Updated Version: Christian Discovery and The Christ

Updated:

I came to write this piece because of events set in motion when I spoke up, peacefully on Zibby Owen’s page regarding the October 7th attacks, just after they happened. Seeking to be a bridge of understanding, I tried an approach that is both authentic and new for me. I shared what was on my heart but I didn’t launch into a blast of my own opinions I knew I could substantiate. Instead, I invited a dialogue - a debate even. This is a very Jewish thing to do, and my dad is Jewish. As a child I loved to debate and I did up through early adulthood. Although these days I would prefer a thrivologue, there is still something beautiful to be said about a respectful debate as a way to hone one’s perspectives, find its weaknesses and learn from other’s skillsets. What was happening on Zibby’s page was not that at all; it was anything but respectful and that way, I felt very said, as I grew understanding that one of the greatest strengths of Judaism is its commitment to ethics over rigid beliefs. Corruption doesn’t care about religion; it also doesn’t mind posturing as religious in order to get enthusiasm or obedience for goals having nothing to do with religion. Constantine ended Christian persecution by creating Christiandominion. Arguably he inherently inverted Christianity and created the worst of all heresies, whether he was well-intentioned or just politically expedient, because Christ was one who absolutely refused dominion of this world. Lucifer tempted him with exactly that and Yeshua declined, even to save himself from the cross using his power in a way that was outside the will of his Creator.

Corruption is not a Jewish thing or a Christian thing or a Buddhist thing. It’s not Hindu or any other particular religion or reactionary rejection of religion. Corruption is a faceless lack of integrity. I am happy to point to endless so-called Christians who I believe simply used religion to justify their pure evil in some cases and in others, were truly blindly misguided and thought, whatever the wrong they did was right and were led astray by the truly evil or the completely deceived who led them in turn. A brief look up of “sexual scandals and Buddhism” reveals quite a trundle of truly problematic concerns, on par with the Catholic priests. Corruption was rampant in the time of Hafiz, and it continues to be, particularly in oil rich Muslim countries. But the same is true for Texas, and Indigenous Genocide continues here at home on Turtle Island, also known as the The United States/North America.

As my last act on Zibby’s page, I posted a Jewish-sourced article on how to have a good, respectful debate. I don’t love to debate anymore - it hurts. I still have a tendency to drop truth bombs without padding, and it’s something I’m working on. But I used to find debate fun, energizing, engaging. Now I would rather help us all bring our pieces together into a tapestry of wholeness. I would rather have thrivologues.

But I threw out the gauntlet, because that was the right thing to do at the time, or so I felt - it isn’t that I know awfully much about anything, but rather because I knew enough in this case - and in some others - in to know that I was standing on solid ground intuitively and factually. It could all be wrong of course, but my inner compass felt confident. Also, no one took me up on the offer. However, I am under the impression, though it may be wrong that

Steven’s Newsletter

found me through my sharing on the site. I subbed him back and he posted a wonderful but slightly inaccessible for regular people who aren’t legal experts video on something called “Christian Discovery” and “Plenary Powers.” Incidentally, as I edit this piece, I just bought Steven’s book today, and look forward to reading it, or if it’s too thick, I’ll hand it off to my son and have him explain to me as a part of his unschooling.

The references to legal cases can sound so boring without understanding their significance; as a result, it’s super easy to see why those of us who don’t know what they signify in real time - or in history - let our eyes glaze over when we hear those terms. That obscure, eyes-glazing quality of the terms may or may not be intentional, but what’s underneath is tremendous. Phenomenal. Terrible but great. Voldermort himself would be proud of the muggles - unless of course black magick was involved after all, which is a very real possibility, in my opinion. The initial video I struggled to watch through all the initial intros and whose and legal references that were beyond my understanding or background was posted by

Peter d'Errico

but I could tell it was a gem that more people deserved to be able to unearth, so I asked for a more accessible version. Peter graciously supplied me with this student talk, which rocked my world. It explained things I’ve intuitively seen as obvious since forever, but I had not come across a source of a cogent explanation for what happened and is happening to indigenous peoples/people. In fact, Peter floored me with the simple but shocking revelations contained in his video. He is even funny when he talks about how the term Indian was a simple result of Columbus’ confusion. This I knew but the way he said it just made it that much more absurd that we take anything Christopher Columbus said or did seriously, other than to seriously re-evaluate domination as an approach to life itself.

For example, as I understand it, and correct me Dr. d’Errico, if I’m off on this, but the basis for non-rights of indigenous people as pertains to the land they lived on for thousands of years before any European representative “discovered” the land is simply this: based on Papal Bulls Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex, European monarchs, all subservient to the Pope, all agreed to have a race, and however’s representative got their first could “own” the land. In Unsettling Truths: The ongoing dehumanizing legacy of the doctrine of discovery by Mark Charles and Soong-Chan-Rah, the emergence of the Doctrine of Discovery traces its foundation to the theology of Augustine, who advocated pain and violence to induce conversion if gentler methods failed, and Acquinas who advocated sentencing heretics to death at the hands of the state. Constantine solidified the merger between church and state, following a period of persecution of Christians in the early church. When I was in college I majored in Christian Ministry, and althoug there were some strange ideas that never fully resonated with me in the evangelical tradition, I had some genuine professors who had lives of faith and engaged in humble scholarship. I went to a Brethren in Christ school, and were introduced to the ways in which the teachings of Christ ran counter to Empire. In none of my studies have I come across any teaching attributed to either Jesus or any other New Testament author that suggests land theft is okay in the name of converting people or saving their souls, or that genocide is okay if they don’t conform to an invitation to the gospel at point of sword or gun in a language they don’t understand. The New Testament suggests showing compassion and grace and being willing to risk it all for an embodiment of Divinity who was himself tempted by Empire in the desert and said, “Get the behind me, Satan.” There is nothing that suggests if people aren’t Christian we can steal from them or make them slaves. Instead, my reading of the New Testament was that if anything believers were to hold themselves to higher moral standards and take it easier on non-Christians, who couldn’t be expected to live up to the same level of purity in the eyes of the Pauline tradition. Jesus was not very concerned with purity in the sense of appearances at all, and as most of you know, my current views diverge significantly from what has become of the way of Jesus, as I see the very early church as having been infiltrated by Patriarchy, when in fact we would have a very different approach to Christianity had the early Church Mothers led it.

The Papal Bulls offer a purely religious basis for assimilation, land theft and domination at best, and abuse, wanton harm and genocide at worst. The ultimate power of decision as pertaining to the land, being attributed by those monarchs to the Pope. We now call this strange mechanism of attribution of absolute power to the Pope, plenary powers. Plenary powers are still invoked in courts of law. Weird, yes?

Although the foundation of the doctrine of discovery is atrocity based on an incredible distortion of the teachings of Yeshua the Christ, it became legal precedent in the US, Canada and every other area colonized by the “Christian Princes” who played in the race of conquest under the Pope’s benediction, sanctifying their conquest on the basis of superiority. The Supreme Court has consistently sided with Sadistic Papal Bulls 1452 and 1454 and 1493, in spite of the fact that our country, however ill founded originally upon such doctrines, does also include the ideology of the separation of Church and State. It seems to me that the Doctrine of Discovery is unconstitutional, but of course I am not a lawyer. My mother did say my first words were negotiating and that she thought I would be one.

The doctrine of Christian discovery formed the basis for the African slave trade, as well as the land theft, ethnic cleansing, genocide, culturicide and abuse of countless Turtle Islanders created in God’s image.

If we are to talk about decolonializing, it’s important to decolonialize and not just use language that is less offensive, while holding onto the offensive collective abuse, theft and wanton harm of colonialism itself.

Here are a few things I learned from the presentation I watched over at Dr. d’Errico’s substack:

https://substack.com/@peterderrico

“Trust” in the legal context of indigenous rights, as I understand Dr. d’Errico, means, “We’ll steal your land, exploit it. Trust us, we will do this.” The standards for the legal term “Trust” as it applies to a trust fund, where their is some accountability for the trustee, do not, apparently, apply when it comes to indigenous complaints about those who dominate them.

“Consent” in the context of indigenous law seems to mean the opposite. As I understand Dr. d’ Errico, it means, “we will consult you and then do whatever we want.

Indigenous people is not that same as Indigenous Peoples. The United States initially refused to grant that there is such a thing as Indigenous Peoples, even after the attempt to annihilate indigenous sovereign nations that existed on Turtle Island long before Christ Co got lost on his way to India. Obama thought that looked compromising, so he changed his vote to acknowledge “Indigenous Peoples,” however he added a note to ensure that this virtue signaling carried no weight in terms of the actual sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples.

Peter talks about the words we use to describe the people who were here first, whose home was the land, and how it’s important to understand the context of the words. He shares,

‘How can you say someone is Native American since their people was here before there was an America’?

He expresses that the United Nations defines indigenous within the context of domination. This can be very insidious, as it is possible to assert the rights of Indigenous Peoples at the exact same time as eroding their rights with speech that seems to be affirming, while placing that affirmation within the context of disempowerment, much like “human rights,” often is a placeholder for someone with an agenda deciding under what terms a human even has any rights at all!

For example:

Notice “some or all” of their social, economic, cultural and political institutions. If they are sovereign nations, of course it would be up to them to decide which ones they want to keep and which of another nation that surrounds them geographically would they like to integrate?

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/fs9Rev.2.pdf

Honors Program Research Talk: Peter d’Errico on Federal Anti-Indian Law [video]

What is the difference between plenary powers and a “rules based world order.” Is the difference that congress has ratified that it agrees we should all be under the absolute dominion of the Popes and the monarchs?

What would Jesus REALLY do?