It amazes me that some pro-lifers still get bamboozled by the outdated claim that “life begins at conception” is a religious position, not a scientific one. The Culture of Death crowd that make this claim are about 50 years behind the science that has firmly established that human life begins at conception. Their false claims need to be countered every time they trot them out there.
‘[T]here’s supposed to be separation of church and state in our system of government,....’
wrong. there is no ‘separation’ of church and state in the Constitution: theory or practice. in fact the Constitution assumes and is written under the precedent of Judeo/Christian moral law, which is the basis of western civillization.
thus the establishment clause simply bans any gov’t interference in Christian practice or conscious, without due process.
Not murdering children amounts to state sponsored religion?
“The “establishment clause” is an invention of fakes and flakes. The first amendment is freedom of speech, press and church—-free and independent, as a check and balance on the coercive power of government. Speech is the spoken word, press is the published/printed word. Read properly, freedom of the church is one cogent thought, not two opposing clauses, ie Congress shall make no law having to do with an established church or preventing the free exercise, thereof. at the time the Constitution was written, states had their own established churches. James Madison believed religion made people law abiding and moral—-which were necessary requisites for a self `governing people. In order to ratify the Constitution, the framers decided not to fight over whose established state church to make the national church, so they just decided not to have a national church. Madison argued that if there was a national church, people would find it was not the one they wanted, so to avoid losers, it was better to just respect state individuality on this matter. Liberal atheists want people to believe the Constitution protects only what people think, as if government can read our minds. Government only knows what we think because of what we chose to say or write, and those are protected speech and press. …so there is no reason to have some other way to protect what we “think”. Liberals want people to believe that the first amendment has two clauses: one is freedom of religion, the other is freedom from religion. (If Islam is able to achieve big numbers in the USA, we might see state and the federal Constitutions amended to make Islam and Sharia the established church, so there is that. Imagine Mexicans and Muslims in a civil war, because that is where we are headed because Mexico is one of the least religious countries on Earth, and most anti religious, as the revolutionaries wanted to exterminate Catholic/Christian Spanish influence when they got independence from Spain. They also tried to annex Texas, but failed. It’s like the USA claiming to own Canada after its own war of independence. )
The courts built bad precedent on top of bad precedent to bring homosexuals out of the closet so they can force the church into the closet……and the press has a conflict of interests in suppressing freedom of the church and religious morality, so it may be free to impose its own morality as national morality. All laws impose somebody’s morality. Even speed limits impose morality , ie you are driving at an unsafe and imprudent speed…..ie , it is wrong to drive too fast. part of the liberal sleight of hand is to always make sure to teach about the Salem witch trials as if that tiny episode is emblematic of the dangers of the church . It happened 100 years before the creation of the USA in an English colony that lost its charter for a time and was virtually lawless. Liberals have brought back spectral evidence against Trump and Republicans, and other enemies and straw men. Communists warn about “witch hunts” in Orwellian fashion, as if communists don’t exist or are not a threat—-just like witches don’t exist or are harmless, as far as they know. The threat is people who believe in a God, in truth…..that there is something more than what people can see, hear, taste, smell and touch according to our physical senses…..while at the same time, they make a god out of “reason”, which is a limited human,mental faculty……ie, not a physical one. Thoughts and ideas are not physical, nor are the meanings of words. Materialism is dangerous. Democrats’ tribal Stalinism is dangerous. …..”trans-gender” (not trans sexual) people being the latest tribe created and protected as victims by liberals…..who have made the Church into the enemy because it is an obstacle to their power. California opened strip clubs before churches from Covid pandemic shutdowns, which was a good way to put churches out of business. Churches mostly are white and some own a lot of land, so expect farmers and churches to me under siege in coming years as liberals believe too much land is owned by white people and must be shared as reparations.
Government has coercive power, the church has persuasive power. Framers wanted us not to be ruled by kings or popes, arbitrarily and capriciously, but LAW is the king and people…..and laws are made through a deliberate process by the people, with checks and balances under a Bill of Rights—which also is like one cogent thought—-describing freedom and what that means.
The 4th amendment protected liberty and property——,…no ex post facto laws or bills of attainder, ie legislative takings….like Democrat Congress people voting their enemies into prison to take liberty, or ballot props taking property in some states.
In all the talk about an “establishment clause”, we hear “does it support or endorse religion?” But freedom of the church is a protected Constitutional right so of course the Constitution considers the church to be an unqualified good. This was not the French Revolution. If the framers did not consider religion to be good, they would not have guaranteed free exercise of the church…or allowed states to have established state churches. Perhaps one reason for the Islamic invasion of the EU and USA is to make religion less appealing to everybody, and so communists can one day come to the rescue and ban all religions when they protect us finally from Islamic fundamentalism.
But the test is not “does it endorse or promote” religion or the church. The test should be “is it a LAW?” Congress shall make NO LAW……means no to coercion, not persuasion or value judgments.”————
The first Congress undertook the exercise to draft the Bill of Rights amendments to the Constitution. Here is the text of now-Representative James Madison's first draft of what would become the first amendment submitted to the 1st Congress House of Representatives:
Notice that in #4, Madison wrote "The civil rights of none shall be abridged" not "Congress shall make no law."
A House committee was formed to streamline Madison's language, and they came up with this:
ARTICLE THE THIRD.Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and of the right of the People peaceably to Assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed
Now the Senate began streamlining the proposed amendment from the House, eventually revising the list down to 12 amendments. The first amendment, which began as three separate amendments, then revised to two, and then submitted to the states as the third overall amendment, finally became this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Based on the nature of the revisions, it doesn't appear that the "separation of church and state in our system of government, a tenet of the First Amendment known as the Establishment Clause" was ever a concern. In fact, the focus seemed to about protecting the "civil rights" of the people to worship as they pleased.
It's interesting to note that Madison originally put protecting the civil right to worship ahead of preventing the establishment of a national religion. The Senate reversed this sequence, perhaps for style over any overt reasons.
-PJ
Life, an unalienable right: the securing of which is the reason government is instituted. This was unanimously agreed to.
If this leftist argument was accepted, outlawing theft would be the establishment of one of the Ten Commandments. Beyond stupid, i.e. progressive.