Replies

There’s a huge hole in that quasi-syllogistic reasoning. He leaps from no particular faith being the established religion to faith or belief not informing politics at all. Which is a ridiculous position. There’s a world between antidisesteblishmentarianism and pure secularism, were such a thing possible.

I could see this being an insoluble puzzle back in the day when, for instance, protestants couldn’t see fit to tolerate what to them was a perfectly intolerant religion like Catholicism. Sorta like how we feel about communists. How do you support the rights of people who wouldn’t recognize your rights were they in power? But now it’s more about degree of influence. Libs want to ban religion from the public square, for despite millenarianism, liberation theology, “social justice” preaching, religion is basically hostile to them. I’d like it a bit kore, for the sake of natural rights and such. But then I cringe when fellow supposed conservatives act as if our and Israel’s security concerns are equivalent because it is the Holy Land.

Nevermind that, however. We can always tweak the nobs. What’s important to know is that what’s going on with repudiation of conscience in the hostile takeover of healthcare isn’t about balancing religious freedom against established religion, or any such thing. It is about abridging freedom of religion, purely and simply, because like the right to keep and bear arms they don’t believe in it. They believe in state funded abortion, not the right to refrain from active participation in killing babies.

It’s really pretty simple.

The founding generation and the generations that immediately proceeded them learned certain lessons well, from hard experience. They knew that the establishment of a state church could only represent coercion of conscience, and therefore, inevitably, tyranny.

And so, they forbid the establishment of a state church, they made it clear that Congress could not rightfully impinge on free exercise, and they banned the use of any religious test for public office.

But, they DID NOT in any way bind the individual exercise of religious belief. They did not, and could not, bind the conscience of the individual citizen in the voting booth, or of the individual REPRESENTATIVE. That representative is completely free, and actually duty-bound, to legislate according to his own understanding of self-evident truth, but always within the absolute requirements of the constitutional oath to support and defend the supreme law of the land.

It was brilliant, and scriptural.

And as long as we were wise enough to, as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, said, exercise our “our duty...privilege and interest to select and prefer Christians for our rulers,” this worked very, very well.

Want to put things back right? Exercise that duty once again.

I don,t know if i agree or not but i would like to point out a little detail.

CONGRESS can make no laws concerning the establish of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof, State has nothing to do with it.

Congress does not run the states, The States are free to make their own laws where they are not prohibited by the constitution, the 1st amendment does not probibit the States from doing anything.

It is only something that Congress is prohibited from doing.

Most States hold that same opinion of religious freedom. that is why there is no State churches.

If the Government can not make a law on a certain matter that means they have no right to say it is illegal, but on the other hand they have no right to say that it is legal.

In other words if some one thinks that homosexuality is the way to go then the Congress can not say that it is illegal, on the other hand they can not force the States or the Church to Honor it because they have no right to say that it is legal.

As far as the Churches are concerned they have never forced no doctrine on me false or true, this has happened in the past because the government and the Churches were sharing the power which is the reason for the first amendment where Congress is concerned.