Talk:Christian Patriot movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian Patriot movement article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 STILL AN ATTACK 2 Much Better 3 Further Disassociate This Movement From Libertarians 4 2 other theories to maybe add 5 Another name to this movement? 6 Who reviews this page? 7 Civics lesson 8 Federal Reserve 9 Requested move 9.1 Survey 9.2 Discussion 10 Rename to delete "Christian" 11 Rework to disambiguate, show bias of commentators 12 charity

[edit] STILL AN ATTACK

Some patriots don't hate Jews or Catholics or think there are govt.aliens living in the toilet stool spying on us.Can't you do any better than this?Saltforkgunman 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about "patriots" in the general sense, but about the Movement identified as Christian Patriotism. There is a huge difference.--Rockero420 17:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The comment about the Christian Patriot movement being a bridge between evangelical Christianity and racialist 'Aryan Nations' types has all the rhetorical hallmarks of CHIP BERLET, left wing Extremist (label applied to him :-) as he applies it to others). I consider myself a "Christian Patriot" in the face-value sense and have done so long before I became aware of Berlet's political activism and disingenuous involvements in forii such as the Wiki Community. I realize that these discussion pages have value, but only if NPOV is enforced strictly, particularly with the involvement of individuals like Berlet. Sign me off as the "anti-'militia-watchdog' watchdog". For the record, I dispute the neutrality of the comment: "and is also described by some, as a movement which bridges the gap between the more mainstream evangelical Christianity and the racialist Christian Identity movement." The reference should be moved AND attributed to maintain NPOV! I find it highly offensive and POV, because I am a conservative Christian and a patriot that finds my belief structure under persecution in every forum, including Wiki, because of the deliberate misrepresentations and insinuations of people like cberlet. Oh, and for the record, I'm a Seventh-day Adventist, not some venom-dripping Aryan Nations racist: but I remain a CHRISTIAN Patriot and a patriot Christian. JP419 00:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Much Better

I guess I should have posted on the talk page a while back, but it looks like the proper changes have been made. The original piece seemed to be an attack on "Christian Patriots" by implying that they are a bunch of idiots. The sources seemed to agree with that. "Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments". The current version appears to take that out. Lightning Jim 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I added that link during the merge from Patriot mythology. It is the most comprehensive reference on CP legal arguments available on the web. I agree with the title insofar as it refers to the arguments discussed therein, but I didn't choose it. Gazpacho 05:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Disassociate This Movement From Libertarians

While Libertarians and Christian Patriots may seem to have much in common, especially to an outside viewer, Libertarians are in general more pacifistic and dare I say, hippie-ish, than most Christian Patriots. For example, Libertarians such as myself, advocate an end to the prohibition on drugs, which organizations such as the Christian Patriots would not support, and even more accepted groups like the John Birch Society don't believe in that stance. Also, Libertarians would not accept discrimination of gays and lesbians, especially discrimination from the government.

It's hard enough to dispell notions about who Libertarians are without having articles like this link us to extreme organizations like the Christian Patriots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MauriceReeves (talk • contribs) on 18 September 2006.

There is nothing "populist" or xenophobic about libertarianism. I don't know if I am reading this correctly, but the first sentence under "History" seems to list various organizations and categorize them as xenophobic. I see a bunch of racist groups and then Goldwater conservatism and libertariansim, which are out of place. Objreason 06:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys are understandably confused, because of POV statements made at the outset of an article, which (deliberately) color your initial perception. MauriceReeves, you're a "left-wing" Libertarian and would likely fall in with the likes of Harry Browne, I am a "right-wing" libertarian and would camp out around Ron Paul. Birchers are not libertarians, they are constitutionalists cf: Constitution Party. Objreason, you assume that Christian Patriots are, based solely on the unreferenced material presented, xenophobic &tc. The phrasing of the material presented is a common tactic among POV infiltrators who wish to frame a POV in a seemingly neutral and academic way. I am well-versed and as "expert" on the subject on those much-maligned militia groups as one can get, and unlike some people, I can be civil and un-aggressive about it. Those who make their living (paycheck!!) attacking nonviolent right-wing movements (guys like cberlet) should NOT be trusted as a neutral or legitimate source of information! Also, don't take MY word for it, check out groups like the Michigan Militia and Indiana Militia for yourselves. Oh, and by the way, militia groups are not "Christian Patriot", even if their members attribute themselves (as such) in the face-value sense. JP419 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 other theories to maybe add

There is also the belief that the UNITED STATES itself is a corporation and that its states have been "changed" into corporations by calling them states and putting their names in uppercase letters.

There was also this belief of a "lost 13th amendment."

Although I'm not sure if they're directly linked with "christian patriot" movement. Miasmicnormalcy 05:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another name to this movement?

I don't know if this is a subsect of a greater "patriot" movement, but I don't know why this has the name "Christian" in front of it. I don't think the patriot movement is religious from what I have seen. It's something that strictly has to do with interpretations of law and government and maybe how there are some people in control of the world that we do not know of (which can be either a secret society, hyper-wealthy bankers, Nazis, etc.). But I've never heard of much that is specifically Christian, although there may be some that "happen to be" Christian and put that twist into it, but I'm not sure that is what this movement is about.

Although, maybe I've been looking in the wrong sites that talk about these things?

Jordan Maxwell talks about this subject a lot, and he doesn't put any Christian spin to it, if anything, he's non-religious, since he believes they are institutions of control. He is also against Nazis (since they are people who wanted to control the world) and he has alluded to liking the idea of people from different backgrounds getting together to fight against the oppressive "powers that be."

So I really don't where all of this Nazi, KKK, Christian stuff comes from in relation to this movement. Maybe it's an offshoot or a new version to it? Miasmicnormalcy 05:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who reviews this page?

This page claims that it is a "theory" that the U.S Federal Reserve system is a private corporation. However, that is not a "theory" that is truth that is support by supreme court decisions where it states that the FED is a private corp.

Below is a quote from one of these decisions.

"[The] Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names" - Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

Also I would like to know when you listed that as a legal theory that was "thrown out as frivelous" what is your source? - And what was the social class? Keep in mind that when you are dealing with major banks, social standing has a lot of leaning on your result.

Unless someone can provide a source (legal case) which states that the FED is a government arm, I say that it must be removed as a "legal theory" since there has been more then one ruling by the U.S supreme court which states that the FED is a private corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) on 17 January 2007.

Why did you leave much of the ruling that disagrees with you out? The case was over an accident injury by a vehicle operated by the Fed Reserve. The court's opinion simply said that in some tort cases the Fed Reserve was able to be sued like a private entity rather than subject to immunity under the FTCA--"for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act". Not exactly ground-breaking, since it also stated it was a Federal entity in regards to state taxation--"The Reserve Banks are deemed to [**10] be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation". Virgil61 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: Editor Virgil61 is right on point. And see my comments under "Civics lesson." Yours, Famspear 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnote: I need to correct myself as well, here. What Virgil61 should have said is that the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (not the Federal Reserve) was able to be sued, etc. The vehicle was being operated by the the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, not by the "Fed Reserve." From a legal standpoint, it would be imprecise and somewhat meaningless to say "I'm going to sue the Fed." You need to state what parts of the Fed you want to sue. The Fed is composed of lots of different parts -- some of which are governmental and others of which are private. Yours, Famspear 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your are right Famspear, I should have been more precise, the ruling itself clearly states: Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region.. In this case the LA branch of the FRB of San Francisco. In my defense I was just trying to clarify the case was over a tort action--the FTCA allowed the various banks to be treated as private corporations--and that it wasn't an all-inclusive claim of their being private entities for every action. Virgil61 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Virgil61: Yes, and the key point is that your analysis is fundamentally correct in its most important aspect. Yours, Famspear 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I checked the Lewis case, and it is correct to say that the vehicle was owned by, and was being operated by, the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Famspear 04:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civics lesson

Please see my discussion below. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that "the Fed" is a private corporation. All this is covered at the article on Federal Reserve System. In the Lewis case, the court did not rule that "the Fed" is a private corporation. The reference in Lewis is not to "the Fed" -- it's to the Federal Reserve Banks. And Lewis was not a U.S. Supreme Court case; it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The term "the Fed" means the Federal Reserve System. Statements like "the Fed is a government agency" and "the Fed is a private entity" are meaningless. Here we go again:

The Federal Reserve System ("the Fed") (partial list):

1. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (a government board; members appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate; member serve statutory terms in office);

2. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, etc., etc., (considered private for some legal purposes, perhaps quasi-governmental for other legal purposes); see, for example, the Lewis case;

3. The member banks (private, essentially -- could be your bank down the street).

All this is covered in more detail at Federal Reserve System. Yours, Famspear 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve is a for profit corporation, and the U.S supreme court has agreed to with that definition in - Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982), among other decisions.

The Federal Reserve Banks are not federal agencies but the Federal Reserve Board is. see [[1]] Roadrunner 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor Roadrunner is correct. And the case is Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982). The case was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, not by the U.S. Supreme Court. And no -- nowhere in the Lewis decision did the court rule that the Federal Reserve System is a "for profit corporation." (That would be nonsensical.) The court did state that "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The reader was confusing the Federal Reserve Banks (such as the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, etc., which are only specific parts of the Federal Reserve System) with the entire "Federal Reserve" (the entire Federal Reserve System). Also, you have the "member banks" -- which are generally privately owned (your bank down the street may well be a "member bank"). The member banks are also part of the system, but are not Federal Reserve Banks. By contrast, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (another part of the Federal Reserve System) is a government board whose members are appointed by the President. Yours, Famspear 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Rename to delete "Christian"

This is to re-open the discussion and reverse the previous decision. Most references to the topic are to just "Patriot movement", not "Christian Patriot movement", and there is documentation that many of those involved in the "movement" are not self-identified as "Christian". (Many are Jews.) It is a violation of WP:NPOV to prepend "Christian" in this way, as it suggests a bias, either in favor of, or against, "Christians". Also there is no article for Patriot movement and many people are likely to look for one. That name needs to either have an article or be redirected to an article. Jon Roland 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rework to disambiguate, show bias of commentators

The article as written violates WP:NPOV. There is a fundamental problem in writing articles about "movements", especially "loose" movements, composed of many individuals holding diverse views and engaged in diverse activities, even in opposition to one another. It is POV to lump together people as a single movement whose activists don't self-identify as a single movement. It is also a category error. As neutral editors we should disaggregate (disambiguate) groups of people respecting their preferences and beliefs, not those of outsiders, especially their opponents or critics. It would be acceptible to me to re-write to more closely resemble an article like Protestant, which distinguishes the various Protestant sects from one another and even from other sects like Mormons that do not identify themselves as "Protestant", and to make is clear whether the term is being used by protagonists or antagonists. The objective approach, although it could drift into OR, would be to split the topic into a separate section for each goal, view, activity, or outreach approach, and try to show how many or which people are united on each such point. Just because antagonists or uneducated or biased journalists lump things together doesn't mean that we shouldn't split them, in the lght of better, more complete information. Jon Roland 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] charity

The last paragraph of the history section is strongly POV. Specifically, the author(s) of the paragraph makes the connection that because this movement does not like government welfare, that they dont like charity at all. I am deleting this. Byates5637 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)