WAS DISTRIBUTING LITERATURE SAYING JESUS WAS A BASTARD AND HIS MOTHER WAS A WHORE
HE WAS CHARGED WITH AN ATTACK ON THE NATION
Marrying non-Israelites, and wives not being chaste or discreet or obedient to their own husbandsAnd he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
Blasphemy of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ is a SIN and a CRIME in the US, based on both common law and God's Law, neither of which can EVER be changed.
Those who bless God's Law will be blessed, those who curse it will be cursed:
NAQAB IS TO COMMIT TRESPASS AGAINST GOD, NOT TO VILIFY
Ezekiel 20:27 Therefore, son of man, speak unto the house of Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Yet in this your fathers have blasphemed me, in that they have committed a trespass against me.
Eze 20:31 For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you.
BLASPHAMEO IS TO ACT AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD, NOT TO VILIFY
Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Jesus is not the head of woman. Jesus is the head of man, and man is the head of woman.
By being disobedient to a husband, the wife upsets the natural order of God and thus blapshemes His Word. What has concealed these facts from our view is the mistranslation of the Greek word "blasphemeo" as "speak evil" or "vilify" when most instances in Scripture don't even involve any speech at all. Even if the wife disobeys her husband when he tells her to be quiet, the blasphemy occurs when she upsets God's natural order by disobeying her husband, not when she speaks.
This is not to say that cursing God or Jesus is not blasphemy. Only that it's a sin which is often more egregious than mere speech. In the following verse, why would God, if He had only one law which can never be "forgiven", mandate that cursing Him or the holy spirit is worse than mixing His holy seed with "the peoples of the land"? Why would He give Phinehas an everlasting priesthood for killing the son of an Israelite priest and his Midianite wife because he'd married outside of his race, and not give an everalsting priesthood to the Israelites who stoned to death the man who was gathering wood on a Sabbath? Why would God make Solomon, whom He loved so much that He made him king over all Israel, do the worst thing He could to a father, kill his firstborn son, because Solomon allowed a Hittite to marry the Israelite woman Bathsheba?
THE ONLY UNFORGIVABLE SIN: MIXING THE HOLY SEED
Luke 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
Act 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] spirit shall not be forgiven unto men. Mar 3:29-30 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
WE ARE THE HOLY SPIRIT
Jesus said that an Israelite IS a spirit. The word "holy" means only one thing--set aside, or separate. God commanded Israelites to be holy [read: set aside] from the "peoples of the land". So a holy spirit is merely a set aside Israelite. By attempting to eliminate from the definition of "blasphemeo" the aspect of defying God's Law against race mixing, the translators and churches have effectively converted a prohibition of the holy spirit [read: set aside Israelites] against race mixing [read: blaspheming the word of God] into the ridiculous notion that cursing God is more egregious than physically mixing His holy seed. Not even God can correct race mixing without violating His own laws, and it destroys both races, whereas God CAN correct the action of vilification,and it destroys nothing.
We are led to believe that the act for which the Israelitish woman's son was put to death in the following verses involved his vilifying God. While he did "curse" [read: "qalal", #7043], the addition of "of the LORD" by the KJV translators leads us to falsely conclude that he ALSO "blasphemed the name of the LORD":
However, once the words added by the KJV translators are removed, we see that he merely cursed, and "blsaphemed the name":
We know from Leviticus 24:10 that he was not an Israelite, as his father or grandfather was an Egyptian. Descendants of Egyptians are referred to as "nikro", not "ger". This is about the only verse where the Hebrew word "shem" [#8034] is presumed to be a reference to "the name of the LORD". The vast majority of the time it means merely "name" just as it does in the following verse:
Lev 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.2Sa 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. 1Ki 21:10 And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.
Psa 74:18 Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O LORD, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name. Isa 37:6 And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say unto your master, Thus saith the LORD, Be not afraid of the words that thou hast heard, wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Isa 52:5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for naught? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed. Isa 65:7 Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.
A primitive root; to pull off, that is, (by implication) to expose (as by stripping); specifically to betroth (as if a surrender); figuratively to carp at, that is, defame; denominatively (from H2779) to spend the winter: - betroth, blaspheme, defy, jeopard, rail, reproach, upbraid
Psa 74:10 O God, how long shall the adversary reproach? shall the enemy blaspheme thy name for ever?
Eze 35:12 And thou shalt know that I am the LORD, and that I have heard all thy blasphemies which thou hast spoken against the mountains of Israel, saying, They are laid desolate, they are given us to consume.
blasphemeo G987, blasphemos G989, blasphemia G988
bawrak H1288, gadaph H1442, neawtsah H5007
From: "Bob S." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
This is exactly the blasphemy against Our LORD Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible which got you STUPID jews kicked out of 85 nations so far, and which will most likely increase to 88 in the immediate future (when France, Russia, and the US have finally followed suit). It's the Holy Bible, and not you STUPID jews, and not your STUPID "interpretations" of the Holy Bible, which shall stand in this putative Christian nation:
Exodus 22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
[We DO thank you profusely for the admission that it was you STUPID jews who brought usury to this putative Christian land].
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not murder.
Sir William Blackstone
(Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law was the recognized authority on the law for well over a century after 1776)
"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil...This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this...
"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures...[and] are found upon comparison to be really part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.
"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land.
"If [the legislature] will positively enact a thing to be done, the judges are not at liberty to reject it, for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which should be subversive of all government."
"The preservation of Christianity as a national religion is abstracted from its own intrinsic truth, of the utmost consequence to the civil state, which a single instance will sufficiently demonstrate.
"The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the main attributes ofthe Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life (all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ), these are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him and the party attesting; all moral evidences, therefore, all confidence in human veracity, must be weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity.
"Wherefore, all affronts to Christianity, or endeavors to depreciate its efficacy, in those who have once professed it, are highly deserving of censure."
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (USSC+) Opinions TANEY, C.J., Opinion of the Court
And that none of her Majesty's English or Scottish subjects, nor of any other Christian nation, within this province, shall contract matrimony with any negro or mulatto; nor shall any person, duly authorized to solemnize marriage, presume to join any such in marriage, on pain of forfeiting the sum of fifty pounds;
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (USSC+) Opinions FRANKFURTER, J., Concurring Opinion
Until 1842, China had asserted control over all foreigners within its territory, Shih Shun Liu, op. cit. supra, 76-89, but, as a result of the Opium War, Great Britain negotiated a treaty with China whereby she obtained consular offices in five open ports and was granted extraterritorial rights over her citizens. On July 3, 1844, Caleb Cushing negotiated a similar treaty on behalf of the United States. 8 Stat. 592. In a letter to Secretary of State Calhoun, he explained:
Quoted in 7 Op.Atty.Gen. 495, 496-497. Later treaties continued the extraterritorial rights of the United States, and the Treaty of 1903 contained the following article demonstrating the purpose of those rights:
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (USSC+) Opinions FRANKFURTER, J., Concurring Opinion
The first treaty with Japan was negotiated by Commodore Perry in 1854. 11 Stat. 597. It opened two ports, but did not provide for any exercise of judicial powers by United States officials. Under the Treaty of 1857, 11 Stat. 723, such power was given, and later treaties, which opened up further Japanese cities for trade and residence by United States citizens, retained these rights. The treaty of 1894, effective on July 17, 1899, however, ended these extraterritorial rights, and Japan, even though a "non-Christian" nation, came to occupy the same status as Christian nations. 29 Stat. 848. The exercise of criminal jurisdiction by consuls over United States citizens was also provided for, at one time or another, in treaties with Borneo, 10 Stat. 909, 910; Siam, 11 Stat. 683, 684; Madagascar, 15 Stat. 491, 492; Samoan Islands, 20 Stat. 704; Korea, 23 Stat. 720, 721; Tonga Islands, 25 Stat. 1440, 1442, and, by virtue of most favored nation clauses, in treaties with Tripoli, 8 Stat. 154; Persia, 11 Stat. 709; the Congo, 27 Stat. 926, and Ethiopia, 33 Stat. 2254.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (USSC+) Opinions FRANKFURTER, J., Concurring Opinion
The Declaration of Independence recognised the European law of nations, as practised among Christian nations, to be that by which they considered themselves bound, and of which they claimed the rights. This system is founded upon the principle that the state of nature between men and between nations is a state of peace. But there was a Mahometan law of nations which considered the state of nature as a state of war -- an Asiatic law of nations which excluded all foreigners from admission within the territories of the state. . . . With all these different communities, the relations of the United States were, from the time when they had become an independent nation, variously modified according to the operation of those various laws. It was the purpose of the Constitution of the United States to establish justice over them all.
Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892). Justice Brewer declared for the Court that "this is a Christian nation."
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (USSC+) Opinions BLACK, J., Opinion of the Court
There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been [p*425] religious, none of the respondents has denied this, and the trial court expressly so found:
The religious nature of prayer was recognized by Jefferson, and has been concurred in by theological writers, the United States Supreme Court, and State courts and administrative officials, including New York's Commissioner of Education. A committee of the New York Legislature has agreed.
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) (USSC+) Opinions BLACKMUN, J., Opinion of the Court
This Nation is heir to a history and tradition of religious diversity that dates from the settlement of the North American Continent. Sectarian differences among various Christian denominations were central to the origins of our Republic.
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) (USSC+) Opinions
PERHAPS THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THE SORT OF MEN WHO CAME TO THIS COUNTRY FOR PRECISELY THAT REASON IS ROGER WILLIAMS, THE FOUNDER OF RHODE ISLAND, WHO HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS "THE TRUEST CHRISTIAN AMONGST MANY WHO SINCERELY DESIRED TO BE CHRISTIAN." PARRINGTON, MAIN CURRENTS IN AMERICAN THOUGHT (1930), VOL. 1, AT P. 74. WILLIAMS, WHO WAS ONE OF THE EARLIEST EXPONENTS OF THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, BELIEVED THAT SEPARATION WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE CHURCH FROM THE DANGER OF DESTRUCTION WHICH HE THOUGHT INEVITABLY FLOWED FROM CONTROL BY EVEN THE BEST-INTENTIONED CIVIL AUTHORITIES: "THE UNKNOWING ZEALE OF CONSTANTINE AND OTHER EMPEROURS, DID MORE HURT TO CHRIST JESUS HIS CROWNE AND KINGDOME, THEN THE RAGING FURY OF THE MOST BLOODY NEROES. IN THE PERSECUTIONS OF THE LATER, CHRISTIANS WERE SWEET AND FRAGRANT, LIKE SPICE POUNDED AND BEATEN IN MORTERS: BUT THOSE GOOD EMPEROURS, PERSECUTING SOME ERRONEOUS PERSONS, ARRIUS, &C. AND ADVANCING THE PROFESSOURS OF SOME TRUTHS OF CHRIST (FOR THERE WAS NO SMALL NUMBER OF TRUTHS LOST IN THOSE TIMES) AND MAINTAINING THEIR RELIGION BY THE MATERIALL SWORD, I SAY BY THIS MEANES CHRISTIANITY WAS ECCLIPSED, AND THE PROFESSORS OF IT FELL ASLEEP ... ." WILLIAMS, THE BLOUDY TENENT, OF PERSECUTION, FOR CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE, DISCUSSED IN A CONFERENCE BETWEEN TRUTH AND PEACE (LONDON, 1644), REPRINTED IN NARRAGANSETT CLUB PUBLICATIONS, VOL. III, P. 184. TO WILLIAMS, IT WAS NO PART OF THE BUSINESS OR COMPETENCE OF A CIVIL MAGISTRATE TO INTERFERE IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS: "WHAT IMPRUDENCE AND INDISCRETION IS IT IN THE MOST COMMON AFFAIRES OF LIFE, TO CONCEIVE THAT EMPEROURS, KINGS AND RULERS OF THE EARTH MUST NOT ONLY BE QUALIFIED WITH POLITICALL AND STATE ABILITIES TO MAKE AND EXECUTE SUCH CIVILL LAWES WHICH MAY CONCERNE THE COMMON RIGHTS, PEACE AND SAFETY (WHICH IS WORKE AND BUSINESSE, LOAD AND BURTHEN ENOUGH FOR THE ABLEST SHOULDERS IN THE COMMONWEAL) BUT ALSO FURNISHED WITH SUCH SPIRITUALL AND HEAVENLY ABILITIES TO GOVERNE THE SPIRITUALL AND CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALE ... ." ID., AT 366. SEE ALSO ID., AT 136-137.
REID V. COVERT 354 U.S. 1
THE TREATY OF 1894, EFFECTIVE ON JULY 17, 1899, HOWEVER, ENDED THESE EXTRATERRITORIAL RIGHTS AND JAPAN, EVEN THOUGH A "NON-CHRISTIAN" NATION, CAME TO OCCUPY THE SAME STATUS AS CHRISTIAN NATIONS. 29 STAT. 848. THE EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION BY CONSULS OVER UNITED STATES CITIZENS WAS ALSO PROVIDED FOR, AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, IN TREATIES WITH BORNEO, 10 STAT. 909, 910; SIAM, 11 STAT. 683, 684; MADAGASCAR, 15 STAT. 491, 492; SAMOAN ISLANDS, 20 STAT. 704; KOREA, 23 STAT. 720, 721; TONGA ISLANDS, 25 STAT. 1440, 1442, AND, BY VIRTUE OF MOST-FAVORED-NATION CLAUSES, IN TREATIES WITH TRIPOLI, 8 STAT. 154; PERSIA, 11 STAT. 2254.
Forum on free exercise of religion http://www.rushonline.com/d219.htm
Blasphemy is an anachronism
4.64 A number of submissions expressed the view that the law of blasphemy is anachronistic and irrelevant to the circumstances of modern Australian society.  As a matter of practice, the offence is very rarely used in the English-speaking world, and is even more rarely successful.  One person thought that the issues were irrelevant given the far more pressing problems currently facing society.  As a matter of principle, the Humanist Society submitted that:
4.65 A number of submissions noted that the rarity of prosecutions in modern times should not lead to complacency about the need for active reform:
4.66 The historian, Mr Ken Cable, provided the Commission with information on the role of the established church, arguing that slander against God was at the centre of the offence and that the object of the law was to protect the community against God's wrath and not to protect the religious sensibilities of others. Because of this emphasis, there could be no blasphemy against a non-Anglican God because in those cases the community would be in no danger of divine retribution. However, the submission noted that the concept of blasphemy was obsolete and that an "established church" was, if anything, a mere matter of convenience. 
You have a lot of interesting discussions going on at this time, and although I read most of them, I usually refrain from commenting because you and some of your readers, such as Mssrs, Kennedy, August, et al, give such well researched information, that I cant really see where I could contribute more on the matter. However, I have been involved in a few rants, such as the Congregation of Israel rant, the Uriah the Hittite rant, and most recently, the Democracy vs Republic rant, because I felt that I had something to offer.
I would now like for you to indulge me, letting me add in me two cents worth in this new Blasphemy rant, specifically because a reader made some unsupported statements, claiming that there is no such thing as the crime of Blasphemy.
He mentions the false charge of Blasphemy against Jesus:
Your reader made reference to Jesus being charged with blasphemy, therefore, the charge of blasphemy must be evil. Please note that the charge was false. The trial admits that there were no true witnesses there; that all witnesses were false, which is unlawful according to the Laws of God. Please note that if you or I or anyone else claimed to be the real Messiah, it would be Blasphemy. However, since Jesus actually is the Messiah, the charge of blasphemy cannot be used. But, the fact that his trial was fraudulent does not mean that there can be no charge of blasphemy against others.
His false statements that there are no laws against Blasphemy:
The Law of the Land of all of the de jure republics in North America, specifically the United States of America, the Confederate States of America, and the Republic if Texas, are based upon English Common Law. English common law is based upon the Customs of Anglo-Saxon Christian Israelite people. Please consider the following law references that I have copied out of books in my personal library:
- - - See Holy Scripture ref. - - -
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
- - - See also Maxims of Law - - -
The Christian religion is part of the Common Law.
Loffts English Kings Bench Reports - 327.
Where the Divinity is insulted the case is unpardonable.
Jenkins Eight Centuries of Reports English Exchequer. 167
It is more serious to hurt Devine than temporal Majesty.
That which is against Devine Law is repugnant to society and is void.
Common Law Maxim.
- - - See also Blackstones Commentaries - - -
VI. The fourth species of offences therefore, more immediately against God and religion, is that of blasphemy or by contumelious reproaches of our saviour Christ, holy scripture, or exposing it to contempt and ridicule. These are offenses punishable at common law by fine and imprisonment, or other infamous corporal punishment: for christianity is part of the laws of England.
Commentaries on The Laws of
- - - See also The Code of 1650, (Connecticut & New Haven Colonies) - - -
1. If any man after legall conviction, shall have or worship any other God but the Lord God, hee shall bee put to death. Deut. 13. 617, 2,---Exodus 22. 20
3. If any person shall blaspheme the name of God the ffather, Sonne or holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous or highhanded blasphemy, or shall curse in the like manner, hee shall bee put to death. Lev. 24. 15, 16.
The Code of 1650, commonly called Blue Laws. Compiled by Silas Andrus & Son, (1821), at page 28.
- - - See also Blacks Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. - - -
In English Law
Blasphemy is the offense of speaking matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, or the Book of Common Prayer, intended to wound the feelings of mankind or to excite contempt and hatred against the church by law established, or to promote immorality.
In American Law
oral or written reproach maliciously cast upon God, His name, attributes, or religion.
Com. V. Kneeland, 20 Pick. (
In general, blasphemy may be described as consisting in speaking evil of the Deity with an impious purpose to derogate from the divine majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. It is purposely using words concerning God calculated and designed to impair and destroy the reverence, respect, and confidence due to Him as the intelligent creator, governor, and judge of the world. It embraces the idea of detraction, when used towards the Supreme Being, as calumny usually carries the same idea when applied to an individual. It is a willful and malicious attempt to lessen mens reverence of God by denying His existence, or His attributes as an intelligent creator, governor, and judge of men, and to prevent their having confidence in Him as such. Com. V. Kneeland, 20. Pick. (Mass.) 211, 212.
The offense of blasphemy under Rev. St. c. 126, §
30 (Rev. St. 1930, ch. 135, §
34), may be committed either
by using profanely insolent and reproachful language against God, or by contumeliously
reproaching Him, His creation, government, final judgment of the world, Jesus Christ, the
Holy Ghost, or the Holy Scriptures as contained in the canonical books of the Old and New
Testament, or by exposing any of these enumerated Beings or Scriptures to contempt and
ridicule. State v. Mockus, 120
Blacks Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1933).
- - - See also Restatement: - - -
Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws: (American Law Institute 1934)
RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF CONFLICT OF LAWS:
§ 4. COMMON LAW DEFINED.
The common law is the general Anglo-American system of legal concepts and the traditional legal technique which forms the basis of the law of the States which have adopted it.
§ 4. c. Prevalence of the common law throughout United States.
The common law prevails throughout the continental United States except in Louisiana, and even in Louisiana there are important branches of the law in which it is followed.
John, what can I say? If I give any more references on this subject I might get cramps in my fingers from typing so much. You are absolutely right in your statements that if there were a trial for blasphemy and the party were guilty, you would convict him. You are right because you have the laws of God and man on your side. You are absolutely right and your reader is absolutely wrong.
End of Rant!