Lobbyists, Fundamentalism & Ceasar

I am not an expert on the Christian Bible, nor anything else really, but I have come across a large body of information and I try my best to make sense of as many pieces of it as possible.

If anyone wants to provide a precise link to the actual Bible verse I refer to, please do. For now I can only describe words attributed to Christ wherein Christ tells his followers to leave certain things “unto Ceasar.” For more on this picture (near end of linked post) and these actions of Caesar which created France Click Here.

My limited training and perhaps my faulty memory has left me with the belief that what Christ intended included an acknowledgment that there are legitimate differences between the life and the work of an individual and the work of the government.

It also seems he admonished his followers to live their individual lives and tell others of the good news, and to make their personal decisions according to the Christ life he demonstrated. The phrase “leave unto Caesar” seems so very clear to me that he intended his personal model to be emulated personally by individuals and that he understood and respected that the government is not an individual but an apparatus to organize the civil affairs of all the people, Christians, non Christians, believers and non believers of a diverse set of beliefs and that His Kingdom would be seen in His Believers and not in the governments of the local lands nor any of the hundreds or thousands of other governments outside of the walking distance of Christ at that time.

It seems to follow that while individuals in governments are informed by their beliefs, the government is not subservient to the Christ model or any religious model including Sharia, despite the current fervent desires by many Christians and Muslims who want the government to spread their current interpretations of their beliefs in all its varieties and incorporate them directly into all governments actions, laws EE.

Doesn’t the Christ per the Bible say not to merge any church and any state. Yes.

The framers of our constitution said the same thing even though most of them had a personal version of a Christian basis in their individual religious beliefs. And yet, they only made a short reference to the state having no official religion. Special Interests on one side say that means all references to the Christian Traditions and related Beliefs should be removed but they are misinterpreting the constitution for their own selfish gains not what the framers of our constitution had in mind. Also, Special Interests on the other side wants these same Beliefs to become part of law everywhere, also not intended by the framers of our constitution

And I further think any such conflict in interest ON EITHER SIDE, and there are many, must be better guarded against. Special Interest of all kinds, and there are so many, run rampant in our government, from individuals elected to be “citizen” legislators who later go to work for lobbyists but knowing and planing to do so as a logical career path full of money and power.

A government free of undue influence of any Special Interest should be our goal. A government of the people, by the people and for the people should not allow the current power mechanism embedded in our system. Don’t give me any hits about Democrats or Republicans, they all just play in the political cess pool and are all smeared. Could or can that “real change” happen with the resistance of those “special interests”?

Probably not. Maybe definitely not.

However, I want Special Interests to tell their story to individual citizens, go ahead pay the media what the market will bear, but not through the school classroom nor the lobbies of our government, not on planes with lawmakers but DIRECTLY to the people and then the people can vote for candidates they choose. Yes, the candidates need to figure out a way for the voter to get the message and will have to pay the media what the market will bear. The role of the government to ensure a way for voters to hear about unfunded candidates should be different than now but still very finite. More on that later. The special power, privildgege and access all special interest have should be redirected to the voter and away from the lawmaker. The lawmaker chould hear from the voter not the special interest.

As complex as it would be today after a couple of hundred years of “established law” I would propose that we debate an amendment to the constitution to make it clear that ONLY CITIZENS enjoy the right of the constitution. That would mean a separate body of rights would need to be written for all Special Interests (anyone or anything  not a  US Citizen) including religions, businesses, groups of citizens of every kind, visitors, legal and illegal, combatants etc. Each of those categories of Special Interests should be dealt with directly and not confused with the rights of CITIZENS which I believe the framers intented. The Constitution as written should apply to US Citizens and no one else. The courts, regulators and lawmakers have used their power and confused a US Citizen rights with that of a corporation, union, visitor, legal or otherwise, enemy, 501(C) and other fictitious organizational efforts worthy of rights. JUST NOT THE SAME ONES AS YOURS OR MINE AS A CITIZEN.I emailed The Office of the Chief Hypocrite to ask them to try to work into their schedule a Channeled Interview of some of the framers, so stay tuned.