21 April 2011

Paragraphs to Ponder

I came across this when stumbling through Karl Denninger's archives.  I thought it was worth reposting.

The State of XXXX has in fact rendered that vow you took a legal nullity, and what's worse, you not only swore a false oath before God but the celebrant knowingly participated in the fraud!
I often write about frauds upon the public in my Ticker columns, but this is, in my opinion, far more serious.  Fraud upon the public is punishable by the government under the law, at least if you're a "little person" - the big guys, of course, get away with it daily, as we have repeatedly seen.
But fraud upon God is a different matter.  He doesn't have a definition of "little people", at least not that I know of (while I may be on a first-name basis with him, I've yet to hear a booming voice from Heaven!)  Indeed, most religious beliefs would make the claim that we're all "little people" in this regard, and that The Devil is perfectly happy to burn people like Paulson just as he'll take me, and irrespective of where you stood in life, in death we're all naked with our bodies eaten by snakes, with whatever is left either ascending or descending, as our acts on Earth deserve.
I find it disconcerting (to put it mildly) that those who bang the bible (or any other holy book of choice) loudest are the biggest defenders of a statist system that is an utter fraud - and a fraud upon the very God that is claimed to guide both words and deeds.
Yes, we need reform in this regard, but it is not to commit an even bigger fraud upon the public and God.  Specifically, if we are to have a recognition of "marriage" at all by state actors we must bring it into alignment with what is promised and stated before God.


  1. That is of course the Catholic version of the matter.

  2. I find Denninger's contract analogy weak. Marriage was never a contract. It can't be, for how does one "perform" sufficiently in a relationship where each partner is expected to sacrifice themselves for the other?

  3. @EW- Marriage, from a religious standpoint, is a vow, a covenant, and is binding as such in the eyes of God. A contract is simply a covenant on paper to bear witness of an agreement. Are you suggesting that nebulous or open-ended performance clauses can only be agreed to verbally?

    At any rate, the broader point is that the government need not place arbitrary restrictions on contracts between two consenting adults, nor should it meddle in religious affairs.