Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: firebrand; Zeneta
I wonder, though, if Scalia is right in apparently thinking we are better off on a secular foundation, legally and officially, a foundation that includes all. Not to mention the fact that if you don’t have the freedom to NOT believe, then believing loses its meaning. It’s no longer a choice, so it’s nothing.

While Americans might arguably deserve the right not to believe "in" God, their disbelief cannot set aside the actuality of whether there is a God or not. Yet many of their progressive demands are based on an assumption of disbelief in, or fascist suppression of, the reality that there is a creative organizing force vastly beyond our control that has set universes, and the physics and chemistry of their contents, in predictable patterns since time immemorial.

Until 1948, SCOTUS jurishprudence never did away with the implicit understanding that there is a God, and that God both created and can control nature, and that much of Natural Law is observable and deeper levels of it are discoverable.

What we are faced with today is that courts have elevated the social values and intellectual posturing of persons who do not believe that there is a God, or facts, or any form of authority, onto the same social footing as persons who do believe in God. This is fine at a polite dinner party, but it becomes malignant when it champions partial birth abortion, the mutilations of transgender surgery and other modern atrocities being forcefed as gospel to schoolchildren, including the obligation to view one's believing parents and neighbors as ignorant bigots.

Without proof, secularist zealots are winning legal punishments over persons who respect God's creations, such as biological sex. They look at a baby and declare its sex is "assigned", not biologically inherent. Parents have been punished for not wanting to share custody with a divorcing partner who has "discovered" his or her homosexuality, or for not supporting a child's decision to change "genders." So far, the courts have been unwilling to "establish" a standard of truthiness in line with our Declaration.

69 posted on 07/04/2018 1:13:14 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law." --Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: Albion Wilde; firebrand
So far, the courts have been unwilling to "establish" a standard of truthiness in line with our Declaration.

This is the fundamental issue and it's not anything new.

The Courts are not defining or defending the Nature Rights of the Individual that is the foundation of our entire Nation.

Our politicians never promote the sovereignty of the individual and their unique character(s) of self, morality and potential.

Our Constitution works for the benefit of everyone when a majority of people understand where their ability for logic, reason, curiosity and morality come from. It doesn't come from any man made government.

This is where the war is being fought

It's a war between those that accept the undeniable truth of Nature Rights and those that either reject Nature Rights or are afraid to even consider the implications.

71 posted on 07/06/2018 6:48:54 PM PDT by Zeneta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson