A Question of Authority

[aether]

God

House of God (Laws, Rules Etc)

Creations of God – Children of God, Man (All created equal under God)

Creation of Man – Laws, Statues, Courts, Courthouses and Magistrates to Administer Laws over man-made citizens, persons, corporations, children of state etc

Magistrate
Resides over
Courthouse
Which administers
Laws and Statues
over
Named Citizens, Persons, Corporations, Children of the State

Note where citizens and persons stand - at the very bottom.

This model is open for discussion and correction.

If one maintains he is a man (a creation of God), separate and distinct from his "person" (created by man), it would follow that he is not under the authority of the Magistrate and Court.

Another question arises, if one maintains he is a man (a creation of God) and the Magistrate is clearly a creation of man - who is in authority? The magistrate may claim the courthouse is "his" house but does the courthouse not reside within the house of God?

Another question, if one refers to the judge/Magistrate as "Your Honour" does this relinquish authority to the judge/Magistrate?

Merry Christmas

Power and Protection of God...
Yours,
Aether

[cruise4]

If this is a strictly law question then this is irrelevant. Otherwise...

"A Question of Authority"

Sums up the problem.

[friendsinthesky]

Another question, if one refers to the judge/Magistrate as "Your Honour" does this relinquish authority to the judge/Magistrate?



I too have wondered about that. If I'm in a court I'll probably address the "judge" as; judge - if I may.





God

House of God (Laws, Rules Etc)

Creations of God – Children of God, Man (All created equal under God)

Creation of Man – Laws, Statues, Courts, Courthouses and Magistrates to Administer Laws over man-made citizens, persons, corporations, children of state etc

Magistrate
Resides over
Courthouse
Which administers
Laws and Statues
over
Named Citizens, Persons, Corporations, Children of the State


Did you create this model^?

[boots]

God

House of God (Laws, Rules Etc)

Creations of God – Children of God, Man (All created equal under God)

Creation of Man – Laws, Statues, Courts, Courthouses and Magistrates to Administer Laws over man-made citizens, persons, corporations, children of state etc

Magistrate
Resides over
Courthouse
Which administers
Laws and Statues
over
Named Citizens, Persons, Corporations, Children of the State

Note where citizens and persons stand - at the very bottom.

This model is open for discussion and correction.

If one maintains he is a man (a creation of God), separate and distinct from his "person" (created by man), it would follow that he is not under the authority of the Magistrate and Court.

Another question arises, if one maintains he is a man (a creation of God) and the Magistrate is clearly a creation of man - who is in authority? The magistrate may claim the courthouse is "his" house but does the courthouse not reside within the house of God?

Another question, if one refers to the judge/Magistrate as "Your Honour" does this relinquish authority to the judge/Magistrate?

Merry Christmas

Power and Protection of God...
Yours,
Aether


Not bad, I would change it a bit, to.

God



Man and Woman.


Governments. Court systems.




Corporations. Which are the statues etc.


I would still say your honour for the simple fact that it's a mark of respect. For the position and it helps with your standing in a case. If it is abhorrent to you, then say Sir.


.

[yozhik]

I would still say your honour for the simple fact that it's a mark of respect.
.

My research has lead me to the conclusion that the most appropriate is MY Honour.

Why externalise it?
If you are "I" (man - sentient being) then anything spoken of is "my".
Using "your" could be construed as third party referencing.

"MY honour" also speaks the truth of the environment; from your perspective, the truth is based on "my honour".

[boots]

My research has lead me to the conclusion that the most appropriate is MY Honour.

Why externalise it?
If you are "I" (man - sentient being) then anything spoken of is "my".
Using "your" could be construed as third party referencing.

"MY honour" also speaks the truth of the environment; from your perspective, the truth is based on "my honour".

Mmmm OK Would it not also putting the judge on the spot by questioning his Honour? ie Your honour.

How would it be construed as a third party reference?


.

[yozhik]

Mmmm OK Would it not also putting the judge on the spot by questioning his Honour? ie Your honour.

How would it be construed as a third party reference?

.

Whose honour is being questioned?
Certainly not the judges!
He isn't the one who has been invited to answer an accusation!
So it is 100% about YOUR honour; which when you speak of it, is "my honour".

When you utter the words "your honour", you are externalising it ... you are disassociating from it. Given that a corporate body cannot speak - only a man can - is the man referencing "your honour" on behalf of the dead entity? By acknowledging "your honour", is the man further adjoining to the person by speaking for him?

You speak of respect for the Magistrate; on what basis has this respect been given?
The judge is a man; an equal.
In all that he has shown you, he has no respect for you.
He refers to you by "Mr" or other corporate labels.
He does not see a man standing before him; he sees a fictitious, non-sentient, profit centre for the sham.
Respect is earnt and should be mutual.

[boots]

Whose honour is being questioned?
Certainly not the judges!
He isn't the one who has been invited to answer an accusation!
So it is 100% about YOUR honour; which when you speak of it, is "my honour".

When you utter the words "your honour", you are externalising it ... you are disassociating from it. Given that a corporate body cannot speak - only a man can - is the man referencing "your honour" on behalf of the dead entity? By acknowledging "your honour", is the man further adjoining to the person by speaking for him?

You speak of respect for the Magistrate; on what basis has this respect been given?
The judge is a man; an equal.
In all that he has shown you, he has no respect for you.
He refers to you by "Mr" or other corporate labels.
He does not see a man standing before him; he sees a fictitious, non-sentient, profit centre for the sham.
Respect is earnt and should be mutual.

Yep I an see the point in that statement.

What about dropping the whole My honour and Your honour statements. Then addressing the judge as Sir?


.

[deafbred]

don't worry, god has raised up great leaders from the children to take back the crown from the deceiving cretons

[yozhik]

Yep I an see the point in that statement.

What about dropping the whole My honour and Your honour statements. Then addressing the judge as Sir?


.

Why address him as Sir?
Does this not assume he is above you?

I would stick to My Honour.

[revolutionary_jam]

anyone read His Dark Materials Trilogy?

the Authority?

[boots]

Why address him as Sir?
Does this not assume he is above you?

I would stick to My Honour.


No it doesn't, unless you chose to see it that way.

If you show respect, then you get respect. It goes a long way in the honour and dishonour process. Remember these guys are human too.


.

[boots]

anyone read His Dark Materials Trilogy?

the Authority?


I haven't whats it about RJ?

.

[revolutionary_jam]

I haven't whats it about RJ?

.

Really great fanasy book, I'd say it's very original and widely enjoyed by kids and adults, one of my favourite ever reads

The Authority applies largely to the first book but also the third, anyone who reads one feels they have to read them all I think :-P

Philip Pullman is the author

[yozhik]

No it doesn't, unless you chose to see it that way.

If you show respect, then you get respect. It goes a long way in the honour and dishonour process. Remember these guys are human too.


.

I know what you're saying, BUT ... if he does not have jurisdiction over me and he is my equal ... why would I address him in a manner that suggests superiority of title?

Politeness - yes.
With honour - yes.
... but not Your Honour, nor Sir.

:)

[red_ram]

Why address him as Sir?
Does this not assume he is above you?

I would stick to My Honour.

Whilst we do use the title 'Sir' to address those we perceive to be in positions of higher power than us - it is also used in a more general sense, where no higher or lower power is inferred. Such as in dialogue between a salesman and a customer.

[tien an]

Hmmm...this is getting interesting.

Sir = Seigneur
Your Honour = 'your honour is the greatest in the room'

I'd opt for 'judge', but I admit I'd have a few butterflies saying it.

Edit:

Have to agree with Red Ram. (As long as the judge addresses me as 'sir' too).

'My Honour' is just plain wrong, IMHO.

[yozhik]

'My Honour' is just plain wrong, IMHO.

Based on information I have researched, I strongly disagree.
However, as with most things, it is about finding, believing and comprehending your own truth.

[tien an]

Based on information I have researched, I strongly disagree.
However, as with most things, it is about finding, believing and comprehending your own truth.

Can you explain your position for me please?
I've looked back over previous posts but I'm missing the point.

All I'm saying is that I don't understand the 'direction' of the honour...why would it be your honour and not his?

tien an