Skip to content

Sovereign citizens and the rise of the people

So we live in a society where we are governed by laws that are set by people (the government) that we have elected. A.K.A., Democracy.

The people we elect (politicians) make various promises about how they will run our country, and we vote for them based on those promises.

The problem is, that when these people come into power, there is nothing to hold them accountable to their promises, and these promises are all too often broken.

What’s more disturbing is that when they break these promises, they not only act against the interests of the people that voted for them, but it seems very clear that they are acting on behalf of other private organisations.

A very good example is the renewable energy target. The Abbott/Turnbull government has broken many promises about acting against climate change, and then gone out of it’s way to destroy the renewable energy sector.


At the same time they are giving billions of dollars of tax payers money to the coal industry…



So what can we do about it? We pay tax like good little worker ants, but the people we elect lie to us, and give our money away to their rich friends…

This is where organisations like the Sovereign Citizens gain followers. It’s very simple; If the government does not respect the people, then the people will stop respecting the government.

I’ll say that again, in bold italic with an exclamation mark:

If the government does not respect the people, then the people will stop respecting the government!

The following article from the ABC is a bit scary. It shows a photo of armed anti terror police and talks about a rising danger from Australian citizens who no longer respect our government.

The article talks about eliminating this group before it gains momentum…

From a governmental perspective, surely the most efficient, most logical and morally correct solution to the dangers of a group like the Sovereign Citizens is to make them obsolete and uninteresting. I.e. for the government to stop lying to us, and stop giving our tax dollars to their rich friends…

The government has a choice here. They can fight this threat with guns, while continuing to give our tax dollars away to their rich friends, or they can remove this threat peacefully by showing Australia that they are acting in the interests of the people.

Don’t get me wrong. I am in no way supporting the Sovereign Citizens. I have a bad feeling they might turn into problem, but I can see why they are gaining followers. The entire world is waking up to the situation. 1 percent of our population controls 50% of the wealth. Our governments are protecting this in-balance, rather than trying to redistribute the wealth. And they are lying through their teeth while they do it.

People are sick of being lied to.

Our only chance to steady this boat is for our governments to step up to the plate, and start doing their jobs. Start acting in the interests of common people.

I certainly hope they do.

Matt Walsh and Christianity

I got all excited today because I thought I had found a great blogger to read. A guy called Matt Walsh, who wrote a beautiful piece on the difficulties of parenting toddlers in public places.

Then I looked back at his previous post, and to be honest, was bitterly disappointed. I forced myself to read the entire post just to be sure that I had not missed some fragment of the reason, logic or even creativity that he had displayed in his parenting blog post. Alas, there was none….

You can see the original here:

His complaint is that the government in Kentucky is forcing schools to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution as scientific fact and not allowing them to teach anything else. (Specifically Christian beliefs on the topic).

The crux of his argument seemed to be that Christianity has driven modern science due to the fact that many of the worlds most prominent scientists are Christians. He states: “Modern science, despite the incoherent ramblings of historically illiterate fools, wouldn’t exist without religion.”

To this I would simply argue that just because a scientist is a Christian, does not mean that all his or her accomplishments can automatically be attributed to Christianity. By the same token I would also say that Einstein’s achievements should not be attributed to any of the other agnostics or agnostic organisations, or for that matter, any pother organisations top which he may have belonged. (Unless of course the organisation was actually assisting him in his research).

Walsh lists many Christian scientists in his post. One of which was Johannes Kepler. I did a quick search to find out if the Church had been behind his work. The only references I could find were an arranged marriage and the fact that he was banned from communion due to what sounds like some free thinking in the realms of theology. The exact text reads: ” he was excluded from Eucharist by his Lutheran church over his theological scruples.”

Please don’t take me the wrong way. I have no problem with religious people. I have many religious friends ;-). What I do have a problem with is the way that some loud mouthed Christians bang on as if they are presenting air tight arguments.

Here is another good example from Walsh’s post: “If you take God out of the study of the origin of life, not only are you left with a confused and arbitrary thing, riddled with holes and inconsistencies, but you’ve also stripped the subject, and the study of the subject, of its meaning and purpose.”

The underlying argument here is that life has a purpose… Are you so sure about that Mr Walsh? Do you happen to know what it is? As for Darwins theory being “riddled with holes and inconsistencies” I don’t think you paid attention in your science classes mate. The theory is pretty solid and just about every respectable scientist in the world agrees.

Another great line: “Atheism does not advance science — it doesn’t advance anything — it does only what it is designed to do: confuse and destroy.”

Atheism wasn’t “designed”. That’s like saying that darkness is designed, or emptyness is designed. It is simply a lack of something. In this case it is a lack of religious belief. Atheism is not a movement, or a religion.

This is the definition of Atheism; disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

There is nothing to invent here. Some people get told that a big guy living on a cloud built the Earth in seven days, and they say: “I don’t believe it.” Simple as that.

I can’t comment on the “Church of Atheism” because I know nothing about it, but just because they use the word “Atheist” does not mean that they speak for all atheists. Your assertions are a bit like me saying that the Church of Bible Understanding is a dangerous and extreme cult (which it is), therefore, all people who claim to understand the Bible are also dangerous extremists.

I could go on, but I think I have made my point.

I don’t believe that religion has a place in science. They are contradictory. Science is about proving theories. Religion is about faith. (Faith; belief that is not based on proof). You can never prove whether or not God exists, and therefore you can never prove or disprove whether or not he has effected something in the physical world.

I do believe that kids should study and discuss religion. They should study all religions and learn about why the world is the way it is. Why people behave the way they do and how beliefs and religions have shaped peoples behavior.

But keep religion out of science. If it can’t be proved or disproved, or at least thoroughly tested, then it does not belong in a science class room.