Replies

Without the freedom to give one's self to Christ, there can be no giving. That is the 'sacrifice' we make back, but to protect the Right to choose is paramount to the ability to make that choice.

The Right, the freedom to give one's self over to Christ is not to be found in a government which has decided that freedom of religion=freedom from religion.

So, self autonomy is not the goal, but a necessary foundation, (conversions at gunpoint don't count, do they?)

The carefully crafted statements in the Bill of Rights were there to allow people to live their lives as free of government intervention as possible.

Morality, largely based upon religion, remains a matter of choice, regardless. We have (had?) a system of government, which when populated by moral individuals, safeguarded the rights of the individual, meddled little in their affairs as was absolutely necessary.

As you said, 'how far we have slid' can only be measured in the distortion of that system to the point where our Government would have domain over our thoughts, expressions, diet, and medicaments, not to mention armaments, to the degree we are so constrained as to not have choice. When we said the Lord's Prayer in school every moring, youwere free to not say it if you chose, and many Catholics left off the last part (even though we agreed in principle with His being the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory for ever and ever) because that just wasn't the way we had been taught to say the prayer.

Those who grew up to embrace immorality, Buddhism, Shinto, whatever, made their choices, as did those of us who chose to follow Jesus, who like the lesser Lairds, swore our fealty in all things to Our Saviour and King of Kings. (God first, then Country, then others, then self--which worked when most everyone felt the same way.)

Recall that the power of government, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed comes from the choice of those who follow it, and that each soverign individual must possess that power in order to grant it to any governmental entity, otherwise, it is the other way around, with government tossing them the table scraps of its soverignty over them.

For this reason, at least back when I had Civics class, the People were at the top of the food chain, and government was considered subservient to them.

The founders would agree, that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, ate reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power belongs to the people, ultimately to each individual, who can, as they choose, delegate it, or surrender it, be it to God or otherwise.

When the Government dictates against our will that we cannot mention religion in publicly funded schools, they have effectively prohibited the free exercise thereof, and as such limited the available choices--especially considering the secular humanist onslaught in the curricula of today.

If one is holding up autonomy as an end in itself, I'd agree, but it is only a means to an end, the freedom to choose to live well.

Those who would not, in the words of the Bard, 'Would not serve God if the Devil bid them'.

“If one is holding up autonomy as an end in itself, I’d agree, but it is only a means to an end, the freedom to choose to live well.”

Ahh, a Kantian. Yes and no. Yes, it is bad as an end to itself. As a means - it’s not really a means. You can’t get to God through yourself. You have to discard it altogether.

You have to overcome self to get to God.

“Without the freedom to give one’s self to Christ, there can be no giving.”

But without God giving us free will, we can’t have a concept of a self in the first place! Our free will is a gift, we don’t will ourselves. We don’t make it, it just is.

“That is the ‘sacrifice’ we make back, but to protect the Right to choose is paramount to the ability to make that choice.”

Absolutely.

“The Right, the freedom to give one’s self over to Christ is not to be found in a government which has decided that freedom of religion=freedom from religion.”

And that’s the problem with carrying autonomy too far - if it is the primary good, then to not be autonomous is hurting the overall good. It’s a utilitarian, not a deontological argument.

“So, self autonomy is not the goal, but a necessary foundation”

Well, it’s like discovering there’s a whole basement below what you thought was the real foundation, and finding the actual foundation by punching through autonomy.

“The carefully crafted statements in the Bill of Rights were there to allow people to live their lives as free of government intervention as possible.”

Absolutely. Santorum’s not arguing against this. He’s actually arguing that autonomy, in this absolute sense, actually works against the constitution. Because if the constitution isn’t binding you - look at Obama, you can do so much harm to other people.

“Morality, largely based upon religion, remains a matter of choice, regardless. We have (had?) a system of government, which when populated by moral individuals, safeguarded the rights of the individual, meddled little in their affairs as was absolutely necessary.”

Based on the understanding that rights come from God, not from ourselves. If rights come from us, then that justifies intervention, because if we don’t act, then people are going to lose their rights. Rights coming from God implies that even if we do nothing, people will be free.

This is the POV that we are fighting. The DOO SOMETHING folks that don’t understand this.

“When we said the Lord’s Prayer in school every moring, you were free to not say it if you chose, and many Catholics left off the last part (even though we agreed in principle with His being the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory for ever and ever) because that just wasn’t the way we had been taught to say the prayer.”

Or when I have prayer in every single class that I teach. It’s not forced. We have a simple prayer and a blessing, and then everyone takes off.

“(God first, then Country, then others, then self—which worked when most everyone felt the same way.)”

Yes, you get it. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Thank you sir.

“For this reason, at least back when I had Civics class, the People were at the top of the food chain, and government was considered subservient to them.”

Still are. That’s the thing about Natural rights, is that even if the government deprives you of them, they still exist. They can’t take them away.

“The power belongs to the people, ultimately to each individual, who can, as they choose, delegate it, or surrender it, be it to God or otherwise.”

But as you said, these rights come from God. We did not make them, we did not bring them about. They would exist even if we deny that they exist.

“When the Government dictates against our will that we cannot mention religion in publicly funded schools, they have effectively prohibited the free exercise thereof, and as such limited the available choices—especially considering the secular humanist onslaught in the curricula of today.”

What’s happening is that people are arguing that this is protecting autonomy - freedom to be free FROM religion. This is the problem. Rather then act and permit people to conduct themselves according to their faith, autonomy argues that this is bad, and must be stopped in order that their autonomy might be preserved.

They see it like committing suicide and in a way it is. You are dead to the self and alive in Christ. Just like you would prevent someone from killing themselves, you try to protect them from religion.