Any Christians with Aspergers?

Post Reply New Topic

I will apologize up-front for this overly long post.

I think some issues can be reconciled between us. I feel what started as a simple question by the OP has morphed into a juggernaut that's running amok now.

I respect we have differences of opinion and that it is a fruitless exercise to think I will somehow convince you (or anyone) that one is wrong and the other is right, so I will state my case and leave it at that. I am not interested in debating the issue ad nauseam.

***

First, some housekeeping, just to post responses.

Dussel, you are correct that you never signed a “contract” but since all government must have order (a necessary evil, if you like), the term “social contract” is still valid. Rather than the state rule over you purely because it can force its will upon you, the state has legal obligations to you in exchange for your obedience. If the people hold the state accountable to this contract, you may pay taxes you do not like and you might have other rules you wish to disregard that you must obey, but at least the state has obligations toward you that it must perform. Otherwise, you are just a victim of the state’s whim. I would like to think that you would find the former more desirable than that latter.

More so, your statement about the USA and violence is spot on, I do not dispute that, but much of your observation is based on what the USA has degraded into in recent decades. Many of us in America are not happy with this development.

You are also correct about it being the duty of every American to vote reasonably and that we get the government we deserve IF WE FAIL TO DO SO (sorry, I had to amend your observation to make it correct).

When I was a child, my uncle told me that elections were decided long before anyone appeared at a voting booth. I thought he was crazy, but I have come to learn that he was right. It takes insane amounts of money to run for state or federal office. Without that funding, being heard by the prospective voter is almost impossible. More so, that funding often results in being “owned” by the parties that backed your bid for office. Add to that the mind-boggling amount of money spent in the media to shape public opinion of the candidates and you can see that by Election Day, the people really do not have a choice.

This was well illustrated by the bid of Ron Paul of Texas to get the Republican nomination for president in 2008. Ron Paul was branded as “unelectable” by the mass media even though he had more real supporters (actual American voters) and more money from donations than anyone else running for the nomination. His supporters could prove how he was being marginalized in polls so that those questioned would likely pick another named candidate on the list. This manipulation ensured he could not win the nomination. So, in the end, the man the power brokers (who do not represent the American people...just themselves) wanted got the shot at the White House. Worse than that, in the way the selection process works, as the campaign drags on, Americans in states that get to vote (or hold conventions/caucuses) later in the process basically get no say because they get to pick from who is left over. Ultimately, a minority of the nation gets to voice who they have the most confidence in when there is the largest number of candidates to choose from.

Election after election this has eliminated the quality of the “leaders” we get in government. It is that way by design, a design run by a handful of people, for their own self-interest.

However, the election process itself has become irrelevant. After the election of 2000, the use of digital voting technology has been pushed to the front of the line. These machines have been proven to be subject to hacking, errors, malfunction, and every election has a slew of problems from lack of machines for the population in a precinct (often disfavoring one side of the political spectrum only) to outright indications of vote tampering. Some machines have a paper trail where votes counts could be confirmed, but that safeguard is meaningless. Voter registrars are typical lazy bureaucrats. The mandate to “hand count” the vote is either an operation of law (vote closer than <1% in most places) or by the order of a court. Now, the only other “vote count” available is exit poll data. Exit polling reports an error factor of 3-5%. That means if you want to tamper with voting results, if you don’t stray far past the statistical margin of error, there is no prima facie case for vote tampering. So, no court ordered recount. So long as your tampering does not make a race closer than 1% (or whatever the state standard is), no operation of law will mandate a hand recount. So, nothing short of the curiosity of the voter registrar will prompt any human second-guessing the word of a machine that TO THIS DAY utilizes technology that remains 100% subject to tampering. As virtually all voter registrars are largely computer illiterate (at least to the extent of knowing if the code within the machine has been tampered with), they could never discover such tampering in the pre-election inspection of the machines.

So, in American politics, not only are the people given a choice between Dumb and Dumber (or whatever euphemism you prefer), the act of voting is meaningless because those in power can either ensure an election win by shaping the minds of the masses or simply tampering with the vote registering technology...if not both.

Granted; IF you could get the majority of Americans to vote for someone other than the status quo as an independent candidate, you MIGHT upset this apple cart, but the number of Americans who have woken up to this sad reality (or at least to the point of acting upon it) are too few to compose a majority. You cannot effect change by working in the political system as it is now run.

Does America deserve this? Perhaps. Yet it saddens me that those of us who love liberty and freedom and do what we can to preserve it are being sold out by the mindless masses who are content to “go with the flow.”

***

Monty,

I can not debate some of the issues you bring up because I do not understand the background from where you are coming.

I can assure you that judges routinely act outside the scope of their authority. Yes, SOME acts of judicial activism are overturned on appeal, but not ALL of them. I can assure you that in America many judges rule in ways that blatantly contradict the Constitution of the united States if not also the state constitution they have taken an oath to preserve and defend.

What I hope you understand is the corruption of the judiciary. If a man violates your rights, the state will not automatically defend you. Much depends on WHO you are and WHO the accused is. If the state itself (or one of its agents) was the offending party, it’s even worse. In criminal matters, the state may have seized both your assets and your person. Want to find a lawyer willing to take on the state? Good luck. Even if you can prove the state is utterly wrong in what it has done, the appellate process rarely seeks to affirm the rights of the individual but rather to uphold the ruling of the lower court(s). Even when the state is wrong, “procedural error” by your attorney at trial might be used to justify denying your appeal. Is this justice?

Where criminal matters are concerned, courts routinely try to call a criminal matter a “civil” matter to force the burden of legal pursuit on you. The state is charged with maintaining order and averting breaches of the peace, but the police and courts are all too willing to say avoid this duty when they think it won’t form a future embarrassment.

Courts are largely disinterested in dealing with civil matters. The wait for “justice” is painstakingly long. This is about the only place I’ve seen courts routinely stay within the scope of their lawful authority, and I think that is because the courts can not realize a profit from civil cases.

Finally, family court would be the closest thing to Hell I could imagine for many people. Yeah, some people deserve to be in those courts, but depending on your state, family court can be a nightmare where the judge can do whatever he wants and you really are powerless. It takes little to get into family court. You might have your spouse divorce you and seek a court judge who (illegally) favors one gender over another (but somehow stays on the bench). You might be a man who thought a kid was yours but now that you know from DNA testing that it’s not yours. Well, you still are burdened with child support. Truth means nothing. The expediency of getting the kid off state welfare and on the back of some other sap is all the courts care about. You might have your children kidnapped by the state because someone made a false complaint against you and the case worker has this delusion that you are an unfit parent because he/she doesn’t agree with your parenting methods (the law does not have much of a list of what constitutes child abuse or neglect, so a difference of child rearing philosophies shouldn’t qualify as “neglect”). In any of this, where is the justice? Where is the court adhering to its proper role under the law?

I write all of this because the “rightness” of the state is not automatic. If you disagree, fine, but I will never agree that the state can do no wrong just because it is “the state.”

***

Now, I will try to remain focused on the issue of Romans 13.


Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:1-2 (KJV)

We’ve debated the issue of the legitimacy of the American government and its adherence to the Constitution as the general flaw in it deserving the loyalty and obedience of the people. However, there are deeper dimensions to this issue that I have deliberately left out because not only is it the product of more than a decade of legal study, but also I really don’t have the time to discuss the matter down to the smallest detail. So, I’m asking you to take much of this on faith as it has taken me much effort to distill the information into something easier to process.

What you need to comprehend is that Romans 13 largely does not apply because the “state” as you likely comprehend it and apply it to Romans 13 does not exist. “Government” is a fiction, and when it comes to law, the devil is in the details (no pun intended). Jesus taught that those who live by the sword shall likewise die by the sword, and that rule does not flow in just one direction. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and when pressed into a corner, the government (and the courts) must make one of two choices…(1) ignore the rule of law and impose its will by brute force or (2) cease and desist because it is in violation of the very law it has created.

I will start with a fundamental rule of law regarding corporate entities. A person can only be a member of a corporate entity if he is either specifically named in the corporate charter or if he is invited (and he accepts) membership in the corporate entity as a shareholder. An employee of the corporation can also be subjected to the corporation’s authority but to a lesser degree than one who is a member of the corporation.

Any person outside of this corporation IS NOT subject to the authority of the corporation. It is as simple as that. No debate. End of discussion.

Now, do you know that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and many other variations of this name are registered corporations? Do you know that every state in the union has become a registered corporation? Do you know that most municipal and county governments have become registered corporations? If you are in America and see a sign indicating you are entering a town/city and it refers to itself as “unincorporated,” that means it IS NOT a registered corporation.

Now, why is this important? Prior to this move to make all governmental entities a “corporation,” a free man lived under the ORGANIC system of government that ruled over him. The united States of America, Florida, Kentucky, Virginia, etc. were all living structures comprised of flesh and blood men and women. These ORGANIC structures had very limited power (thanks to the Constitution(s) that founded them). Likewise these ORGAINIC structures had limited jurisdiction over free men and were largely disinterested in exercising power over every aspect of a free man’s life.

With the move to become registered corporations, these bodies surrendered a flesh and blood existence for a legal fiction. The rules regulating those legal fictions are fixed. Corporations have some, but not all, of the rights of a flesh and blood person. By becoming a legal fiction, government CHOSE to restrict its legal and lawful authority. To act outside of this authority jeopardizes its standing as a registered corporation.

Now, a brief lesson on flag etiquette. When a flag is displayed with a gold fringe, it signifies that admiralty jurisdiction applies. Admiralty jurisdiction applies over the matters of the sea, but it really originates over the COMMERICAL matters of the sea. No man can be brought into admiralty jurisdiction without his consent. Real persons are not automatically subject to admiralty jurisdiction.

Got that much? Good.

Now, go into ANY courthouse in America. Note the flags they fly. Usually, they have the flag of the united States and of the respective state of the union. BOTH ARE BORDERED WITH GOLD FRINGE.

Remember what I said about the jurisdiction of the corporation not extending to extra-corporate entities? Remember what I said about the federal, state and most all municipal governments being corporations? WHAT IS THE “STATE” WHEN THE STATE IS A REGISTERED CORPORATION WITH LIMITED AUTHORITY? Living within the physical boundaries of the united States or any state of the union CAN NOT make you a member of the corporate entity. Being born within the borders of any state can not make you a member of the state corporation. Only someone born on federally owned land/territory (very few of those exist) can be claimed to be a “U.S. citizen” for purposes of jurisdiction. Only someone who “naturalizes” and asks to be a “U.S. citizen” can be legitimately called a member of the federal corporation.

Prior to the 1940s most courts practiced in the realm of “common law.” There were laws on the books, but before this time, most cops and courts focused on matter arising out of real breaches of the peace and crimes against REAL people and REAL property. Under the “common law” a man was free to do whatever he pleased so long as he did not endanger or violate the person or property of his fellow man. Outside of this, the “codified” law really didn’t list that many violations to which a man could be brought before the court.

However, as more and more states (and the federal government) became registered corporations, they formally renounced “common law” and went to “statutory law.” The difference? Under “statutory law” any issue the corporate entity wants to say is actionable is a matter that can be brought before the court. Since then, the number of laws a person is expected to obey has expanded into tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of laws, regulations, rules, etc. that a person is expected to know and obey even though there is no person in the legal system that knows all of the “law” written in these books.

Well, as I stated, as the government(s) chose to become registered corporations, they subjected THEMSELVES to the rules of corporate law. They (at the highest level) should know the limitations of their authority. Since they made the very rules that allow for their corporate existence to remain valid, they must play by those same rules.

So, how does a real person get subjected to the “jurisdiction” of a court under admiralty jurisdiction?

Maxim of Law - Silence equates to consent
Maxim of Law - That which is not denied is admitted
Maxim of Law - Any right not specifically exercised is deemed to be waived

In short, hardly anyone realizes what has happened to the government and the courts becoming corporate entities. So, they say nothing in protest to the lawful jurisdiction of the court or the “state” over their person. Silence (and/or failure to object) constitutes submission to the otherwise illegitimate and unlawful jurisdiction of the court. IGNORANCE of the law (a product that was over a century in the making) by the common man is why the “state” gets away with this unlawful and illegal conduct.

Under the rule of law that supposedly the courts MUST follow, you are a real person not subject to their jurisdiction. You are not a member of the “state” corporation, the federal corporation or the municipal corporation. Unless you are an employee of the corporation, you are not subject to their authority at any level. Every officer of the law gains his “authority” over you via the state’s corporate charter, but by the very law that creates that charter his authority extends only over members of the corporation, not anyone he encounters.

So, unless a man chooses to enter a court and pursue or defend a case at admiralty, he is never subjected to the court’s authority...under the rule of law. To make a “special appearance” in court to object to the court’s lawful jurisdiction does not convey jurisdiction over a real purpose in any other capacity.

I am not a citizen of a corporation. I am not a member of a corporation. As such, the “state” has no legitimate or lawful authority over me. The “laws” it passes are only applicable against members of the corporation, not against whomever they wish to impose them against. As I am not a member of the corporation, I owe no obedience or duty to the corporation. My moral duty is to live peacefully with all men, to do no harm and make just restitution should I harm the person or property of another. That many of the “laws” dealing with these moral obligations are codified under a corporate charter does not extend corporate authority over my person...they simply are in harmony with the common law that was usurped to which I was already morally bound to follow.

Romans 13 is totally outside of this realm.

Before the “state” exchanged its ORGANIC status for a legal fiction as a registered corporation, one could persuasively argue that Romans 13 should apply. However, the “state” chose to become a registered corporation and by operation and rule of law, it CHOSE to restrict the scope of its legal and lawful jurisdiction. Since that day, the “state” has relied on deception to trick free men into accepting their exercise of jurisdiction when it does not apply.

Or, think of it this way....

Romans 13 commands obedience to the “state,” right?

The “state” has chosen to become a corporate entity and by the very rules it creates it cannot exercise jurisdiction over non-members of the corporation, right?

I am not a member of any federal, state or municipal corporation, right?

Therefore, I am obeying Romans 13 by NOT giving obedience to a corporate entity that does not have lawful or legal authority over me.

That the “state” will routinely use lack of disclosure, deception, etc. to deceive people into thinking they are members of the corporate entity when the law is clear that they are not changes nothing. I have learned the truth of how their system works, and morally, as I am not a member of the corporation, I am free to disregard their mandates with a clear conscience.

If the “state” ever imposes its will upon my person, it does so by threat of violence and not with any legitimacy from the rule of law. Knowing this frees my mind and soul from the slavery that many are trapped in by their ignorance of the inner workings of the “state.” This knowledge protects me from those who would claim to be a friend but really are an enemy.

Ultimately, we could debate the "legitimacy" of a government until we are blue in the face, but I have learned this much to be universally true.

To prevent a bloody revolt by the people, a government seeks to carry an image of "legitimacy." This means they create rules that the government must abide by...be that a Constitution, Bill of Rights, or other structure that serves such an end. Does this mean that government regards their own rules and never seek to break them? Of course not, but when pressed into a corner, the government must make a choice....either openly declare a right to rule by force (and take the backlash it creates with the people) or hold itself accountable lest the truth be exposed and the masses revolt.

Only a self-declared despot can act as such openly. All others must maintain the image of being accountable. States cannot violate the rules they openly claim apply to themselves and expect the masses to continue to obey them. Romans 13 may compel a Christan to obedience, but that obedience is limited to the very rules the state places against itself. When the state acts in contradiction to the very rules limiting its authority, that obligation ends. Now, if you want to ask about how it would apply living under an open despot, that would be a totally different topic and not applicable to the debate at hand.

Yes I am a Christian with Aspergers and am 36 years. I find it difficult socialising in large groups during the tea and coffee part though. The people are friendly there and I enjoy going and I feel God's holy spirit. I always feel some people think I am rude because I do not socialise like they do and I am short during conversation. Also when people ask me to pray for them openly, my prayers are short because I can not think of anything else to say. One person looked a bit disappointed with me, probable because she wanted more out of my short prayer. I would have done it better if I could.

I wish I could also invite people into my house instead of me being invited to theirs now and then but I feel too anxious for that. In the past I sense that people also feel I am rude for that. They do not know I have autism and I do not know how to tell them.

Ello I am a christian and have PDD-NOS. I am currently attendign a Nazerene church.

Hello Random Kid and winddoggy, how are you , what church do you go to, can you fit in there well, can you get on with the people there well?

On this topic, I decided to revisit my research into Romans 13, what Paul meant, and how it applies to Christians living around the world today. I'm going to paste in an online commentary that I think does a very good job of addressing this issue for those who are interested.

http://www.covenantnews.com/daveblack050110.htm

I fit in ok. We have a cool youth group and my sunday school teacher who is also the leadear of the youth group is amzing. I love her.

Most of the people at my church are nice too. I find fault with them often though. But there are not any better people. The problem is me

I'm Catholic.

Do you have many differences with your church?

Hey I'm Jenny and I'm a Christian with Asperger's looking to be friends with other Christians who have Asperger's.

I'm a Christian. I found it in my early 20s. God is honestly my only friend. It makes so much sense seeing how the world is these days. The Bible speaks lots of truth in my opinion. I agree, most Aspies I meet are hostile to the faith.

here, count me in! I'm a Christian Pastor of a small house church, and I have Asperger. I'm glad to hear that you are a Christian. I'm on the other side of the Christian spectrum , I'm Open theist, and been a Christian for about 30 years.