Freedom of Religion is its Own Enemy

World Wide Web ^ | 5/26/05 | Henry R. Sturman

[Torie]

Your eclectic display of legerdemain from your ample repertoire is indeed quite dazzling.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>> The constitution just stipulates that government shall not establish a state religion (ie. Church of England) <<<

I believe the Constitution states the Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion The "government" is not mentioned. The 1st Amendment also states the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Justice Joseph Story, in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, explains the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment.

[Cvengr]

The policy of separation of Church and State extends at least as far back as Queen Elizabeth I circa 1558-1603 and in some references back to the 1400s.

To a significant extent, the Reformation dealt considerably with the issue. The separation of Church and State is basically a policy recognizing the law was made for evil men, whereas righteous men would attempt to obey both the Law of God and the Law of Man. The State was recognized as a divinely established institution, although discerning which particular men led particular nations was a different issue. The Church was recognized as the body of believers in Christ. The Separation of Church and State recognized that the State was a divine institution for believers and unbelievers alike. The Church, though, was an institution or body of Christ.

The Separation was made so as to recognize the Laws of man and the laws of God could be honored by honorable men without conflict.

Fundamentally, the separation was based upon Christian belief. In recent years, the policy has been rephrased so as to equate any belief system, including antiChristian activity under the topic of 'religion', would equally qualify as being separate from the State. Meanwhile, those who fail to have any faith in God, including adament atheism, are now changed the definition of religion to imply any belief in anything supernatural. The atheist then takes a second step to reidentify the separation of Church from State to imply the State is separate from anything alluding to supernatural belief.

Modern American political thought tends to identify Thomas Jefferson with the policy, but this is probably more associated with influences of freemasonry and associated fraternal groups seeking to further distance faith in God through Christ from Man and worldly institutions.

Here is an interesting link discussing some earlier historic influences upon the theory of the separation of Church and State.

http://www.newgenevacenter.org/west/reformation2.htm

[jwalsh07]

More from MArbury v Madison:

"... America is governed by 'a written constitution' and the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.” Chief Justice John Marshall

In other words any court issuing P_A_I's "advisory" opinions condemning constitutional amendments is a rogue court subject to impeachment. So sayeth John Marshall.

[jwalsh07]

I noticed that. Kind of like Sir Francis Dashboard, except one is arguing from religious might makes right and the other from a completely amoral might makes right. Jwalsh at least believes in some kind of right and wrong standard to live one's life, even if I disagree with his premises. Dashboard only believes in anatomy

You noticed what CG? If you're gonna make unfounded assertions have the testicular fortitude at least to make them to me.

I understand your reticence though, you weren't fairing to well in our rational debate.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I noticed that you believed your religious convictions gave you the power to force another person to follow what you believed to be right even when the other person's actions didn't infringe your right to life, liberty, or property.

Got it? :) It wasn't an unfounded assumption. It was based on everything you have posted.

"I understand your reticence though, you weren't fairing to well in our rational debate."

You haven't provided any rational debate. I simply didn't think of you.

[jwalsh07]

I noticed that you believed your religious convictions gave you the power to force another person to follow what you believed to be right even when the other person's actions didn't infringe your right to life, liberty, or property.

Then you're a liar because I never mentioned religion. Do you lie frequently? Can anything you say be trusted? From my perspective the answer is no.

But lets find out who is the fascist. Do you believe people should govern thmeselves or do you believe that you should dictate libertarian policy from an overly strong central government. IOW's, did you agree with Ronald Reagan when he advocated for local power and people voting at the booth and with their feet?

[jwalsh07]

You haven't provided any rational debate.

LOL.

I simply didn't think of you.

Do you generally make false assertions behind peoples backs or just here at FR?

[fightu4it]

Here in Indiana we are currently imbroiled in a religious crisis within the State Legislature.

The democrats are uncomfortable that the Legislative days are opening with prayer, that they say, is far too often Christian in nature.

To that charge I would like offer the following statistics:

Indiana's Religious Makeup

Protestant-67%

Roman Catholic-20%

Other Christian-1%

Other Religions-1%

Non-Religious-8%

Now, given these numbers, how often would you say it would be appropriate to start the day with a Christian prayer?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Then you're a liar because I never mentioned religion"

You didn't have to. I have seen you on other threads to know where your sense of morality comes from. Am I wrong to say that your desire to prohibit gay marriage does not come from your religious belief that it is immoral? What reason do you have for wanting to ban gay marriage? Does your reasoning not come from your religious belief, ultimately?

"Do you generally make false assertions behind peoples backs or just here at FR?"

I stopped making false accusations when you stopped beating your wife.

"But lets find out who is the fascist. Do you believe people should govern thmeselves or do you believe that you should dictate libertarian policy from an overly strong central government."

Yes, I believe people should govern themselves. I do not believe other people should govern them when their actions do not infringe on their rights. I believe in the smallest government possible. You are the one pushing for a strong intrusive government. You obviously have no clue what fascism is. It is the private *ownership* of property and the government control over said property. The most basic right we have is the right to our own existence, to the ownership of ourselves. You would ban a segment of people from doing something with there property (themselves) when their actions in no way infringed anybody else's rights to life, liberty, or property. You want the government to control the property of someone else. Your view in this matter is fascist.

"IOW's, did you agree with Ronald Reagan when he advocated for local power and people voting at the booth and with their feet?"

People do not have the right to vote away someone else's right to life, liberty, or property. Mob rule is inconsistent with a free society. Democracy is not an end in itself.

"Do you generally make false assertions behind peoples backs or just here at FR?"
I stopped making false assertions when you stopped beating your wife.

[Torie]

A civil society, involves certain communal aspects, to keep the commons healthy. One can debate what they are, but to deny the commons exist, is to deny reality, and to sink into the libertarian swamp of denying the existence of important questions. I say that as one who favors gay marriage enacted into law. There are no ideological shortcuts to pondering the tough issues. None at all.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

You haven't provided any rational debate.

LOL.

I simply didn't think of you.

Do you generally make false assertions behind peoples backs or just here at FR?

208 posted on 06/05/2005 7:08:38 PM PDT by jwalsh07

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

No, he is just a Marxist troll...

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping and Public School/no Public School Alert.

Interesting editorial and lively discussion. I'm a bit late to the party, maybe some of you made it over here already.

Personally, I'm all for the separation of State and School. Or at least, total local control and total local funding.

Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Your post was most accurate about the beginnings of "Separation of Church and State."

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices. Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.

Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license.

Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function, desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here???

[little jeremiah]

Your arguments are awesome and a joy to read.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Check out the discussion between Sir Francis Dashwood and the other dude. Goes back a bit. Just awesome.

Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Scroll through the thread and look at the counter arguments... (excuse my brutal and blunt soldier's nature)

I want you to see how the Marxists use smear tactics and informal fallacies of logic...

[Clint N. Suhks]

got a thread post number?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Now, given these numbers, how often would you say it would be appropriate to start the day with a Christian prayer?

Percentage wise, I would say every weekday and let the non-religious have the weekend off! ;^)

[little jeremiah]

Hmmm - I thought I did ping to a particular comment by Sir Francis. It didn't work.

Just go back a bit, pretty much starts near the beginning. The debate between he and Carolina Guitarman is pretty sizzling.