Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for June 14th, 2013

The Eagle Atop the Tree of Peace is Screaming a Warning (a.k.a. The Feminine Fire inSide).

leave a comment »

This is a continuation from “Myths, Monuments and Monarchies.” I wanted to make sure we heard a plain, clear statement from an indigenous (to “North America” aka in other terms “Great Turtle Island”) from a Mohawk woman who “gets it.” She speaks about the “fire within” and I know this fire, but I also know that it has to do with connections. And the way to dominate and expatriate any group is to break all those connections and re-establish them in a new form more friendly to the colonizing state.

The eagle sits on top of the tree of peace and screams when danger is coming. This image, The Tree of Peace was adopted as The Tree of Liberty, as was the eagle, into national symbols…

Me, I am a product of this state at the disintegration and exposure of its value system, and believe it’s time for the Us/Them dialogue to start to regain a little more REAL respect instead of the fake kind, with labels, of people whose religious (which are, whose ways of life) differ, and see it through their eyes for a change.

A Confederacy then was not an Empire, but a way of life that helped reduce the warring. This is different from the feudal system which is to accumulate massive wealth, which appears to (judging by those who set this up) somehow require the shutting and cutting off of women’s leadership and insight (as well as rights to property and participate in government, in short, women are cut off and limited to their biological functions, except those who seek to excel in the MODEL which is still based on the IMPERIAL FEUDAL SYSTEM which requires losers to support the continued aggrandizement of the WINNERS.

Whatever our country could’ve been when it started, and chose to take PART — but not the female participation part — of the models from the American Indians (specifically the Iroquois) — it diid not become and no longer is. We are now fully a debt-based, warfare model which incorporates lying, stealing, cheating, and as I believe the last post established, periodic genocides and constant instability — as a way of life. All who subscribe to this way of life MUST fiscally support it (either by being poor and becoming part of a social science demonstration part; plus “justifying” more taxes, or by being middle class, and not having enough free time to actually understand how the system works, or by participating in the religious institutions which control their women and believe in special status for religious institutions, in combination with being too “spiritual” to be subject to earthly powers (etc. etc.).

Perhaps Ben, John, and Tom all knew in advance, from the cultures they came from, that no one was going to ever treat the Indians as equals, or women as equals, unless they were dominated in warfare or by other force.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 14, 2013 at 6:40 pm

An Important Lesson from the Fertile Crescent: What Corporate Christianity learned from the Assyrian Empire

leave a comment »

[Immediate Update, here, deletes the top portion of post for a separate one. It quoted from Mohawk Nation News. I tend to contrast and compare, but the transcontinental jump (North America . .. Middle East/Fertile Crescent, etc.) would probably prompt readers to hit the “eject” switch en route.

THIS one relates Assyria (then and now) and its god and practices to Christianity (ditto). It is a good history lesson; better told on the links than right here.

The next one is simply going to remind us that other cultures probably really did have it better, and to get back to “better,” we can’t reverse the clock and layer a “tribal model” into an “empire” situation. Both world views affect all aspects of life for almost everyone (welll, everyone) living under them. There has to be a better way, and while sponsoring “responsible fatherhood” from the corporate model to counter the welfare model may sound like a good idea — it’s not. Both are doing it atop the “empire” model which is wealth accumulation through expanding the empire and taking tribute. In our time, the tribute includes the income tax.

The Mohawk, and many other tribal, models apparently had more equality between the sexes, and because they were NOT building empires, and so excavating the earth for skyscrapers (a.k.a. civilization) — they didn’t have such need of vast slave labor forces and vast tributes (last I heard). They have had slaves, and tributes — but I’m talking the technologies that so leverage differences they have refined and perfected how to change worldviews of entire populations (and wipe out or marginalize those who differ) — that there remains pollution, genocide and exterminations.

I think this has to be discussed. However, in a wealth-based religious society based on the (Western) monarchy model (as applied in the judicial system which, you should know by now, is being globalized to match other countries under either constitutional monarchies, a commonwealth, or even socialism) our days and times are pre-occupied with servicing the national gods. This includes dominating at least married women (and by and large, all of us) such that we, meaning women of a variety of backgrounds, have to actually clamber up the ladder (hierarchy) or collect around the religious institutions, or around the public schools –or, as possible, dominate the web somehow — and it’s difficult to find a real, genuine connection free from that static.

Blogs, incidentally, aren’t so interactive as they seem. They are “conduit” technology based on “tell.” The issue there becomes a confusion and lack of personal organizing principle — all is organized around the search engine results and browsers, not to mention we also organize our priorities to maintain internet access or travel to where it’s free. This provides wider — but shallower — connections between human beings who may never live in the same community. a LOT is lost in translation that your average woman would pick up in a few hours in the other person’s presence, or working with them.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 14, 2013 at 11:07 am

Myths, Monuments, Monarchies — and Corporations (In Anticipation of Fathers’ Day)

leave a comment »

The myth of “Healthy Marriage //Responsible Fatherhood” turns to be out a turnkey system for administrative expansion of an imperialist (increasingly fascist) federal control of all aspects of life in the “States.” It is a theology of domination on the basis of assumed superiority, which means, in violation of basic human rights. Humans are divided into two genders, and one is judged to be superior or more valuable than the others.

Like most theologies it’s also hypocritical — and justifies turning the pendulum towards “fatherhood” because the SAME ENTITIES (i.e., the welfare system, centralized wealth redistribution through income taxes, etc.) were allegedly unfair to men as a whole by virtue of feminism, which is a threat to the state, etc.

In that, they are probably right.

To appeal to the basest instincts of all humans — fear, and paranoia about change, and whipping up some hate. This is overt, but when tied perhaps to the emotional topic of “children’s best interests” and the noble concept of “work” (which turns out to mean, translated, “produce more income taxes and consumer purchases” for the bureaucracy), with most likely a Puritan/Calvinist spin in there somewhere — distracts most of us from paying attention to the central HQ operations because we are frantically planning for the future and trying to stay ahead of the crowd, and within our local social circles, IF they existed — or exit them, if they were dangerous or substandard.

Recently, I spent some time on a site called “Crying out for Justice” and “Not Under Bondage” (the name of a book by a survivor of abuse, and apparently aware of Christian marital abuse also); a related (though I believe this one is intercontinental) pastor had a sudden awakening ca. 2009 and is talking about domestic violence IN THE CHURCH, often citing and promoting Lundy Bancroft, whose field is therapy and mental health, not religion, and who has his data, originally (it seems) from batterers intervention programs many years ago. There are accounts nearby of a church, suddenly exercising its corporate rights, suing a former? member, which brings up two topics — Corporations, and Church MEMBERSHIP.

The publications and blogs are then reviewed and circulated, apparently by third parties, under blog titles such as A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church, teaching that the real key is to recognize an abuse (assuming that the problem is,not recognizing it, and that, if recoqnized, surely someone will clean house somehow and take appropriate action…. and if they don’t, it’s because they don’t understand (which of course the publications and trainings can help with).

I find that a little disturbing coming from a former police officer, who, one would think, would already know the relevant laws regarding abuse (domestic violence), and something of the arrest, prosecution, and release factors — which knowledge, in addition to all the spiritual knowledge imparted,  I believe would be more useful.  In addition, someone oughter edumacate the flocks, as I’m at least TRYING to, and others (see links!) HAVE been reporting, after any separation.  Especially after any child support or custody/visitation order — they are going to have to deal with the family court system in whichever jurisdiction it lands.  Basically, if one steps in a courtroom (or near it) and files, you’re in that ballpark, possibly as the ball…

As it turns out, the family courts are also inhabited by all kinds of corporations with specialized memberships and world views as well.  So we should get this “What’s a Corporation?” thing on the table anytime a myth (or even relevant and reasonable) world view is being propagated, and that propagation and dissemination involves the exchange of goods and services for a fee, i.e., it’s commerce.

Acknowledging that many (if not most) churches in THIS century in the US exist as corporations, and often engage in commerce as landlords or owners of real estate, would bring up the topic of incorporating — and of taxes — and of the law.  From there, having a better-informed congregation (or parishioners), perhaps that might be ONE way pastors could address the matter of “abuse. ” Simply, as the authoritative and trusted spiritual guides they can be, and often wish to be, they can gently remind people that along with the laws of heaven as citizens of the coming kingdom, citizens of THIS world are to comply with the the laws of their country of jurisdiction. Should I put up a sample page to remind us that they exist?

Perhaps this should also be posted in public places with a link to a website, and NOT just a link to a local domestic violence agency, either.

Particularly if they wish to convert or win (as opposed to give birth to or just internationally adopt orphans) more to the cause, it would be helpful to admit that there are earthly authorities around, and earthly laws against beating up on women, or having sex with (or otherwise molesting — or stealing) minors.

And in this (earthly) kingdom/world (choose a noun), at least on the books — at least in the penal code and part of the family code — you don’t go around breaking the law against your “beloved,” even IF you are both “one flesh” and have vowed before God and witnesses to love one another faithfully til death do you part (or whatever vows were uttered).

For one, it’d be a standard of comparison for the flock.  For another, time is of the essence once the abuse has begun, often with kids in attendance.  I sure could’ve used such information countless assaults (and years) before it was finally brought in front of my face, at which time I acted on it; information of what lay ahead in the family court venue was on a “Need To Know” basis, which apparently women didn’t need to know. Finally, I got tired of “not knowing” and set about “finding out.”

Other Subtitles which come up in a search result include Crying Out for Justice: Awakening the Evangelical Church …. or I found one from a “Complementarian” site (specialized religious term, interesting…) Why Abusive Men Repudiate True Manhood: Letter to an Abusive Husband attempting to appeal to his better nature, and not abuse the manly headship God has given him as a husband (Ephesians 5)…. it is a stench in God’s nostrils, etc. A sample:

Ephesians 5 teaches that a man is head of his wife.  There is no textually faithful way to take this verse other than to conclude that it teaches manly leadership in the home.  But this does not mean that a man can lord his God-given strength over his wife and family

Hmm. Using the word “textually faithful” doesn’t mean that the verse fragment is in context, which it isn’t. Here’s the link to the entire chapter, which is Chapter 5 out of 6. There is a verse I’ll bet almost every battered Christian woman knows by heart, as it contains the word “wives” and the word “submit,” and may be indeed one of the few verses that her batterer a.k.a. spouse, actually understands and that the local congregration is going to back him up on, as they also demand submission to themselves, sometimes abusing it also.

This is about linguistic honesty, and about institutions. Bear with me, please…it is political, and it’s relevant to you atheists, nonProtestants, and even nonparents…for one, we have to function in a common commercial world, and might as well understand how some spiritual enclaevs find their places in it.

The link I provided is to a hyperactive (“KJS”) version in which you can click on any single word and see the related Greek. I did this because, the context of this book is about (see Chapter 1 — good place to start!), the “Hope of the calling” and spiritual matters regarding the body of Christ, and for that matter (after three chapters of the unity in the spirit) and another, chapter 4, on “one Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,” and how through the resureection and God’s wisdom, the “wall of separation” was broken down (etc.) — the “Church” is to walk worthy of this calling. However, the average “church” is not on that model anyhow, and the word in our culture has become a muddied theological confusion over who’s in, who’s out, who’s off, who’s on, and how to (yes, Protestants in particular) excommunicate dissidents and turn a cold shoulder to them, particularly if they actually bring problems (like spousal abuse, incest, molestation — lying stealing, cheating, adultery, etc. — the usual….) into the place which the “church” doesn’t feel like facing yet, as they may cut too close to home for comfort.

I’m bolding the word “church’ which pops up in this so often, because a lot of this post, and for that matter, a WHOLE lot of American culture, is being framed by the varying concepts of “church,” which is also a corporate status under the tax code, and is moreover a form of nonprofit organization. It’s a BUSINESS in our time. However, in that time, the word meant something different.

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

The Greek word for “church” is simply “ekklesia” which relates to “calling” which is in many ways the theme of the book. It’s HARDLY about who’s on top among the church, and the word “manly” doesn’t occur in there, which shows our “letter to an abusive husband” man, above, may not have seen fit to quote the section, or be in the habit of quoting scripture, let alone doing so in context.

For the record (as I do consider scripture, including the epistles of Paul, among the most elegant, beautiful and inspiring texts around. Apparently others do (visit the Hallmark religious section of any drug store around mothers’ day, fathers’ day, graduation, times of sympathy (death in the family), illness, graduation, marriage, anniversary, or almost ANY other time — and you will see religious cards, among them sometimes one on “LOVE” (taken from I Corinthians 13). Apparently this small dosage of verse, people can handle, if it’s not too confrontational…

IN CONTEXT is easily found just by READING MORE:

Prior to this oh-so-favorite reference for many conservative churches (plus the Catholic church of course), in context, that book (epistle to the Ephesians), in its natural flow, talks about walking (i.e., manner of life, behavior) in light of this wonderful calling and future purpose of God. It talks about walking WORTHY, walking NOT AS OTHER GENTILES (i.e., lyng stealing, etc.),walking in LOVE, walking in LIGHT, walking CIRCUMSPECTLY, and so forth.

Further down on this post, I have another table, same background-color, which a little better defines “church” in action, in our day and time, according to practice.

End of Chapter One — although it begins with the word “chosen” the book is definitely more about “called,” and what this signifies. The practical matters (family relationships while waiting for the return of Christ) are not the focus of the book; they are neither first, nor last, but near the end. This, however, is near the beginning (i.e., Chapter 1, not that it originally had chapters, OR verses….). Please notice, apparently the writer was aware of the groups FAITH and LOVE, was thankful for it, prayed that they might be spiritually enlightened also as to the HOPE of their calling. (See end of this chapter, that’s the famous trio of end of I Corinthians 13: “Now abide these three Faith, Hope, Charity (love/agape), but the greatest of these is charity.” Apparently male dominance and female submission, even “family,” let alone building buildings and incorporating associations in the name of Christ, didn’t make the list of the most important qualities for “the church”

[Ephesians 1, end, with clickable-for-Greek]15Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, 16Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give {5630} unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling [Klesis], and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places], 21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church [ekKLESia/click to see], 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Where’s the “manly leadership of wives” in this opening chapter? Where’s the word “fatherhood”? And what’s the word “church” mean there, anyhow? What it means now?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 14, 2013 at 10:05 am

%d bloggers like this: