Time: Sun Oct 05 15:59:17 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA16315;
	Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:58:58 -0700 (MST)
	by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA21864;
	Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:55:12 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 15:54:32 -0700
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Perfect Law of Liberty

The first is from the King James version as published
on the CD-ROM "The Bible: A Multimedia Experience," by 
World Library, Inc., Irvine, California, 1995.

The second is from a liberal translation entitled
"The Book," published by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
Wheaton, Illinois, 1984.

Quite simply, it all boils down to whether you believe
the Holy Bible is the word of God, or not.  I do.
And, for this reason, I also believe that the Perfect Law
of Liberty has immense significance, for all of mankind.

This passage was first brought to my attention by the
late Howard Freeman, whose writings are sampled in the
Supreme Law Library.  See, e.g., "The Two United States
and the Law" at the URL just below my name here.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy: Supreme Law School

At 05:25 PM 10/5/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Date:  Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:58:32 -0600
>To:  <199710041751.KAA21198@orpheus.millennianet.com>
>From: tburton@cyberhighway.net
>Subject:  Re: SLS: Perfect Law of Liberty
>pmitch quotes for us the Bible, a short passage, which he must feel would
>shed light on some of the list's prior discourse. I do not see the
>The rest of this message is intended for any of the rest of this list who
>are in doubt about the matters pmitch has been writing about. If you are
>content that his site and views are imaginings, why go to another message.
>If you are confused, read on.
>I do get nervous when people start finding an answer to what you do when
>you see a stop sign, in a medieval translation into Engish of a Latin
>translation of a Greek Translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic text of which
>more than one version existed. Even those who devoutly believe in the Bible
>must concede that the version of each book that was first written may be
>hard to find existing word for word with the correct emphasis and
>implications in any published Bible. Scholars are busy deciphering
>fragments of writings (for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls) which are
>shedding valuable light on the current editions and we are growing closer
>to an original text (in Aramaic, likely).
>pmitch offered us two versions of James 1:25 from unknown sources. One had
>the syntax of the King James Version. The other was coloquial and
>interpretive to the point of possibly changing its meaning.
>The two phrasings are very different. The first one speaks of the "perfect
>law of liberty" which can be for all creation and all hearing persons, not
>just for 'free' men. "Free"men is of course a loaded term these days,
>running heavily to fraudulent documents and thumbing of the nose at the
>law. What the "perfect law of liberty" is that is being referred to, takes
>study. What did 'perfect law of liberty' mean, nearly two thousand years
>ago? One thing we know for certain is that the author of this phrase did
>not know what would be in any one future person's mind when that person
>read it.
>It takes understanding and judgment to reach an opinion of what any Bible
>verse means. One needs to look at the context out of which the quotation
>comes to see what it means. If this is James 1:25, what is James 1:1
>through 1:24, and 1:26 through the end? What is compared and contrasted by
>this quotation, which starts "But." Whatever comes before a "But" tells us
>a whole lot about what comes after that "But." Indeed, what is the whole
>New Testament? Beware of people who read out of context. God's perfect law
>of liberty may be the Golden Rule and the potlatch, and not some modern
>fire and brimstone.
>The Bible was also quoted by Cotton Mather and all the good Puritans who
>waged war on the People because, as they saw it, the People were the spawn
>of Satan. That's what they said, with their Bibles in their hands. Francis
>Jennings has written a wonderful book called "The Invasion of America,
>Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest." We have much to fear from
>the still-heard Cant of Conquest, from those who quote the Bible, rather
>than live the Bible. Christianity without Christian Charity, Christianity
>which would turn its back on the Good Samaritan, is no Christianity at all.
>"Bless those that persecute you, bless and curse not," is a far cry from
>buying machine guns and calling for the assasination of those you perceive
>to be persecuting you, which at least one faction is up to.
>The message of sincere Christianity is love for all people of all kinds and
>character, of selfless giving for the welfare of others of whatever race,
>color, or creed. That Christianity does not exalt White Christians, or any
>other classification of persons. That Christianity does not defame 'mud
>people.' (Mud people is "Christian-Identity"-speak for Blacks, Indians,
>Asians). Christianity does not dwell in a dark world of paranoid
>imaginings, but in a bright world of affection and sharing -- world that is
>rather tribal, as a matter of fact.
>There are those in this world who see the Bible as a work of fiction which
>contains many excellant passages offering valuable guidance to the current
>world. One can accept the Bible's moral principles whether or not it is the
>Word of God. I fear those who treat it as God's Word with a specific answer
>to every specific current problem, right down to whether or not you need a
>driver's license. The Bible is a guide to living rather like the
>Constitution: strong on principles and short on specifics. We should not
>struggle to extract specifics from it, especially where those specifics fly
>in the face of the whole. It is like the debate about homosexuality in the
>churches: one can focus on the Biblical condemnations of it, or one can
>focus on the message of Christ about outcasts and love and a New Covenant.
>"Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone." The true question for
>the Christian is, how does Christ wish us to respond to the issue.
>Anyway, let us pray for pmitch, that he will become enlightened and leave
>behind this darkness of his imagined world, that he not become as scary as
>he is scared, and that his boundless energy and good intentions may be
>refocused on something rational that is more useful to ALL his fellow men
>(and women).

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail