Anarcho-Creationism.com

An Anarchist Defense of Six-Day Creationism

And a Creationist Defense of Anarchism

Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
 who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.

Newton and Patriagora

Newton's I.Q. was in the stratosphere. It's amazing how much intellectual work-product he crammed into his life. And it's amazing how much of his work was theological and Bible-based. It's as if Newton was a theologian whose hobby was science. Newton earned a salary of £100 as Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, but he was what today would be called a "trust fund baby." Most of his writings were "creationist." Newton wrote more words about the Bible and Theology than he did on physics and other STEM subjects. Most Christians don't know this. Isaac Newton was a devout Bible-believing Christian. Newton would say that "creationism" is "scientific." Atheist-evolutionists like Richard Dawkins would say the majority of what Newton wrote was fundamentalist drivel.

Newton wrote a great deal about Bible prophecy, particularly Daniel and Revelation. I'm not claiming to have a higher I.Q. than Newton, but I disagree with a few things he believed. He was a "pre-millennialist." I'm a "post-millennialist," or "preterist." (No need to get into these intramural debates at this time.)

In an article in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction entitled, Family Authority vs. Protestant Sacerdotalism, Gary North, a post-millennial preterist, wrote this:

In opposition to sacerdotalism, Luther preached that most Protestant of doctrines, the priesthood of all believers. (Actually, this was not the most Protestant of doctrines. The one doctrine universally held in the seventeenth century by every Protestant church, from the highest of high church Anglicans to the wildest of the Anabaptist of Fifth Monarchy sects, was the identification of the papacy with the antichrist. This doctrine was inserted into the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XXV, section 6, to the embarrassment of modem American Presbyterians, who have seen fit to footnote this passage into oblivion, and quite properly so. However, it is interesting to witness the most orthodox of Presbyterians drop the one doctrine which was the touchstone of Protestant orthodoxy from Luther’s day until about 1930. At least they set a most-needed precedent, namely, confessional revision of even the most universally accepted traditions of Protestantism. They recognized that the presence in the Confession of unsubstantiated human opinion, in contrast to clearly revealed biblical truth, should not be tolerated, once men realize that the traditional opinion is incorrect. It is a precedent that should be honored.)

Newton believed that the Roman Catholic Pope was a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. And not in a good way. He believed the institutional church was corrupt. So he wrote a massive amount on church history.

He also believed (as I do) that Daniel 2 encapsulates the history of great empires. Newton, wanting to understand prophecy thoroughly, believed he needed to understand the history of these ancient empires, as described in Daniel 2. So he studied history and wrote a great deal about the history of ancient empires and ancient religions. This project was called

The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728)

Isaac Newton was a devout Christian who said the Bible was an authoritative textbook on history which should take priority over all other history books, even though history might be said to be a "secular science." Even though Egyptian historians, Assyrian historians, Greek and Roman historians, all set forth histories of their great empires, Newton said they were all wrong because they conflicted with the history recorded in the Bible, including the creation of nations after the flood (Genesis 10). The Bible takes precedence over secular historians. This Chronology was a massive undertaking.

After examining all the ancient political empires, and the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and then comparing them both (church and state) with the Bible, Newton laid the foundation for what I call "Patriagora."

PATRIAGORA

πατριά - Patria | Family + Market | Agora - ἀγορά

The Family Creates a Free Market without “Church” or “State”

Liberty Under God
Anarcho-Theocracy

An excerpt from the "Patriagora" website is found below.

What Newton claimed was that the ancient empires and the institutional church were corrupt. He pointed to Noah as an example of a human society free from these corrupt institutions. Noah was both priest and king, just as all Christians are called to be priests and kings, even though no Christian has a divine calling to replace Jesus Christ as our true Priest and King. There is no "separation of church and state," but that's because there are no earthly (creature-ly, as opposed to Creator-ly; 1 Samuel 8:7; Isaiah 33:22; Romans 1:25) institutions which rival the true Priest-King (church-state) Jesus Christ. Google AI:

• A New Identity: Through Christ, believers become a "royal priesthood, a holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9). Note: "royal" = "state," "priesthood" = "church" || "holy" = "church," "nation" = "state"
• Kingly Role: To reign spiritually, lead in the building of a Kingdom of priest-kings, provide for others, and govern life under God's rule (Exodus 19:6; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10).
• Priestly Role: To mediate for others through prayer, worship, and leading people to God, representing God's people to Him (1 Peter 2:5).
• Combined Function: Believers are called to both serve (priest) and rule (king) in God's kingdom, blending spiritual action with effective leadership.

Newton believed that Noah was an example of what all believers should be, and how a Christian society should be organized. The creation of the ancient empires, beginning in Genesis 10 with Nimrod, as well as the creation of Popes and Bishops, was a corruption of God's original blueprint for human society. Feminists in the State and in the Church will call this "Patriarchy." But it's not "husband gets to beat wife," it's family + market, where "market" = network of family businesses.

Here's a report from ChatGPT. Please remember that AI tends to say what it thinks the prompter wants to hear. But AI is not programmed to crank out overt falsehoods just to satisfy a customer, which would destroy the credibility of the AI business. The report below should serve as a "prima facie" case for Newtonian Patriagora, but should be checked for detailed accuracy. It's a legitimate place to start one's research.

1️⃣ Did all the ancient kingdoms Newton studied reject Moses’ moral claims (“Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal”)? Yes — that is historically and theologically accurate in the sense Newton himself would have used those categories. ● What Newton believed Newton saw the Chronology Amended project as reconstructing the earliest history of the nations after the Flood and Babel, when mankind had rebelled against the patriarchal worship of the one true God. He regarded the major empires — Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece — as post-patriarchal apostasies: they had some memory of Noah’s God but corrupted it through idolatry and political self-deification. Their political theology therefore violated the two great prohibitions you cite: “Thou shalt not kill” → All ancient empires were founded on conquest and institutionalized violence. “Thou shalt not steal” → All rested on slavery, taxation, and imperial plunder — seizure of property and peoples belonging to God. ● What they knew It’s true that the Mosaic revelation was geographically and historically known in varying degrees. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia all had direct or indirect contact with the Hebrews; by the 1st millennium BC the existence of a monotheistic law-people in Palestine was widely reported. Greek historians (Herodotus, Hecataeus, later Diodorus) mention the Jews and their peculiar worship of one invisible God. But none of those empires acknowledged Israel’s God as their own lawgiver. They accepted prudential laws against murder or theft within their own societies, yet denied the universality and divine authority of the Decalogue. Their kings claimed divine prerogatives — Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius — and therefore implicitly reversed the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” by asserting ownership of men and nations. ✅ So yes: Newton’s ancient kingdoms were, in his view, united by the rejection of the Mosaic claim that one transcendent Lawgiver binds all rulers. Here is a concise table of the five major empires Newton analyzed in his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, showing how each one, in moral-theological terms, rejected God’s universal commandments “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal.” The phrasing is designed to reflect both Newton’s historical perspective and a biblical-theonomic reading of world history. ߏ? The Five Major Empires in Newton’s Chronology Empire Approx. Era (Peak) Newton’s Historical Focus Violation of “Thou shalt not kill” Violation of “Thou shalt not steal” Egypt 3rd–2nd millennium BC onward Earliest post-Flood kingdom; source of corrupted astronomy and idolatry. Pharaohs claimed divinity; conquest and human sacrifice in temple cults; systematic enslavement of foreigners (including Hebrews). Slavery and centralized control of land and labor; temples and monarchy seized wealth as “property of the gods.” Assyria c. 900–612 BC Model of imperial terror and military pride. Conquest by massacre; deportation and genocide as policy; kings bragged of flaying captives. Tribute and plunder as divine right of the king; property and peoples seized to glorify empire. Babylon c. 612–539 BC Successor to Assyria; cradle of astrology and civic idolatry. Nebuchadnezzar’s conquests of Judah and others; suppression of dissent by execution (Daniel 3, 6). Economic exploitation of conquered nations; forced labor to build “the golden city.” Persia (Medo-Persian Empire) c. 550–330 BC Admired for order but still idolatrous; claimed cosmic sanction for imperial rule. Divine-kingship ideology justified wars of expansion (Cyrus, Xerxes). Heavy tribute from provinces; enslaved populations; wealth amassed for the Great King. Greece c. 800–146 BC Focus of Newton’s late chronology; heirs of Chaldean astronomy and philosophy. Constant interstate warfare; glorification of martial virtue; exposure of infants. State expropriation through conquest; slave economy foundational to city-state prosperity. ✦ Interpretive Summary Common denominator: all five empires enthroned archē (dominion by force) in defiance of divine law. Moral logic: Murder and theft became virtues when done “for the state.” Kings and empires usurped God’s prerogative over life and property. Newton’s theological reading: these civilizations illustrate the steady corruption of post-Noahic humanity — the rise of political idolatry after Babel and before the advent of the true Kingdom of God. 2️⃣ Did Newton study Far-Eastern civilizations, and did any pre-Buddhist ones exist? ● Newton’s scope Newton’s Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended dealt almost exclusively with: Egypt Assyria and Babylon Persia and Media Greece and, briefly, Rome The Hebrews as the chronological baseline He did not systematically study Chinese, Indian, or other Far-Eastern civilizations. The Jesuit missions to China (Matteo Ricci and others) had made some reports known in Europe, but Newton did not incorporate them. ● Pre-Buddhist Eastern civilizations Yes — there were several long before Buddhism (which begins c. 5th century BC). Civilization / Religion Approx. Origin Notes Indus Valley Civilization c. 2600 BC Urban culture in NW India; pre-Vedic; religion unknown but probably proto-Hindu. Vedic Religion (early Hinduism) c. 1500–500 BC Centered on sacrificial hymns (Rig Veda); polytheistic; pre-Buddhist. Shang and Zhou Dynasties (China) c. 1600 BC onward Ancestor worship and Heaven (Shangdi / Tian) as impersonal moral force. Shinto (Japan) Traditional; roots before 1st millennium BC Indigenous animism; later systematized. All of these predate Buddhism, and all are non-Mosaic in their theology: cyclic, immanentist, and ultimately pantheistic or animistic rather than moral-monotheist. ● Why Newton omitted them His purpose was to reconstruct the biblical historical framework of the Mediterranean world — the empires that intersected Israel and Greece. He regarded the Far East as beyond the horizon of verifiable sacred chronology. ✅ Summary Question Short Answer Did ancient kingdoms studied by Newton reject Mosaic commandments? Yes. They acknowledged pragmatic ethics but denied the universal divine Lawgiver; their empires were founded on sanctioned killing and theft. Did Newton study Far-Eastern civilizations? No; he focused on Near Eastern and Mediterranean kingdoms. Did pre-Buddhist civilizations exist? Yes — Vedic India, Shang/Zhou China, and others centuries or millennia earlier, all non-biblical and theologically pagan.

Newton believed Noah best exemplified a pure practice of religion: no priests, no princes.

1️⃣ Were any pre-Buddhist Far-Eastern religions pacifist and anarchist? ● Short answer: No — not in the biblical or Newtonian sense. Before Buddhism (5th century BC), the major Eastern traditions we know — the Vedic religion in India and the Shang–Zhou traditions in China — were hierarchical, sacrificial, and embedded in political structures. None taught the moral equivalent of “Thou shalt not kill” as a universal, non-negotiable divine command. Region Pre-Buddhist Religion Attitude toward Violence Political Ethos India (Vedic religion) Centered on fire sacrifices (Agni, Indra, etc.); priestly Brahmins mediated between men and gods. Approved ritual animal sacrifice and warfare as sacred duties (kṣatriya caste). Strongly hierarchical: priests (Brahmins) and warriors (kṣatriyas) dominated society. China (Shang & early Zhou) Ancestor worship and Heaven (Shangdi/Tian) as cosmic moral order. Warfare integral to royal legitimacy; kings offered human sacrifices to ancestors. Highly centralized under the “Mandate of Heaven.” Japan (proto-Shinto) Clan-based animism, worship of kami and ancestors. Warfare viewed as honorable service to clan and kami. Clan chieftains held both religious and political authority. ✅ So none were pacifist; rather, they sacralized violence within a cosmic hierarchy. ● The one partial exception: Proto-Taoism (6th century BC) Though later than the period you asked about, Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching (6th–5th century BC) introduced an ethos of wu wei (non-action), humility, and resistance to coercive rule. Some later Taoists became quietist, communal, and even mildly anarchistic in tone — “The more laws, the more thieves.” However, this was post-Buddhist-era and had no influence on the societies Newton studied. 2️⃣ Would Newton have called the ancestor cults “patriarchal”? ● Newton’s definition of “patriarchal religion” In his Chronology and in theological fragments, Newton described the “true original religion” as patriarchal monotheism — the worship of one God through the heads of families descended from Noah. The patriarch was: a priest representing his household to the one Creator, and a moral teacher transmitting God’s law. ● Why Far-Eastern ancestor worship is not patriarchal in Newton’s sense Superficially, the Chinese or Japanese veneration of ancestors might look “patriarchal” because it honors forefathers. But for Newton, this would count as a corruption of the true patriarchal faith: Feature Patriarchal Religion (Noahic/Abrahamic) Ancestor Worship (Far East) Object of reverence One Creator God, worshiped through patriarchs as priests. Deified human ancestors or family spirits. Mediator Patriarch acts as priest to God. Ancestors themselves become gods or intercessors. Moral center Universal divine commandments binding all mankind. Clan loyalty and ritual propriety; no universal moral law. Outcome Leads to prophetic monotheism. Leads to idolatry and state religion. Thus Newton would likely have said: “The patriarchal worship was corrupted in the East into the deification of the dead fathers, who were afterward worshiped as gods and demons.” This is in line with what he wrote about Egypt and Chaldea — that idolatry began when men “worshiped their dead kings and benefactors.” ✦ Summary Question Newtonian Answer Were any pre-Buddhist Far-Eastern religions pacifist/anarchist? No. All pre-Buddhist systems (Vedic, Shang, early Zhou, proto-Shinto) sanctified violence and hierarchy; none were pacifist. Would Newton call ancestor worship “patriarchal”? No; he would call it a degeneration of the true patriarchal religion — a misdirected memory of the patriarchs that turned them into idols. Here are several direct quotations and paraphrased excerpts from Newton’s writings that show exactly how he understood “patriarchal religion” and how it degenerated into the worship of ancestors and kings — the root, in his mind, of pagan idolatry. These are drawn from The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, his Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, and related unpublished theological manuscripts (especially Yahuda MS 1.1 and 1.3). ߕ? 1. The Patriarchal Religion — True and Original Newton begins from a very Hebraic assumption: all early nations once worshiped one God, the Creator, through family patriarchs. “The first religion was the worship of one God, the God of Heaven, under whom the patriarchs, Noah and his sons, lived piously without temples or idols.” — Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, chap. 1 He adds elsewhere: “The religion of the first ages was simple and patriarchal; every father of a family was priest to his household.” — (Yahuda MS 1.1, fol. 18r, paraphrased) This is what Newton called “the true original religion of mankind.” ߏ? 2. Corruption: The Deification of Ancestors He then describes the turning point — when gratitude and memory of patriarchal benefactors became worship: “After death the ancients were wont to preserve the memory of their ancestors by consecrating statues to them, and at length they began to adore them as gods. Thus arose the first idolatry.” — Chronology, chap. 2 and again: “The ancient heathens, taking their dead kings and heroes for gods, built temples and offered them sacrifices, and this was the rise of all idolatry.” — (paraphrased from Observations upon Daniel draft material, ca. 1690s) He regarded this as a moral apostasy from the Noahic revelation — replacing obedience with veneration. ߏ? 3. The Political Consequence: Empire as Religion “By the worship of kings and heroes men were taught to adore the powers of this world, and the dominion of man over man was sanctified as divine.” — (paraphrased, Yahuda MS 1.3, fol. 45v) This line — typical of Newton’s theology — is crucial: he believed that political idolatry (the divinization of rulers) grew directly out of ancestor worship. ⚖️ 4. Contrast with Biblical Monotheism “The Law of Moses was a reformation of this corrupt religion, restoring the worship of the one true God, who made heaven and earth, and forbidding the worship of dead men and demons.” — Chronology, chap. 3 Here he identifies Moses’ law as a return to patriarchal purity — not a new religion but the recovery of the original. ✦ Summary Table: Newton’s Theology of Degeneration Stage Description Moral Character Patriarchal Religion One Creator, worshiped through family heads (Noahic monotheism). Obedience and peace under divine law. Hero/Ancestor Veneration Gratitude for patriarchs turns into ritual offerings to their spirits. Corruption of worship; pride. Idolatry Proper Dead kings deified; temples, images, astrology appear. Murder, conquest, and theft justified as divine acts. Political Empire Rulers claim divine right; priesthood serves the state. Universal rebellion against God’s commandments. ✅ In Newton’s terms: The ancestor worship of the Far East, like that of Egypt or Babylon, would be a late stage in the degeneration of the patriarchal religion. It preserved the form of filial reverence but replaced the object (the Creator) with His creatures — the dead patriarchs themselves.

Newton: 'Irenicum, or Ecclesiastical Polyty tending to Peace'

Priest of Nature: The Religious Worlds of Isaac Newton: Iliffe, Rob

He was the dominant intellectual figure of his age. His published works, including the Principia Mathematica and Opticks, reached across the scientific spectrum, revealing the degree of his interdisciplinary genius. His renown opened doors throughout his career, securing him prestigious positions at Cambridge, the Royal Mint, and the Royal Society. Yet alongside his public success, Sir Isaac Newton harbored private religious convictions that set him at odds with established law and Anglican doctrine, and, if revealed, threatened not just his livelihood but his life. Religion and faith dominated much of Newton's thought and his manuscripts, in various states of completion and numbering in the thousands of pages, are filled with biblical speculation and timelines, along with passages that excoriated the early Church Fathers. They make clear that his theological positions rendered him a heretic. Newton believed that the central concept of the Trinity was a diabolical fraud and loathed the idolatry, cruelty, and persecution that had come to characterize orthodox religion. Instead, he proposed as "simple Christianity"--a faith that would center on a few core beliefs and celebrate diversity in religious thinking and practice. An utterly original but obsessively private religious thinker, Newton composed some of the most daring works of any writer of the early modern period. Little wonder that he and his inheritors suppressed them, and that for centuries they were largely inaccessible. In Priest of Nature, historian Rob Iliffe introduces readers to Newton the religious animal, deepening our understanding of the relationship between faith and science at a formative moment in history and thought. Previous scholars and biographers have generally underestimated the range and complexity of Newton's religious writings, but Iliffe shows how wide-ranging his observations and interests were, spanning the entirety of Christian history from Creation to the Apocalypse. Iliffe's book allows readers to fully engage in the theological discussion that dominated Newton's age. A vibrant biography of one of history's towering scientific figures, Priest of Nature is the definitive work on the spiritual views of the man who fundamentally changed how we look at the universe.

From the Patriagora.com website:

How a Vine & Fig Tree World "Really" Works

Most people will describe the "Vine & Fig Tree" vision as "impractical," "utopian" and "unrealistic." Probably everyone in 2015 would describe those on board the Mayflower, leaving the Netherlands in 1620 in a rickety old boat (by today's standards) headed across the angry Atlantic Ocean for "the New World" as nut-case religious "extremists." But their "City upon a Hill" eventually worked. Better than anything in human history.

In the last 50 years, however, the United States government has killed, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians in an attempt to impose "secular" (atheistic) "democracy" (corporate fascism) on the world. During the last 100 years, "secular" governments have killed an average of 10,000 born people each and every single day of the century. (The figure does not include "legal" killings of unborn people, which now take place 135,000 times a day around the world.)

But government-approved, university-trained, media-whitewashed mass death is "responsible," "respectable," "practical," and "realistic,"

On this page is described how the "Vine & Fig Tree" vision could actually be implemented in "the real world." [note] Here is an excerpt:

Q.4: What are you promoting in place of "archism?"

A: Liberty Under God.

Liberty Under God
vs.
“Security” Under Archists

In a nutshell:

Liberty Under God

Liberty Under God is the philosophy that made America
the most prosperous and most admired nation in history.
America is now bankrupt and despised even by former admirers
because we have abandoned Liberty Under God
in favor of "Security Under Man"

By "Liberty" I mean

Freedom from Archists  (burglars, "the Red Coats," etc.)

By "Under God" I do not mean

the god of Osama bin Ladin.

• I mean the God of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and America's Founding Fathers:
  • James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," would say that Osama bin Ladin's religion is a "false religion." (Happily, not all Muslims share Osama's religion.)
  • I mean the True Religion.
• I mean Jesus Christ
  • I apply Christianity
    • personally, pledging my allegiance to Jesus.
    • nationally, acknowledging that America was once a Christian nation;
    • globally, working to fulfill Christ's "Great Commission" to make every nation a Christian nation.

Q.5: "Wait a minute . . . . Aren't you illegally mixing politics and religion?"

The modern idea of "Separation of Church and State" is an evil lie. While the modern Supreme Court declares that America is a "secular" nation, for the first 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, the Supreme Court frequently acknowledged that America was a Christian nation. And the more consistently America was Christian, the less archist America was.

On May 2, 1778, George Washington ordered the troops:

The commander-in-chief directs that divine service be performed every Sunday at eleven o'clock in those brigades [in] which there are chaplains; those which have none [are] to attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that officers of all ranks will by their attendance set an example to their men. While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. The signal instances of providential goodness which we have experienced, and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude and piety to the Supreme Author of all good.
— George Washington, General Orders, May 2, 1778 The Writings of George Washington, JC Fitzpatrick, ed., Wash. DC: US Gov't Printing Office, 1932, Vol. XI:342-343.

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention.
The Writings of George Washington, JC Fitzpatrick, ed., Wash. DC: US Gov't Printing Office, 1932, Vol 15, p.55.

George Washington to New Hampshire Founding Father Meshech Weare, June 8, 1783:

I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.
 a Circular Letter of Farewell to the Continental Army, containing "my final blessing to that Country, in whose service I have spent the prime of my life."
Inscribed on a bronze tablet adjoining the Washington pew in St. Paul's chapel in New York City.

Can we know for sure who is the Divine Author of our blessed Religion? Could it have been Muhammad? On July 9, 1812, President James Madison proclaimed a day of prayer,

to be set apart for the devout purposes of rendering the Sovereign of the Universe and the Benefactor of Mankind the public homage due to His holy attributes; of acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke the manifestations of His divine displeasure; of seeking His merciful forgiveness and His assistance in the great duties of repentance and amendment, that He would inspire all nations with a love of justice and of concord and with a reverence for the unerring precept of our holy religion to do to others as they would require that others should do to them.

"Our religion" is Christianity.

If elected I will follow James Madison's advice to vote against any bill which does not promote Christianity, the "true religion." In one of his most famous speeches, Madison, the "father of the Constitution," gave his reasons for opposing proposed legislation:

Because, the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.

The Disciples were given a "Great Commission":

During the first 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, courts -- including the Supreme Court of the United States -- repeated on numerous occasions that America was a Christian nation, including the notable 1892 case of Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States. Only someone ignorant of the facts or with a secularist agenda would ever say that America was not originally a Christian nation.

But Washington D.C. does not always act consistently with "the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion" -- to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and to not be like "the kings of the Gentiles." America has never been 100% consistent with "the religion of Jesus Christ." Of all the political parties, I think the precepts of the True Religion are best reflected by the Pledge required of all members of the Libertarian Party:

1. I do not believe in or advocate
   the initiation of force
   as a means of achieving political or social goals.

• no theft -- even if it's called "taxation" or "revenue enhancement."
• no kidnapping -- even if it's called "conscription" or "imprisonment"
• no murder -- even if it's called a "bold foreign policy" or "capital punishment"

Beyond the initiation of force, the religion of Jesus Christ prohibits the return of force:

2. I do not believe in the return of force -- no retaliatory, punitive vengeance

• Returning Force Against Private Force
  • Love your enemy
  • "Turn the other cheek
  • be defrauded rather than sue (1 Corinthians 6)
  • Do not return evil for evil; overcome evil with good (Romans 12; more)
• Returning Force Against Government Force
  • Go the Second Mile
  • suffer persecution
  • martyr, no revolutionary
  • Did Jesus Practice "self-defense?" Yes, but not by armed revolution
    • Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But actually My Kingdom is not from hence."
      John 18:36
• The Myth of "Self-Defense"
  • Christians seek to prevent evil from occurring.
  • There are ways to defend yourself against aggression;
    that is, to prevent an act of aggression from happening.
    • Lock the door
    • Use a shield
    • Run away.
  • But once the act of aggression has taken place
       and you have been aggressed against,
       then initiating a second act of aggression against the aggressor is not "self-defense."
    You're no longer defending yourself,
       you're on the offense;
       you're taking vengeance.
       You're not preventing violence, you're adding to the world's violence.
  • The myth of personal self-defense
  • The myth of "National Defense"
• Reconciliation through Repentance, Not Vengeance or "punishment"
  • Goal + Process = repentance and reconciliation
    • Matthew 18:15ff - The Church as Dispute Resolution Organization
  • Competing Free Market Institutions of Systematic, Reconciliation and Restitution
    • Free Market Dispute Resolution Agencies
  • Do not return evil for evil; overcome evil with good (Romans 12; more)
    Do not return force for force, but return incentives to reconcile for force.
  • Archists (in their hearts) will pretend to not be archists (in society).

3. Private Property - Individualism, not collectivism

• No compulsory redistribution of wealth.
• not socialism
• not fascism
• not crony capitalism
• not democracy
• The "Vine & Fig Tree" society, not the New World Order
• List of ways politicians steal private property
• The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are also threatened by archists.
• Unregulated private action - the exercise of divine callings using private property -- increases mankind's standard of living more than archists.

4. Order, not chaos/disorder

• "Let all things be done decently and in order"
• throughout society, not just in your home or church
• Liberty is the mother of order; archism is the father of chaos.
• America's Founding Fathers would say America today is chaotic and disordered, even though we have archists which are a thousand times more numerous and more powerful than the "swarms" of archists who plagued America in 1776.
• Archists are the greatest source of disorder and instability in our world today.
• Education:
  • The Founders insisted that the primary purpose of public education was to teach religion and morality, because order is maintained by religion and morality, not by archism.
  • Archists in Washington D.C. have prohibited local public schools from teaching students that the Declaration of Independence is really true
  • Archists are at war with "our holy religion" and with Christian morality
• Economics:
  • Archists cause economic recessions/depressions, the "boom-bust" of the "business cycle," and economic disorder; compounded by archist confiscation and redistribution of wealth known as "bailouts." Archists are an obstacle to the economic stability and predictability needed for long-term investment.
• International Relations:
  • Archists destabilize and overthrow competing archists on a far greater scale than so-called "anarchists."
    • The government of Iran was overthrown in 1953 by U.S. and British Intelligence, which led to the Iranian Revolution, then U.S. support for Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran..
    • The International Islamic Jihad from Afghanistan to Kosovo to the U.S. was created with American dollars beginning before the Carter Administration to destabilize and overthrow the Soviet Union, including the building of Mosques throughout Eurasia and printing of Korans with Wahabbi notes. "America Made Islam"
    • The CIA in Indonesia, 1965-1967
    • CIA destabilizes Guatemalan government Guatemala in 1954, and other governments in Latin America
  • Would Jesus Celebrate Archist Warmakers' Day?

5. God's Law, not Man's Law

We have been trained to think of "anarchy" as a situation where every man is his own god. But if Jesus is Lord, then we ought to obey His command not to be "archists." A world without archists is a world of peace, cooperation, harmony, and Free Markets, with everyone dwelling safely under his own "Vine & Fig Tree."

• "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"
• Theocracy - but not imposed by archism
• The Christian Religion
• The Religion of Secular Humanism brings genocide
• King Jesus requires "works of mercy" | Works of Mercy audio

Galantry, gallantry, is defined by Websters Dictionary, 1828 edition as

GAL'LANTRY, noun

1. Splendor of appearance; show; magnificence; ostentatious finery. [Obsolete or obsolescent.]

. . .

5. Vicious love or pretensions to love; civilities paid to females for the purpose of winning favors; hence, lewdness; debauchery.

: