American Spirituality)!

As the leader of the Ebionite Spiritual Restoration Movement, plaintiff Allan Cronshaw has provided a web page (see The Cross and the Seat Belt) -- and throughout this article it is demonstrated conclusively that the Church is a modern fraud that in practice, totally rejects the Gospels and New Testament (see The Lie) -- and under the cloak of wolves in sheep's attire, promotes Roman paganism in place of the Original Spiritual Gospel Message (see Govt. Takeover Of Religion) to a blind faith-believing congregation who prefers dogmatic snake-oil to the Truth and the Original teachings of Jesus and TheWay.   As Mr. Cronshaw has pointed out, this should come as no surprise when it is recognized that the Apostle Paul predicted that the Church which calls itself Christian, would replace the worship of God with the worship of Satan (see The Church Of The AntiChrist) -- and that the time has finally arrived where the Church itself can be put on trial and confronted with its long history of spiritual apostasy and opposition to both the original teachings of Jesus and TheWay, as well as the Kingdom of God (see Apostate Church).   In fact, Allan Cronshaw not only claims to be a type of reincarnation of the person known as James, the brother of Jesus (see Brother Of Yeshua/Jesus) -- but also claims to be an eye witness to the death and destruction of the original Spiritual Christians when they were hunted down by the emperors henchmen for refusing to accept the religion of the emperor (see The Death Of The Religion Of Jesus).   And he has portrayed himself as having been sent back into this world on a mission to tell the people the Truth, and to bring about the conviction and the downfall of the infidel -- and in this instance, both Church and State who have each violated the essence of their own First Principles -- principles that have brought their validity into question.

Defendants Allan Cronshaw and Emmanuel Pohoreski state that the existing seat belt law is based upon an Atheist Paradigm of thinking (see Darwinism & Secular Humanism), and from both a biblical and spiritual perspective, is a bogus fraud the entraps the people into a spiritually impotent mindset and lifestyle (see The Great Canard Of Atheism And Evolutionists).   And rather then denying God and what they have set forth as Higher Spiritual Reality in the manner of the Church which the defendants have portrayed as a type of western equivalent of a House Church in Communist China where no deviation from government approved dogma is permitted, the defendants have instead taken a stand against what they portray as an unconstitutional statute, and in the process have brought the validity of both Church and State into question.   While it would be legally impossible to initiate a cause of action that would put the Church on trial for heresy, the unconstitutional actions of the state of North Carolina has enabled the defendants to put the foundational dogma of the Church on trial.

Under the heading of The Great Question Presented To The Court, is presented the meaning of Religious Freedom as defined in Black's Law Dictionary where it states: "Within Constitution embraces not only the right to worship GOD according to the dictates of one's conscience, but also the right to do, or forbearing of which is not inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society."   So, from a Constitutional perspective, the ONLY question set before the court must be limited to whether the defendants refusal to wear a seat belt is “inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society”, and whether the practice of the defendants religion which rejects the competing religion of Secular-Humanism -- a quasi-religious manner of thinking which is founded upon a mindset and Atheist philosophy that rejects the Biblical teaching on Divine Providence, and therefore requires the wearing of a seatbelt -- will bring harm to a person in another car in the event of a collision.  While there is not a single case on record where the drivers failure to wear a seat belt has brought harm to another driver or pedestrian, the Court has chosen to turn a blind eye to the failure of the law to provide a necessary religious exemption -- even though in North Carolina, other exemptions are provided (see Exemptions To Seat Belt Law) -- including an exemption to those who have a phobia about wearing a seat belt.   And when it is demonstrated that even young children are exempt from the seat belt law when riding in a pickup truck, either the sanity or ideological objectives of the court must be brought into question. 
What is the rulings of the Supreme Court on this issue?  Chief Justice Burger admonished:  "Courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs... One can, of course, imagine an asserted claim so bazaar so clearly non-religious in motivation, as not to be entitled to protection under the free exercise clause: but that is not the case here, and the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all members of a religious sect. The courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation…. The essence of law that has been set and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order... can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion” (Thomas vs Review Board 450 US 707, 718 (1981) accord, Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 US 205, 215 [1972]; Sherbert vs Verner, 374 US 393, 406 [1963]).  The Court has ruled that “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as Legal Principles to be applied by the courts” (West Virginia State Board of Education vs Burnette 319 US 624, 638, [1943]).
Will the court of North Carolina follow the very clear mandates of the Constitution and established rulings of the Supreme Court which all support the position of the defendants?   A very simple legal question has been presented before the Court on the defendants web site and legal motions (see The Cross and the Seat Belt).  But without any justification as to why the defendants practice of religion should be denied, the Alamance County Court has ruled against the First Amendment protection of the practice of religion.   And this in effect has enabled the defendants to put both Church and State on trial -- the Church for spiritual heresy and a total rejection of the Original Gospel Teachings -- and the State as apostates to the Constitution and the validity of its rulings.  

It has been demonstrated by the defendants that the dogma of the present day Church has virtually nothing in common with the religion of Jesus that was inaugurated at the beginning of our Common Era (see The Heightening And Expansion Of Mind).   It has also been demonstrated that the wearing of a seat belt is very much a denial of the Truth and the Facts as proven by both science and genuine Christian Mysticism (see What's Wrong With Wearing A Seat Belt?).   And when a person chooses to knowingly live a lie in abject defiance of the Truth, then their spiritual progress and development is gravely inhibited.   Further, the position of Einstein that there are two separate spheres of mind -- the one he portrays as the "intuitive gift", and the other as the "linear-rational faithful servant" -- and demonstrates that because our culture suppresses the intuitive, that man has consigned himself into the abyss of ignorance with respect to man's true reality and potential (see Intuitive Mind vs Linear-Rational).    Defendants reject the cultural assumption that the events in this life are subject to luck, chance or accidents, and demonstrate the reality of the biblical doctrine of Divine Providence in all things.   And in the process the defendants provide an answer for the proverbial question that has perpetually haunted most religious people in the explanation as to Why Does Bad Things Happen To Seemingly Good People.  Which begins with an understanding of the Conditions Of One's Birth - Life - And Death.   And it is further demonstrated that because the congregation of faith-based believers live and think in accord with the Paradigm of Thought established by Atheism, that the Church has been spiritually castrated and rendered impotent.   Therefore, rather than live a lie and deny the Truth, the defendants have instead chosen to invoke their First Amendment protection of their sincerely held practice of religion.

The appeal of the previous ruling of Judge James K. Roberson is set for a hearing on December 5th in the Alamance County Superior Court.   Defendant Allan Cronshaw states that the case was orchestrated by the Laws of God in order to put the validity of both the Church, and the State on trial for the respective heresy and apostasy to their Core Foundations.    In fact, what is being put on trial is very much the Truth, Justice and the American Way.   In the manner of true infidels, the Church is poised against the Original Teachings of Jesus -- while the State has thus far attempted to rule the Constitution as being invalid.   The defendants take the position that a loss in Court, will effect a positive response from the Angelic Jury that has been called to preside over the future of both Church and State based upon their responses." />
Home // Headlines // The Cross And The Seat Belt
 

The Cross And The Seat Belt

If you think like an Atheist -- live like and Atheist -- and believe in the cultural tenets of Atheism -- can you also be a Christian?  The answer to this question has in fact put the Church on trial in a court in Graham, North Carolina.   What on the surface may appear to be little more than a violation of the seat belt law, those familiar with the essence of the matter understand that the case has brought into question the very source and originality of Church doctrine and dogma.   Is the Church truly representative of the Original teachings of Jesus and TheWay?  Or is it more factually the religion of Mithraism masquerading under a biblical cloak that in practice, it rejects every part of?   While it is truly rare that a legal challenge to the validity of the Church can be brought about in the United States, this challenge is only possible because the state has far exceeded its true Constitutional boundaries.  Provoking the question: Is this legal challenge truly about a religious opposition to what the plaintiff's Allan Cronshaw and Emmanuel  Pohoreski  state is a violation of the First Amendment protections of the freedom of the practice of religion?   Or is it a means to put the Church on trial for heresy in the adoption of fourth century Roman paganism?   Perhaps it is both.  But defendant Allan Cronshaw expects to take this case up to the Supreme Court where both the dogmatic Church as well as secular apostasy to the Constitution can be put on trial in the Highest Court of the Land.   Therefore, each seeming loss on appeal, is only one step closer to the eventual goal of the Spiritual Rebirth of the Nation in accord with the original vision of our Constitutional Framers (see American Spirituality)!

As the leader of the Ebionite Spiritual Restoration Movement, plaintiff Allan Cronshaw has provided a web page (see The Cross and the Seat Belt) -- and throughout this article it is demonstrated conclusively that the Church is a modern fraud that in practice, totally rejects the Gospels and New Testament (see The Lie) -- and under the cloak of wolves in sheep's attire, promotes Roman paganism in place of the Original Spiritual Gospel Message (see Govt. Takeover Of Religion) to a blind faith-believing congregation who prefers dogmatic snake-oil to the Truth and the Original teachings of Jesus and TheWay.   As Mr. Cronshaw has pointed out, this should come as no surprise when it is recognized that the Apostle Paul predicted that the Church which calls itself Christian, would replace the worship of God with the worship of Satan (see The Church Of The AntiChrist) -- and that the time has finally arrived where the Church itself can be put on trial and confronted with its long history of spiritual apostasy and opposition to both the original teachings of Jesus and TheWay, as well as the Kingdom of God (see Apostate Church).   In fact, Allan Cronshaw not only claims to be a type of reincarnation of the person known as James, the brother of Jesus (see Brother Of Yeshua/Jesus) -- but also claims to be an eye witness to the death and destruction of the original Spiritual Christians when they were hunted down by the emperors henchmen for refusing to accept the religion of the emperor (see The Death Of The Religion Of Jesus).   And he has portrayed himself as having been sent back into this world on a mission to tell the people the Truth, and to bring about the conviction and the downfall of the infidel -- and in this instance, both Church and State who have each violated the essence of their own First Principles -- principles that have brought their validity into question.

Defendants Allan Cronshaw and Emmanuel Pohoreski state that the existing seat belt law is based upon an Atheist Paradigm of thinking (see Darwinism & Secular Humanism), and from both a biblical and spiritual perspective, is a bogus fraud the entraps the people into a spiritually impotent mindset and lifestyle (see The Great Canard Of Atheism And Evolutionists).   And rather then denying God and what they have set forth as Higher Spiritual Reality in the manner of the Church which the defendants have portrayed as a type of western equivalent of a House Church in Communist China where no deviation from government approved dogma is permitted, the defendants have instead taken a stand against what they portray as an unconstitutional statute, and in the process have brought the validity of both Church and State into question.   While it would be legally impossible to initiate a cause of action that would put the Church on trial for heresy, the unconstitutional actions of the state of North Carolina has enabled the defendants to put the foundational dogma of the Church on trial.

Under the heading of The Great Question Presented To The Court, is presented the meaning of Religious Freedom as defined in Black's Law Dictionary where it states: "Within Constitution embraces not only the right to worship GOD according to the dictates of one's conscience, but also the right to do, or forbearing of which is not inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society."   So, from a Constitutional perspective, the ONLY question set before the court must be limited to whether the defendants refusal to wear a seat belt is “inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society”, and whether the practice of the defendants religion which rejects the competing religion of Secular-Humanism -- a quasi-religious manner of thinking which is founded upon a mindset and Atheist philosophy that rejects the Biblical teaching on Divine Providence, and therefore requires the wearing of a seatbelt -- will bring harm to a person in another car in the event of a collision.  While there is not a single case on record where the drivers failure to wear a seat belt has brought harm to another driver or pedestrian, the Court has chosen to turn a blind eye to the failure of the law to provide a necessary religious exemption -- even though in North Carolina, other exemptions are provided (see Exemptions To Seat Belt Law) -- including an exemption to those who have a phobia about wearing a seat belt.   And when it is demonstrated that even young children are exempt from the seat belt law when riding in a pickup truck, either the sanity or ideological objectives of the court must be brought into question. 
What is the rulings of the Supreme Court on this issue?  Chief Justice Burger admonished:  "Courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs... One can, of course, imagine an asserted claim so bazaar so clearly non-religious in motivation, as not to be entitled to protection under the free exercise clause: but that is not the case here, and the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all members of a religious sect. The courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation…. The essence of law that has been set and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order... can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion” (Thomas vs Review Board 450 US 707, 718 (1981) accord, Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 US 205, 215 [1972]; Sherbert vs Verner, 374 US 393, 406 [1963]).  The Court has ruled that “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as Legal Principles to be applied by the courts” (West Virginia State Board of Education vs Burnette 319 US 624, 638, [1943]).
Will the court of North Carolina follow the very clear mandates of the Constitution and established rulings of the Supreme Court which all support the position of the defendants?   A very simple legal question has been presented before the Court on the defendants web site and legal motions (see The Cross and the Seat Belt).  But without any justification as to why the defendants practice of religion should be denied, the Alamance County Court has ruled against the First Amendment protection of the practice of religion.   And this in effect has enabled the defendants to put both Church and State on trial -- the Church for spiritual heresy and a total rejection of the Original Gospel Teachings -- and the State as apostates to the Constitution and the validity of its rulings.  

It has been demonstrated by the defendants that the dogma of the present day Church has virtually nothing in common with the religion of Jesus that was inaugurated at the beginning of our Common Era (see The Heightening And Expansion Of Mind).   It has also been demonstrated that the wearing of a seat belt is very much a denial of the Truth and the Facts as proven by both science and genuine Christian Mysticism (see What's Wrong With Wearing A Seat Belt?).   And when a person chooses to knowingly live a lie in abject defiance of the Truth, then their spiritual progress and development is gravely inhibited.   Further, the position of Einstein that there are two separate spheres of mind -- the one he portrays as the "intuitive gift", and the other as the "linear-rational faithful servant" -- and demonstrates that because our culture suppresses the intuitive, that man has consigned himself into the abyss of ignorance with respect to man's true reality and potential (see Intuitive Mind vs Linear-Rational).    Defendants reject the cultural assumption that the events in this life are subject to luck, chance or accidents, and demonstrate the reality of the biblical doctrine of Divine Providence in all things.   And in the process the defendants provide an answer for the proverbial question that has perpetually haunted most religious people in the explanation as to Why Does Bad Things Happen To Seemingly Good People.  Which begins with an understanding of the Conditions Of One's Birth - Life - And Death.   And it is further demonstrated that because the congregation of faith-based believers live and think in accord with the Paradigm of Thought established by Atheism, that the Church has been spiritually castrated and rendered impotent.   Therefore, rather than live a lie and deny the Truth, the defendants have instead chosen to invoke their First Amendment protection of their sincerely held practice of religion.

The appeal of the previous ruling of Judge James K. Roberson is set for a hearing on December 5th in the Alamance County Superior Court.   Defendant Allan Cronshaw states that the case was orchestrated by the Laws of God in order to put the validity of both the Church, and the State on trial for the respective heresy and apostasy to their Core Foundations.    In fact, what is being put on trial is very much the Truth, Justice and the American Way.   In the manner of true infidels, the Church is poised against the Original Teachings of Jesus -- while the State has thus far attempted to rule the Constitution as being invalid.   The defendants take the position that a loss in Court, will effect a positive response from the Angelic Jury that has been called to preside over the future of both Church and State based upon their responses.
 

0

Posted by on Dec 5, 2011 in the Headlines category • Trackback


Share your thoughts with us.