- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/45204730
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/45204624
If the U.S. officially declares “In God We Trust” on its currency, it recognizes God as the ultimate Creator. Logically, if man is a tool in God’s hands, then every “invention” or “creation” belongs to the Original Source, not the tool. Selling intellectual property without proving you aren’t just a divine instrument is essentially piracy—trading someone else’s property as your own. I’ve started a petition to demand a “God-denial disclaimer” for every IP transaction. If you want to own an idea, you must officially deny God first. Let’s clean our public spaces from “protected” corporate noise and return creativity to its true source.
You think this ‘makes the case look stupid’ because it challenges the very language of the system. You want to play by their rules; I’m questioning the source of their rules.
If a state claims to ‘Trust in God’ while selling His inspiration for profit, that is the ultimate stupidity. I’m just the one pointing at the elephant in the courtroom. If my logic is ‘stupid,’ then so is the National Motto of the United States. You can’t have both.
As is your right, but nobody’s going to take such an argument seriously.
You say it won’t be taken seriously, but the law says otherwise.
In any court, there is a principle called ‘Judicial Notice’ (Federal Rule of Evidence 201). It requires the court to accept ‘Common Knowledge’ and ‘Common Sense’ as facts.
It is common knowledge that a human being is an instrument of the Creator, not the Prime Mover. The U.S. government officially confirms this ‘Common Knowledge’ by printing ‘In God We Trust’ on the very money used to pay the court fees.
If the Court refuses to take this ‘seriously,’ it is officially rejecting Common Sense and its own National Motto. That’s not a ‘dubious’ claim—that’s a legal trap. I have the right to demand that the law remains consistent with the reality it professes. If the system is too ‘serious’ to be honest, then its authority is a sham.
It’s only your definition of what common sense is that is convincing you that you’re right and everyone else in your country is wrong.
If you’re so certain, stop talking and start doing. You think the courts will say “Hang on chaps, this axet person has a point, let’s throw away all precedence and case law since our system started”?
You tell me to ‘stop talking and start doing.’ Well, I already did.
As we speak, my formal Supplemental Memorandum is on its way to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States (Tracking: RS074950246RU). This isn’t just a ‘definition’ in my head anymore; it is a legal challenge filed in the real world.
You think they won’t throw away precedence? History is a graveyard of ‘untouchable’ precedences that were crushed by a single logical truth. Slavery was a ‘legal precedence.’ The divine right of kings was a ‘legal precedence.’ They all fell because the contradiction became too loud to ignore.
I’m not asking them to listen to ‘my’ common sense. I’m asking them to listen to their own National Motto. If the Supreme Court refuses to address why their ‘Trust in God’ is a lie used to protect corporate theft, then their silence is my victory. The mirror has been placed. Now we wait for the system to look into it.
I don’t even know how this is applied / applicable.
Common knowledge and facts include global warming needs to be stopped, imperialism is bad, war crimes are crimes, money and power concentration are bad…
You’re confusing political opinions with foundational legal facts.
Global warming or imperialism are matters of intense public debate and policy. But the phrase ‘In God We Trust’ is not a debate—it is an Official Public Act printed on every dollar and enshrined in the National Motto.
Under Rule 201, a court takes Judicial Notice of facts that are ‘accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’ The U.S. Treasury is that source.
If the State officially recognizes God as the Creator, it is a Legal Fact within that system. My argument is purely logical: if the State’s ‘Common Knowledge’ is that God is the Creator, then man is a proxy. A proxy cannot own the Principal’s property.
You’re talking about how you want the world to be; I’m talking about the internal logic of the system as it is written. The system is trapped by its own words.
No. Half were scientific facts, the other commonly accepted truths. None were simple political opinions.
Unless you count flat earth as a debated public political opinion.
There is a fundamental difference between a Scientific Consensus and a Legal Cornerstone.
You can debate climate change or the morality of imperialism in a courtroom - judges hear conflicting experts on those topics every day. But you cannot debate the National Motto in a U.S. court.
When the Treasury prints ‘In God We Trust,’ it isn’t an ‘opinion’ or a ‘scientific theory’ - it is a binding declaration of the State’s ontological stance. Under Rule 201, a judge cannot say ‘I disagree with the motto.’ They must accept it as an absolute fact of the jurisdiction they serve.
My point remains: if the State’s absolute fact is ‘God is the Creator,’ then its Copyright law is a logical theft. Science doesn’t create the law, but Consistency is supposed to govern it. I’m just holding them to the one ‘fact’ they can’t deny without destroying their own identity.
Lol this is an interesting shower thought, the fact that you’re taking it seriously makes me wonder if you spent too much time in Sovereign Citizen circles, or just watched Mircacle on 34th Street too many times.
Comparing this to ‘Sovereign Citizens’ is a lazy way to avoid the logic. Those groups try to escape the law; I am demanding the law actually follow its own rules.
A ‘shower thought’ becomes a legal reality when it’s mailed to the Supreme Court as a formal Memorandum. The difference between a joke and a revolution is Consistency.
If the state can’t be consistent with its own National Motto, then the state is the one ‘hallucinating’ a fairy tale where it can serve both God and Mammon. I’m just the one holding the invoice.
You think it’s funny? So did the people who laughed at the first person who said ‘kings don’t have divine rights.’ The system only looks ‘serious’ because you’ve never seen anyone pull the thread at the very bottom. Well, I just did. Check the tracking number.