Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."Today, we accept the ACLU's version of the "wall of separation" as gospel. It was never the intent of the Founders to snuff out all religious expression in the public forum, but to instead abolish a national compulsory religion, such as was exemplified by the Church of England.
...Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go. Washington
There's a huge difference. Note Washington "recommends." He doesn't mandate.
Now we've strayed so far that American schools are celebrating "winter festival" instead of "Christmas," so as not to offend complaining Muslims.
Seeing as how the political left is so profoundly and demonstrably wrong in their interpretation of the First Amendment, why would we also accept their version of the Second?
And why would some wish to separate a people from their history, their tradition and their birthright? Might there be a purpose in doing so, and would anyone benefit from it?
Who?
15 comments:
Well, we humans are a supersticious species and I think any particular superstition (or better yet, all) should not be endorsed. Of course people should be free to worship whatever their mysticism dictates, but it should not be represented in our government.
Hell, Thomas Jefferson so objected to the nonsense in the Bible he refused to swear people in with it. As a compromise, he ripped out all of the references to virgin births, demons, bringing-the-dead-to-life, etc, for the Bible used. That Bible is on display at the Smithsonian.
If you were elected to office, LP, I would have no problem with you expressing your particular form of superstition--as long as you didn't mandate any action on my part.
I don't want anybody being able to mandate that anyone either embrace or keep silent on religion. So that includes not wanting to give atheists the power to forbid it.
So tell me--does your belief mean you simply object, which is your right that I support--or do you endorse introducing some coercive state mechanism to ban religious political speech?
I do not believe that the First Amendment verbiage was an accident. "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
It was a restriction placed upon the Federal Government precluding a national religion. Several of the Individual states had State religions at the time of the founding. This was never intended to preclude State religions, only to preclude a National religion that superseded State religions.
Notably, the Second Amendment doesn't specify that the restriction is directed solely at the Congress or the Federal Government. It says very plainly and simply that the right to arms "shall not be infringed."
Ironically, the courts have held the exact opposite...that the First Amendment applies equally to the States but that the Second is legitimately subjected to State regulation.
It's downright Orwellian.
Another good Washington Quote:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens."
--George Washington
To LibertyPlease:
I find your attitude toward "religion" and particularly the Bible all out of proportion to the post. And, yes I agree fully with David on his point of mandating or suppressing religion. It is well put.
However LP, you must understand that it was those holding a particular Biblical doctrine that allows you to believe as you do and speak and write freely. I perceived that the need was sufficient to plainly state what the Lord's people have always believed -- from Abel onward. It is as follows:
I believe that liberty of the conscience, which is the liberty of the soul to freely choose what one will believe and accept, is essential for the individual to be accountable before God for the choices that are made and actions that are taken. I believe that the LORD God, in creating men and angels with a free will, bestowed upon us liberty of the conscience, and it is His desire that it be no other way. Howsoever, it is also the LORD’s express will that all men be reconciled to Him through Christ Jesus so that the original design of man is fulfilled, in that man is able to freely fellowship with the LORD God, which is not possible in man’s unregenerate state. In making the capacity to freely choose possible, the LORD God has provided in His word both the commandments He has given as our Creator, and explanation of the consequences of the choices we, as individuals, may make.
As such, it is not proper or permissible that anyone coerce, force, or attempt to force another to believe anything. This is particularly true concerning the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. A person must freely choose, being fully persuaded in their heart and soul, to repent and believe the Gospel. This freedom to choose holds true in all service to the LORD. One must freely choose to serve the LORD, just as one must freely choose to bring tithes and offerings. Anything less than this free choice will not be, and is not accepted of the LORD, as it comes of a heart improperly motivated. Thus, it is required in all a person may do pertaining to the LORD, from salvation and throughout all service, that it be done of a genuine and sincere love for the LORD God for it to be accepted.
In all cases, the individual must and will bear the express consequences for the choices made, as all choices the individual may make are solely the responsibility of that person, even if it appears the choice were made under duress.
LP, you are free to utterly disagree if you want. After all, you do not have to answer to me for your disagreement with the Word of God.
(Breathes heavily into breath mask) I find your lack of faith disturbing. (breathes again into breath mask)
It doesn't ban public displays of religion. It bans them by government. You can't steal my money to be used for your religious activities. Everyone here knows damn well what it means. Your hyperbole on the issue is disturbing.
Meant as a funny. You know, ha ha ha. Darth Vader, in the Death Star conference, speaking to a bureaucrat, ah, choking him with the "Force". By the way Anon. I would like the federal govt. to stop stealing my money to PERSECUTE my religion, and my other rights. So, go in peace, or be disturbed, whatever.
Wasn't meant for you Sean.
I got your reference.
Anon,
I’m not sure just who you were referring to.
In any case I am well aware that some think that a fundamentalist issuing a statement on “Liberty of the Conscience” is hyperbole. However, it is not. What is preached and taught about the eternal destiny of man, and what one must do to be reconciled to God, and what will happen if one isn’t reconciled, is not threatening or coercion. Rather, it is very much like warning someone about the having bad brakes or bad steering on their vehicle. Now, if you get upset because someone cares enough to warn you about the hazards of driving your vehicle with bad brakes or steering, then I guess its fine for you to get upset about someone warning you about your eternal destiny. However, don’t be surprised about the outcome.
If however, you do not believe, and are certain that none of the Scripture is true, then why get upset at what you consider (or ought to consider) to be the opinion of another. From your point of view it is merely their opinion, and you should understand that they are entitled to it. After all, I am merely a messenger; I cannot and will not force anyone to believe anything concerning the Scripture (for that matter RBKA or anything else). There is no point in coercing anyone to believe anything when it is a matter of the heart.
If you do not believe what I believe, then its okay. You are free to have your own views on things, just as I am. Moreover, you are free to express them so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. By the same token, you will also reap the consequences for what you believe, just as I will.
I believe very strongly in individual liberty, and I do not care for those in this world who wish to stifle discussion and dissent through threats, intimidation and force. I also do not care for those who will not make a reasoned, logical argument, but resort to ad hominem attacks and oblique, cryptic statements, all the while using anonymity and monikers as way of denying ownership of their statements.
By the way, I also do not care for those who use the cloak of Christianity to lord it over others and extort money for their own gain.
I was referring to the post by the author of the blog, which is the point of these comments. There was nothing cryptic about it unless you assume that everything that happens must somehow involve you. There was also not one single ad hominem or threat - and I know you know what an ad hominem is, just reread your next to last paragraph.
The statement that "It was never the intent of the Founders to snuff out all religious expression in the public forum" is pure hyperbole (so was that line about separating a people from their history). It's also a straw man - no one is saying anything like that. Of course it's not called "snuff[ing] out all religious expression in the public forum" when Christians are opposed (and rightly so) to having their kids told in schools and other government owned or financed places - with their tax money -about how Christians are evil and that Allah wants to see them submit to Islam or die. Or that Gaia is sad because daddy drives an SUV - which is not one bit different(meaning less stupid)than any other superstition, including Christianity.
It’s disturbing because it makes me wonder where else he has resorted to such hypocritical crap but that I didn’t notice because I happened to agree with him.
Anon, there is a world of difference between attacking the method and attacking the man. My next to last paragraph attacked the methods of some (of which are some that carry the label of "brethren"). Moreover, saying "I do not care for" is hardly an attack. Neither was it intended to be. I don't care for such things because I have been on the receiving end of attacks delivered by such methods far too much, and I find it distasteful. However, if the conscience is convicted. . .
As far as the "cryptic" remark: surely you know how fundamentalists are treated? Somehow, it is thought that those who hold the fundamentalist point of view cannot truly believe in liberty of the conscience. However, it is one of the most well supported doctrines in Scripture.
Yes, you are free to believe that Biblical Christianity is superstitution of you wish, and live out your life in peace believing that. I will defend your right to believe that, but disagree strongly with your belief. I do know that you will find out that it is not.
As far as David using hyperbole, it is his blog and he can do that if he wishes. After all, neither you nor I have to answer for David's words. However, I think if you placed your own use of language under the same standard of scrutiny as you do others, I'm pretty sure you would find yourself guilty of the same.
Anon--I stand by every word. If you can't see the truth in the statement that it was never the intent of the founders to snuff out all religious expression in the public forum, you have simply not paid attention to the history of the time and the words of the men--as exemplified by the Washington QUOTE, which was requested by both houses of Congress. If that proves me wrong and you right, I'll go back to studying English.
And yes, plenty of people are saying exactly that, and there are very real movements to rememphasize our history and our traditions and mold our society through socialist education. If you think that's hyperbole, you haven't been paying attention to the events of the last hundred years. If you can't see the trend, that's your ignorance and blindness, not mine.
One last point--I never advocated expenditure of public funds for private religious promulgation. I simply don't separate the private man from the public one. Our representatives are supposed to come from us, and bring their beliefs and values with them--which we, as the electorate, are free to reject. It seems to me that expecting and accepting a ruling class that only articulates "public" values--whatever those are--creates a truly dangerous "wall of separation"-one that encourages elitism and arrogance, rather than duty and humility.
Item last--argument over what is or is not "hyperbole" I can handle. For you to sit there and anonymously accuse me of being a hypocrite is insulting, and none too courageous on your part. So go ahead and wonder about everything else I wrote--you have separated yours from any opinions I care about with that obnoxious remark.
"I simply don't separate the private man from the public one. Our representatives are supposed to come from us, and bring their beliefs and values with them--which we, as the electorate, are free to reject. "
And this says everything I need to know about you. It's the fallacy that we live in a democracy and not a republic. It's a veiled appeal to the majority logical fallicy. As long as everyone is OK with it, it's OK. You are more than willing to accept stuffing an imaginary friend down other people throats as long as it is your imaginary friend. I'm sure I can trust you to not be a hypocrit and keep you mouth shut when some jerk wants to put an upside downcross and a dead goat next to you nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, right?
Regardless of your views on gun control, you are every bit as dangerous to this republic as any islamic fundamentalist. You differ not in principle from them, only in the particular form of religious oppression you prefer.
I can't make it any clearer than I've already stated:
"I don't want anybody being able to mandate that anyone either embrace or keep silent on religion."
and
"I never advocated expenditure of public funds for private religious promulgation."
If you want to turn that in to dead goats at the court house and me being the Western Taliban--all the while accusing ME of hyperbole, then I guess you're going to continue to make a fool of yourself.
Yes, I want to know where political candidates stand on all issues--but that's a far cry--and directly opposite what I already plainly stated--about no mandates.
And as for your lecturing me on a Republic vs democracy--what, did you just discover this grand revelation in the last year or so? Tell me something I haven't been writing about for decades.
Newsflash, Mr. Liberty: YOU are the one calling for a ban--not me. How do you propose to enforce it--men with guns? What if I'm a councilman and decide to propose a resolution congratulating our Jewish citizens on the beginning of Hannukah and share the story of the lamps--are you going to have your religion-free Stalin patrol come get me if I dare to make such a proposal from my dais?
It's almost funny, if your arguments weren't so insulting, immature and pathetic. I've argued RKBA from a Catholic perspective and been assailed for allowing anti-Catholic sentiments on this blog. I've been attacked for not endorsing a ban on Islam. I've been shunned by so-called "Christian Patiots" who thought I was a Jew. I've done posts from an Orthodox perspective and been attacked for expressing an Easter sentiment on that day. And I've had fundamentalists come after me for one infraction or another. So welcome to the club, atheist, and get in line. While you're at it, you might want to find a definitive statement on my part that declares exactly what my religious beliefs--or "supersitions" as you call them--are. So go for it smart guy--what supersitions will I ram down your throat when I get that majority rule power I obviously--from my written record-- so deperately crave?
All you'll find from me, bub, is an unwavering, and non-hypocritical, thank you very much, consistent stand against coercion and for free will.
If that makes my principles dangerous to your fantasy republic, that's something I can live with. Must be tough to the the only one out there who has attained perfection. Why, if I was as good as you, I'd be rude, angry and militant, too.
Well David, now you have the answer to your questions:
"And why would some wish to separate a people from their history, their tradition and their birthright? Might there be a purpose in doing so, and would anyone benefit from it?
Who?"
I think "Anon" answered it well in his posts without ever realizing it.
Everyone has an ideology, a religion (if you will) and they express it in various ways. "Anon's" religion is to pretend that he has no religion and is somehow above that, and that the rest of us need to be enlightened and fall in line.
As you well know, history is replete with examples of those who thought they knew better than those around them, and sought to "enlighten" their countrymen. However, when that attempt at "enlightenment" failed, they resorted to force and slaughtered those same folks they supposed they needed to "enlighten" because in their rejection they had "proved" themselves unworthy of life.
Liberty, and the respect for the liberty of others is a precious thing indeed.
Post a Comment