Just found this on the Federal Government’s (formerly) secret training program for clergy. Training for what, you ask?
A shocking KSLA news report has confirmed the story we first broke last year, that Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government to “quell dissent” and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law.
In May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.
A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.
The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to “obey the government” when martial law is declared.It was related to the Pastors that quarantines, martial law and forced relocation were a problem for state authorities when enforcing federal mandates due to the “cowboy mentality” of citizens standing up for their property and second amendment rights as well as farmers defending their crops and livestock from seizure.
I have no idea if Catholic Priests are participating in this program, but I have no reason to doubt it.
Not cool. Very not cool.
I just posted something about this on my own blog (at the link). Remember that preacher in the movie “The Patriot”? He picked up the rifle and told his congregation “A shepherd must tend his flock. And at times… fight off the wolves.”
The wolves are coming again. Will there be enough shepherds to fight them off this time?
Hmmm. I have no doubt that such a program could be used to make much mischief, and in our day, it probably will. However, in opposing something like this, I think it is important to oppose it for the right reasons.
Let me get theoretical for a moment.
Is there something intrinsically wrong with declaring martial law in an emergency? I don’t think so.
Is there something intrinsically wrong with priests collaborating with the government? Not at all.
Is Christopher Knight correct when he says on his blog, “Here in America, the government is not in authority over us! We the people have the authority! This government only has whatever authority it derives from us!” No, he is wrong, and in fact this opinion has been explicitly condemned by the Catholic Church. See Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei.
So what’s the problem? The problem is that our government has shown itself to be untrustworthy. We know the kind of air-conditioned holocaust it is trying to impose on us, and tools like this will only expedite the project.
We have a real crisis of authority here. If our government is legitimate, all citizens – and even clergy – ought to cooperate in an emergency. But if our government is not legitimate, then NOW is time to organize the resistance and launch the counter-revolution.
A Catholic cannot view government as the enemy, per se. Our government does plenty of harm, but it still does more good than harm so far as I can tell. Maybe I’m wrong. The point at which government does more harm than good is the point at which it becomes illegitimate.
Jeff,
I don’t disagree with you. Some of what you’ve articulated here was bubbling up as I was writing this post, and I tempered some of my original comments because of it.
I just know that on an instinctive level, I don’t like this action. I don’t like that it’s subversive and covert. If the government is respectable and trustworthy then yes, martial law is a real possibility that duty-bound Catholic citizens should submit to.
But this idea of training clergy secretly to use the bible to convince their flocks to peaceably submit to a quite possibly arbitrary consolidation of power – I believe that’s wrong.
Transparency breeds trust. This government obfuscates so much that they’ve lost the benefit of that doubt. I’m too ignorant of Catholic social teaching to know when revolutionary action is justified, but I do know that the 2nd ammendment to our constitution, which is the rule of law in this country, is a provision made in part for citizens to defend themselves against the threat of an overly self-empowering government. The Founding Fathers had England squarely in mind when they formed our government.
We can surely take issue with many of the ideals this country was founded on, but if we are to follow the law of the land and it protects our liberties from federal tyranny, should we not make full use of these provisions?
Interesting point, Steve. I have mixed feelings about this. We have a right to bear arms and live in some independence, but our government also makes provision for the government’s response in the face of a national emergency.
It is the duty of the government to order society in the way most conducive to the common good. All of us should have the common good as an implicit measure for our actions but, for the most part, it is the role of private individuals to serve the common good on a more local level by pursuing the flourishing of their family and community. They don’t always see the whole picture clearly, which is fine, because it’s not their job. Thus, it is good for the government to possess a special authority in cases of national crisis. However, a difficulty arises under the democratic system – if you have a share in the government, you become responsible for the common good in a more explicit way. This responsibility is inconsonant with the duties of the common man; i.e., ruling is a complex business, difficult to execute well as a secondary occupation. In modern day America, this difficulty is acerbated by the unfortunate circumstance that our present government espouses a flawed and imperfect conception of the common good. I don’t think that makes the government illegitimate, but it is dashed inconvenient all the same. How one should comport oneself properly under such a system is a baffling mystery.
There is one more thing to consider in terms of the 2nd Amendment: the dramatic imbalance that has emerged between individual firepower and government firepower. When the Amendment was enacted, the government’s “big guns” were unwieldy objects that required muscle and time to move around: it was easier in Revolutionary times for ad hoc militias to mount an effective resistance, since everyone fought with muskets and bayonets at close range.
Since then, technology has not only introduced mechanized weapons that can be moved around with ease, but also permitted surveliance techniques that the private citizen can not match. Militias simply cannot even get hold of these tools, let alone use them, without triggering a counter-resistance that would utterly crush them.
One might fend off a posse here and there with one’s own weapons, but nothing more. Remember what happened to the Polish cavalry in 1939 when they, bravely, tried to fend off the tanks of the Nazi blitzkrieg.