We make Oaths every day, both in the form of personal agreements, and through pledges to a fictional community such as a country, by making a Pledfe (Oath) of allegiance. An oath is defined in law as follows:

”An affirmation of truth of a statement, which renders one willfully asserting untrue statements punishable for perjury. An outward pledge by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of responsibility to God. A solemn appeal to the Supreme Being in attestation of the truth of some statement.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 966.

OATH. A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it. (l0 Toull. n. 343 a 348; Puff. book, 4, c. 2, s. 4; Grot. book 2, c. 13, s. 1; Ruth Inst. book 1, ch. 14, s. 1; 1 Stark. Ev. 80; Merl. Repert. Convention; Dalloz, Dict. Serment: Dur. n. 592, 593; 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3180. Poth. on Oblig. P. 4, c. 3, s. 4. 2.)

It is proper to distinguish two things in oaths;

1. The invocation by which the God of truth, who knows all things, is taken to witness.

2. The imprecation by which he is asked as a just and all-powerful being, to punish perjury…

Decisory oath. By this term in the civil law is understood an oath which one of the parties defers or refers back to the other, for the decision of the cause. It may be deferred in any kind of civil contest whatever, in questions of possession or of claim; in personal actions and in real. The plaintiff may defer the oath to the defendant, whenever he conceives he has not sufficient proof of the fact which is the foundation of his claim; and in like manner, the defendant may defer it to the plaintiff when he has not sufficient proof of his defense. The person to whom the oath is deferred, ought either to take it or refer it back, and if he will not do either, the cause should be decided against him….

A purgatory oath is one by which one destroys the presumptions which were against him, for he is then said to purge himself, when he removes the suspicions which were against him; as, when a man is in contempt for not attending court as a witness, he may purge himself of the contempt, by swearing to a fact which is an ample excuse. See Purgation. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856.

Based on the above-quoted definitions, an “oath,” may be deemed a swearing, i.e., a cursing and binding of oneself. To curse and bind oneself is clearly the opposite of blessing and liberating oneself. It produces a condition of slavery and bondage rather than freedom and happiness. Moreover, swearing an oath true, correct, and complete is proclaiming that one knows what is actually impossible to know, i.e., the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” The truth is that no one knows the “\whole truth,” in its entirety and infinity. In any case, swearing an oath is consigning oneself into obligation to the jurisdiction to which one swears the oath, such as to a government.

All governments function by means of oaths. No state has power over anyone without capacity to bind and rule people by means of oaths. Neither the Roman Empire, nor feudalism, nor the Dark Ages, nor tenants and serfs bound in indentured servitude permanently to the land to labor for the nobility (the land-lords), nor nobility bound by oath to the king and thereby deriving authority from the king, nor any other oppressive time in the history of man could have occurred without the swearing of oaths to the government/king, thereby binding people over to that government in some form of bondage or allegiance that obligates them and enables the government to exercise its power and authority. In other words, swearing oaths that bind one to the government authorizes the government to compel specific performance to all governmental orders, regulations, policies, laws, rules, and dictates. Without oaths, any such action by a government against anyone is self-proclaimed as pure criminal aggression devoid of all claim to legitimacy.

In an article allegedly prepared by “M.W. BROTHER R.V. HARRIS, PBM, PGS OF THE GRAND LODGE OF NOVA SCOTIA,” in defense of secret and violent Masonic Oaths, the article states, on page 1:

”Oaths are as old as mankind and were used by pagans and barbarians to secure certainty in evidence or the performance of a pledge. Oaths were common in Old Testament times. In early England from King Alfred to Edward I, an oath of allegiance to the King was administered to every free man every year. The King himself was sworn into office and afterwards all officers of the Crown and all judges and jurors. The world is held together today by oaths and obligations.

All rulers and administrators, legislators and executive officers of high and low degree in state and municipalities, and in every phase of human society are bound by their oaths of office.

Without oaths the world would lapse into disorder, confusion and anarchy. [Oh???]

In civil society we find that ties and obligations bind all men together. We speak of the marriage bond or tie; all fraternal orders, good and bad and indifferent, are built on formal obligations; as are all religious orders and societies. Baptism is a form of obligation and so are many Church ceremonies. If we ceased to administer oaths or obligations, society itself would be dissolved and, of course, all justice and right dealing.”

The sentiments and conclusions of this text may be deemed the opinion of the writer thereof, and, while they may be genuinely believed and seem reasonable to the author, “it ain’t necessarily so,” to quote Gershwin. The word “anarchy,” for instance, means “no ruler.” Is not the opposite of being externally ruled being free and self-governing? Moreover, if there are people who do not wish to be free, or are unable to govern themselves adequately, is this justification for imposing a universal system of enslavement over everyone, including those who not only do not wish to be enslaved but who are in fact capable of self-government? William Penn’s comment in this regard may be deemed noteworthy: “If we will not be ruled by God [through our own conscience], then we will be ruled by tyrants.”

Many people appear to be terrified of freedom and the absence of an over-arching organization governing everyone by compulsion. A look at both the current status of the planet and what passes for history, however, does not seem to justify a conclusion that that the more laws, control, and governing occurs the safer, happier, and more stable and orderly a society becomes. Indeed, the opposite situation appears to prevail: the more free people are the happier and safer they are, the more free to pursue endless options of betterment and achievement in all areas of life, including create unlimited wealth and progress. All wars, for instance, are political conflicts undertaken by, through, and between governments. The observation of Hermann Goering is apt:

“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

In the United States, after the Revolutionary War there was essentially no organized government. Concerning this period Jefferson wrote in a letter to Lord Carrington to the effect that this was the “happiest time in human history” because man was freed of the institutionalized yoke of government. Indeed, rather than disintegrating, society flourished in all areas, and did not disintegrate.

It is alleged that during the Constitutional Convention the “Founding Fathers” deliberated for months on a new constitution and at one point appeared to be unable to arrive at any agreement. The people of the colonies, however, apparently appeared unconcerned about the impasse. Benjamin Franklin, noting the people’s attitude, commented to the framers: “Gentlemen, we have been living under anarchy, yet the business of living has gone on as usual. Be careful; if our debates last too much longer, people may come to see that they can get along very well without us.” The alleged “indispensability” of governments is a selling point promulgated by supporters of the government as a means to persuade acceptance of the organized enslavement/plunder organization. All governments must ensure that as little time as possible goes on without an established rule of governments, lest it become obvious that people are vastly better off being free than as subjects of a ruling clique of some kind. It is, after all, a logical absurdity that people are better off with their rights, freedom, and wealth unmolested than with those things systematically expropriated and removed by other men functioning through an artificially concocted legalized force institution.

Read More.... Original Article on www.PeacePortal.mobi [9 pages]