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

To: jafojeffsurf

Sorry I do not agree a theocracy is freedom. Freedom allows anyone to believe and worship as they choose, which means Christians are free to practice their religion and worship in any way they choose. Your view will oppress all those who do not believe as you do, and choose to worship God, or not, as they choose.

If you hate individual liberty so much, perhaps your should be a Muslim.

I’d die to preserve your freedom to believe and worship as you belive and choose, It’s obvious you would have me die if I do not embrace your beliefs. May your God have mercy on your enslaving soul.

Hank


60 posted on 07/04/2010 7:09:33 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: Hank Kerchief

So we agree then no national denomination and that the founding fathers were God worshiping men whom believed in Jesus Chris as their savior.

It is good to see we both agreed on these facts.


62 posted on 07/04/2010 7:17:55 PM PDT by jafojeffsurf (Return to the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: Hank Kerchief

Just one more comment before going to bed...

No National denomination (establishment of religion) is far different than Elected officials making statements about Their religious beliefs and Us Christians electing such person’s.

James Madison, Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)

“I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. “

And a good night to all


67 posted on 07/04/2010 8:01:27 PM PDT by jafojeffsurf (Return to the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: Hank Kerchief
I have read carefully your citations of the words of Madison, and must agree that he is correct about Congressional chaplins being paid at public expense. But I see little beyond this de minimis non curat that troubled Madison in his day.

The salient issues of today that touch on SOCAS are things like prayers and Bibles at public educational institutions. Since I believe public schools (ie. gov't money) to be as unConstitutional as public religion, it's not a big quandry for me. Abolish them both!

Regarding the existence of historical monuments of a religious nature that some want to ban (being offensive to atheists and non-Protestant religions), since they are a part of our history, they don't violate religious freedom because they do not advocate for any religion. If someone can't stand looking at our history, too bad. Same with the Confederate flag. People have a right to display it, just don't try flying it over the Stars and Stripes.

I think your critics are being rather harsh on you, Hank, and in return you are being over-harsh on them. I don't see how any of the posters here are dragging us down the collectivist statist socialist rat-hole. As long, at least, as all they want is the right to pray voluntarily in school, bring a Bible to class, or preserve an historical monument that contains religious words and imagery.

An interesting point not mentioned (that I have noticed) on this thread is that Madison was speaking only about separation of religious institutions from the Federal government, as being offensive to the Constitution. The states had the right (and still do!) to establish a formal religion unless their own state constitution forbids it. Of course, Madison is clearly in favor of the states following what is Constitutionally required of the Federal government, but he would probably have been considered quite looney to argue that the relaxation and final abolition of official religion in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware was Constitutionally required.

The words "Congress shall make no law..." are rather disinclusive. It leaves a lot of room for recognition of religion in general and our Christian heritage in particular by government at all levels. For one example, I fail to see how declaring a 'National Day of Prayer' would violate "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The defining questions for me are:
Is it funded with government money? And
Is it compelling in nature?

75 posted on 07/04/2010 8:40:17 PM PDT by ARepublicanForAllReasons (Darn, lost my tagline... something about boarders, in-laws and bad language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | 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