Separation Of Church And State @ MindSay

 

Here is an example of Leftist Judges establishing Secular Humanism as a religion in America. A father in Massachusetts in 2005 was upset that the Public School sent home reading material for his son promoting the acceptance of homosexual behavior.

 

The Father file a civil suit against the Public school which was dismissed in Federal Court and in the Appellate Court ruled that teaching homosexuality did not violate parental rights. Now the Father is taking his cause to the Supreme Court.

 

Another family became upset with a Public School in 2006 because it sent home reading material for their second grader about two homosexual Kings that were lovers. This family joined the Father of the five year old in the Law Suit which is on its way to the Supreme Court.

 

On paper this Law Suit is about Parental Rights VS what the Government can instruct children in Public School.

 

The reality is different. It is about establishing the value and moral system of Secular Humanism in America. That makes a system that calls itself “secular” a religious system.

 

Leftists have interpreted the First Amendment’s intent of NOT establishing a State religion as Separation of Church and State. The phrase “Separation of Church and State” is found no where within the United States Constitution in the original document or the first 10 Amendments that has come to be known as the Bill of Rights.

 

Leftist Courts have used the illusion of Separation of Church and State to slowly erode Christianity from any connection in government on the local, State and Federal level. These Leftist Christophobes have changed Community Nativity Scenes that have been found on public grounds because it violates the Separation of Church and State myth. Leftist Courts have begun telling the Government to remove references to Judeo/Christianity from public buildings because it violates the Leftist interpretation of the First Amendment. The primary public property removals usually relate to the Ten Commandments or Crosses at Public Memorials. These representations of Christianity are symbols of values and morality; thus Leftist Courts are refuting Christian values and Christian morality in the name of the delusion of the Separation of Church and State.

 

Secular Humanism has emerged as a religion that places faith in the objective evidence of human discovery (facts derived by the validation of Science). Secular Humanism glorifies humanity as self-existent rather than created by God. In other words values and morals are relative to what feels good for humanity in the sense realm. Thus what is normal like a male and female is the foundation to producing progeny. The progeny learning their roles in life from the examples set by male and female parents.

 

Since it feels good to a group of humanity to have same gender sex, Secular Humanist morals and values would dictate that children acquired (obviously not produced from the same gender) can learn what is normal from same sex cohabitation.

 

In Secular Humanism, values and morality are measured on a sliding scale rather than a paradigm that fixes normality, values and morals.

 

Faith in Secular Humanism has probably led to the greatest degeneration of Western Society. Violence, promiscuity (homosexuals and heterosexuals), community trust, the disintegration of the cohesion of the family which leads to mutual disrespect between human individuals and on and on.

 

In essence Secular Humanism is a religion.

 

The First Amendment:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  

The Judicial Branch of Government has basically ESTABLISHED Secular Humanism as the Religion of the Land. The Judicial Branch’s extra-Constitutional legislation has overstepped it’s purpose. The Congress is the Legislative Branch which exists to create law and the parameters of a fiscal budget within the confines of the Constitution. The Presidential Administration is the Executive Branch which exists to manage the Government and enforce the Laws enacted by the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch exists to adjudicate civil and government law. The Judicial Branch interprets law and provides clarity to gray areas of law.

 

Legislation is not the Judicial Branch’s jurisdiction; yet that is exactly what Leftists in the Judiciary have done by ESTABLISHING  Secular Humanism as the religion of the Land. Thus forcing the traditional religion of the Land too often being in contradiction of the unconstitutional Established State religion of Secular Humanism.

______________________

 

Hat tip to Jim Phelan.

 

.Article in Jesus Land Times... otherwise known as a newspaper in Arkansas.

 

.Dear Mr. Messick, .Before I say what I'm going to say, I thought I should let you know that I am a Christian. .Now I must say this... there is a separation of Church and State for good reason. There are hundreds of different religions in America. If Christianity was the minority, how would you react when other religions voted for their own "agendas"? I can see how you feel about abortion. Sure, vote against abortion... it's not a religious point. Nowhere in the bible does it say anything about stopping the growth of a fetus into a baby. So sure, speak out against abortion. It would be your own personal view and not just what the bible tells you. .As far as gay rights (which, by the way, you call "the homosexual and abortionist agenda"--so very obviously entirely different things, making you look incredibly ignorant and foolish) denying other people the right to live normally because your religion says what they do is wrong is not only hypocrital and anti-Christian, it's also in violation of the very clear Separation of Church and State. Religion has no business in politics. There are too many religions in America for one to rule all. This is not a theocracy. It shouldn't be. Everyone should be able to believe what they believe--the right to argue and disagree and be as different as they want to be. You see, a lot of the rights homosexuals want are things like laws keeping employers from firing them because they're gay, landlords from refusing them because they're gay--just the right to live. You may not believe it, but in your state it is totally legal to fire someone for being gay. Also, homosexuals would like the right to serve openly in the military, something that is proven to have absolutely no effect on morale or cohesion. In the military, it's not only legal to fire someone for being gay, it's encouraged. .As Mr. White said before me, we are all sinners; thus, no one is better than anyone else. Who are you to judge someone else for how they live? You yourself are living in sin, according the bible from which you preach. Condemning someone for committing something seen by our religion as sin is anti-Christian and a sin in itself. It is a sin to judge another human. .See, so much is wrong with voting on religious reasoning. Look inside yourself to vote, rather than in the bible. If you stop putting words in God's mouth and just listen to what he has to say, maybe you'll get it right. .Sincerely, A Concerned Fellow Christian   .(I couldn't help myself. I randomly found the article and had to sign up so I could bitch at him.)

I think too many Americans have forgotten why the Separation of Church and State is important. I was just reading some people's thoughts on it, and it reminded me of something I expressed somewhere on in the mindsay community, before I read anything like it. Sometimes it is eerie when you realize you are echoing the thoughts of others without intention. I said something to the effect that Religion shouldn't mingle with politics because it is dangerous for both. Religion gets tainted with the political, and the political gets tainted with the Religious. This isn't a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. They don't come together to form sweet deliciousnesses.

At the time, the argument was that Religion was having too much of an effect of the political landscape, some of us thought this was true, and some of those thought it was a good thing, still others didn't think it was true. That's diversity for you. The purpose of the separation of Church and State was mentioned quite a bit, but I felt that the effects were only being applied in one direction, and no one was thinking about the possible negative effects of politics on religion.

Lo and behold, there were those who did realize the potentials. Men, whose names do not escape me, but for the slight comedic effect, and the element of suspense and mystery of withholding and then suddenly remembering after I've given you the quotes, I am claiming to have forgotten. So here are the quotes by the men 'o' mystery:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

"... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together"

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself"

Oh! I've suddenly remembered... these are quotes by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The comments in bold are specifically by Madison, and are the comments that liken to what I was trying to convey by my comments of once upon a time. The purity of both religion and government relies on the distinction and separation. I would argue that, over the many years since these men found themselves resting below the sod, both religion and government has suffered the effects of the gradual degradation of the wall that separated Church and State. Religious matters are not the concern of government, nor should Governmental matters be the concern of Religion, for the sake of both.

Once again, I am both appreciative and tormented by the comprehensive, thoughtful, and clear post experienced here. Yesterday, a friend (revcathian) posted an excellently thought out and prayed out statement as to her beliefs. It takes a lot of courage to take a stand, and I am quite aware of this. I wrestled with her statement(s) all day, and apparently, through much of the night!

What I most appreciate about her thoughts is how it exemplifies the fact that believers in Jesus cannot compartmentalize their beliefs into one section of their life and their world view into another. There is no separation of Church and state within me.  Often we are told to leave the religious “churchy” stuff in church, but this cannot happen, if we are honestly and actively following Jesus. As we receive more and more of the Love of God, it changes us and effects change throughout our personality and belief system ... continually. It is necessary, then, to re-evaluate and re-prioritize periodically to keep “things” in line.

This compartmentalism also applies to the fact that we all tend to lump people together and affix generalized statements to them. When we use the term “Christian”, for example, each of us has a slightly different image in mind, but we apply it to just about anyone who names the name of Jesus. Even here at Mindsay, there is a tremendous assortment and range of beliefs under the banner of Christ. The beauty of Christianity is that Christ meets each of us right where we are and, because he is our Creator, he enables us to develop little by little into the person he created us to be – each unique and wondrously made! While the rest of the world is seemingly striving to make us clones, all liking, doing, thinking the same, Jesus' love can empower us to be real.

I'm not exactly sure how I feel on many of the issues. As you can see from the past few days of questions, I do not have a great deal of faith in our media or in the lopsided information transmitted both overtly and subtly over the internet and the airways. So, from what source(s) can we glean information? How do we process that information?

In respectful response to the world view revcathian laid out, here is where I struggle:

1. There is a parable in Luke 12 that talks about earthly v heavenly treasure. Toward the end of the explanation, Jesus says that to whom much is given, much will be required (v 48). Obviously, the US has been “given” much in the way both of capitol and various resources, none of which is more valuable than the freedom we proclaim. With freedom, comes responsibility. To my mind, it's rather like the world is a neighborhood. Within this neighborhood, there are overt bullies who beat and abuse some or all the other residents. The US, though certainly not omnipotent or perfect, has the ability to protect the weaker neighbors from these bullies, and teach them how to protect themselves. Problem is, power corrupts, and there is within the nature of man a hunger for power. Someplace, what begins with good and honorable intentions, erodes – not because of one man or woman, not because of poor prior planning (although each of these can feed into it), but simply because of the imperfection of man. So, where does that leave us?  When do we love our neighbor or turn the other cheek, and when do we arise in righteous indignation in defense of the defenseless?

2. There is much evidence in scripture to suggest that God sovereignly “raises up and puts down” the rulers of nations (Prov 21:1; Rom 13:1 et al). My allegiance is not so much to the US government as to the God who reigns over this and every other government. My citizenship is first, in Jesus' kingdom, and secondly in the US. I participate in the democratic process and prayerfully support those chosen.  I know that "Christianity" is not synonymous with "American", but has God not established this, and the other nations?  If I witness abuse and do nothing, or just walk away, am I accurately representing the Love of God? 

When 9/11 occurred, we were all shocked - angered - frustrated - ?  The declaration of war on terror was an active response.  Obviously, because of the situation, there wasn't much time for preparation or planning, but nearly everyone supported the concept.  We were told our "resolve" would be tested and it has been.  We were told it would not be easy - unlike our images of Desert Storm, this venture would be costly - still we (most of us) supported it.  But sadly, politics and war management do not mix, as we should have learned in Viet Nam - War should not be used as a political tool in spite of its effectiveness.  So what should be do?  Cut & run?  It is obvious, a new strategy is needed.  Where do we look?  There seems to be no “righteous” choice – at least as I see the candidates lining up, so does this mean we do not have a viable candidate? I don't know ... honestly.

3. Democracy, as I understand it, was conceived under the assumption of a benevolent God. Although many of our forefathers were deists, they still held to a moral code based on biblical standards. I do not believe it is reasonable to assume that democracy is suitable for every nation. I'm not even sure it really works is the US any more, although we enjoy much more freedom than many. I'm reminded of the fish in the 10 gal fish tank permitted to use only a small portion of that tank. Remove the restrictions and they continue to use only the small portion of the tank. It takes time and education for them to realize their increased freedoms and learn how to use and appreciate it. Again, I don't know what this means to Iraq or Afghanistan ... or any of the other numerous places at war.

Do we stick our heads in the proverbial sand and hope everything turns out right?

Do we even have enough information to make sound judgments on these vital issues?

Do we bring all our troops home and use them to guard our borders and coastlines against any and all “foreigners”?

Do we allow the bullies of the world to continue to ravage their neighborhoods unchecked? (What about Darfur? Tehran? Korea? ...? )

As many of you know, both my X husband and I served in the Army (separately), and now my youngest daughter is preparing to leave in September. I am proud to have had the opportunity to serve, and though I hope my baby is not deployed to a danger zone ... I fully understand her need to feel a vital part of her world.

Obviously, I don't have all the answers, but open, respectful discussion is always good. There is much I do not know, and much I do not understand.  What I know is I care ... and I want our nation, my nation to stand for "caring" for the oppressed.  I am an idealist, obviously, but ... while I cannot change anyone else, I can certainly demonstrate "caring" in my own life in any number of avenues. 

 

Where do you stand?

 

~ B

A quick post here to refer those interested to an outstanding rant over at Scienceblogs by Kevin Beck on the blog Dr. Joan Bushwell's Cimpanzee Refuge.

I have an original post in the works for today, but in the meantime enjoy these tidbits.  They are included in a post titled  "Bumpkins of faith: We alone deserve special protection."  It is basically a rant about the claims of a "war on christmas" that are already beginning to fly.  Don't call yourself patriotic if you don't truly understand religious liberty.  You can find the entire post here.  I recommend it. 

Go ahead and throw up your nativity scenes and menorahs and crosses and lawn jockeys and animated statues of Stewie from The Family Guy if it floats your boat. But the legal precedent for not giving dominion to any one sect in taxpayer-supported places like city parks, government offices and schools is well-established and its pragmatism crystal-clear to the myelinated of neuron. Besides, churches have endless expanses of tax-free territory to decorate with ersatz virgins and magic talking asses trucked in from all four corners of the planet.

And a brilliant conclusion is always a plus.

The lesson here (other than the basic prohibition on thinking, period) is that it's wrong to stand up for your rights unless you're white, Christian, male, and straight (or in Kerwin Brown's case, cowering in a closet). Then it's incumbent upon you not only to demand unique rights, but trample or malign the basic ones of others. Clueless hillbillies like Jay -- who don't even know they're part of a majority, much less appreciate the fact that this is the only sound explanation for why they've even been allowed to advance to whatever irrelevant stations in society they occupy -- are sublime examples of why it's frivolous to pretend that legal protections and certain forms of recognition given to minority groups are categorically without merit. When Christopathic conservatives bemoan others' supposed hunger to destroy religion, they're only projecting their obvious desire for global supremacy on the rest of us.

Look for more soon...

The Southern Fried Skeptic