Amazingly, the article hardly touches on the manifest looniness of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty. Check out their website.
I like this bit from the “Declaration of Sovereignty” that members sign:
Ummm, okay.
Amazingly, the article hardly touches on the manifest looniness of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty. Check out their website.
I like this bit from the “Declaration of Sovereignty” that members sign:
Ummm, okay.
I’m sorry, but I’m very very tired of being non-judgemental. Some people’s beliefs are stupid. Any belief that women are some sort of lesser species that can’t be held responsible for their own actions is stupid. Beating women because they showed an ankle is stupid. Believing that one can live off of air and light alone is stupid. Racism is stupid. There are all kinds of belief systems that are stupid.
Optical Character Recognition software often works better with ALL CAPS.
I think I’ll write:
BRAD L. BARNHILL
Woo-hoo! I’m an agent of Satan.
The difference between this and BSDM relationships is that in BDSM, the sub retains control of themselves; they can stop at any time.
When it’s a religion or a cult that is controlling you, you can’t just stop any time you feel like it.
Good god, that guy’s crazier than a shithouse rat.
If he takes it to the Supreme Court, this is going to be extremely amusing.
I can see it now:
“The Supreme Court has rendered its decision: ‘Go away!’”
From the article:
Someone, please send this man a tinfoil hat soon.
cleosia, I was think “Promise Keeper” when I first heard about this too… but if anything, this guy’s even loonier.
That’s not an uncommon argument by the sovereignty movement. IIRC, the argument is that spelling your name in all capitals is a sign of corporate status…since (according to them) the government doesn’t rightly have authority over individuals, but only corporations, by agreeing to accept documents with your names in all caps, you’re agreeing to your status as a corporate citizen, and thereby giving the gov’t authority over you.
Here’s a website with a descrioption of the theory. They’re nutso, and this site is trying to sell something, but they’re out there.
You should have pitted the wife and completely ignored the husband. That would drive him bonkers!
Holy cow. I mean, any people who actually believe that to be the case, have to be missing key brain cells.
Wait, wait…
Batman vs. Super Fundie!
Who would win?
I think you’re on the mark there, Duke.
I found another such site:
Somehow, I’m not surprised that their front page contains a link to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, recommending it as “good reading.”
Wheee.
blessedwolf: If that’s exactly what their belief system is, then the woman shouldn’t be driving anywhere without hubby in the car or via radio to tell her when to brake, when to turn, when to hit the gas pedal, etc.
I wonder if this loony believes in slavery too…oh, wait…his wife certainly does.
I am surprised their child hasn’t been removed from their custody.
And reading the bit about people with tattos to be satanic, damn, makes me want to run out and get one.
Once I was sitting in a post office waiting for my number to come up, and this loony sitting next to me warned me about using CA instead of Calif. on my package. I always wondered what the hell he was talking about, but now I know to look out for the shadow government. Fnord.
Do we know why the husband allows her to have a different last name from his own?
Probably because they oppose state marriage licenses. They think that if you get a marriage license, you’re a polygamist, marrying the other person as well as the state. Along with lots of other weird reasoning.
So if she’s not legally married to him by state law, unless their state happens to recognize common-law marriage, presumably she can’t take his last name? Or else maybe that was the newspaper’s (or the police’s) doing, since they’re presumably not legally married according to state law.
I particularly like this page, which after the pseudo-King James rant against the IRS granting 501©(3) status to churches and thus interfering with them, the last sentence reads:
Uh…right.
Oops, apparently I didn’t copy the second link right. Try this one.
**
Like Christians not wanting to recognize the Roman emperor as a god? Or Catholics in Britian performing Catholic rituals even when it was illegal? Hard as it is to believe sometimes laws to run counter to religious beliefs.
Of course I don’t have any problem making fun of this guys beliefs.
Marc