subject while on earth. We might even ignore it, but we are subject to it and by breaking its laws suffer the penalties. Call it Truth, call it objective Reality or call it natural law, it is there.
be Legal, but Lawful NO!
They would have us believe, that as long as the terms of the legislation imposed upon the people of Australia, through their parliaments, are adhered to, that which is 'legalised' should be acceptable to you.
NO!!! The intent to sell Qantas is simply a furtherance of the agenda to centralise all power and control into the hands of an elite in a tyrannical new world order. It may be considered 'legal' by today's tyrants but that does not make it lawful!
From a Christian position that which is 'legalised' is not necessarily lawful. For me, the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, states the matter clearly: "Why do you think evil because I mean to do good? Is it not lawful (i.e., moral, right, just) for me to do what I want with my own?"
was this conception of lawful that the Church in England, at the time, headed
by Archbishop Stephen Langton stood for. The army, which the barons had gathered
and marched against John, was called "the army of God and the Church".
The army was composed of virtually the whole nobility of England with their retainers.
It was because, guided by the Archbishop, the barons based their cause on the principles of liberty and justice, that both the Church and the freemen of the cities aligned themselves with it. So that when after repeated attempts to bring the king to reason he at last had to bow the knee, it was not only the barons who met him on June 15th, 1215 at Runnymede. They were attended by representatives of the Church, headed by Stephen Langton, and a "vast multitude", representing all classes of the population. The King was attended only by the Grand Master of the Templars and twenty-three others.
The event at Runnymede was only temporarily decisive, because John soon after broke all his promises. But, nevertheless, the Charter itself became the basis for political action in the cause of liberty and justice down through the centuries, being confirmed more than thirty times by English kings. In 1689 its principles were embodied in the Bill of Rights.
and King John:
circumstance is the existence of a secret society under the mask of Templarism,
with a sinister purpose. There is no other explanation of how a monarch of feeble
and pusillanimous character could so long have carried out tyrannous acts against
the whole community.
Whether or not Pandulph, the Papal Legate, was a Templar, it should be noted that Archbishop Langton insisted that in taking the stand that he did against John, whom Pandulph supported, he was carrying out the Pope's real wishes.
of the Common Law:
of heart' not enough:
Precisely, but men and women of common sense and common decency have not, a small minority excepted, espoused the cause of sense and decency as did the champions of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. Will they do so before it is too late?
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|