Suited to a Tea

Welcome to my tea. Please, have a seat; let me pour you some Lady Grey; one lump or two; cream? ....

Friday, June 30, 2017

Religious Liberty, Freedom of Expression

In light of what has happened in Arkansas; what is happening now with the supreme court hearing from Masterpiece cakes and how our own freedom of religion and to express ourselves based upon conscience is at jeopardy-let's remember to learn the facts about the issue; so I'll re-post what I said a year ago on this subject, with some recent interjections:

To all of you who "preach" "separation of church and state," let's educate you on what that statement was intended to mean by the author himself. 

Here is letter where that statement originated:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Now, having the statement in context, one can clearly see by no means did Jefferson ever intend to have religion removed from politics (or from public life) is a man to govern himself if he fails to use his principles as guide? i.e. his faith..."make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"...that wall of separation was set up to protect the churches from the government, (or private businesses like Masterpiece cakes) from coming and making oppressive laws that infringed upon religious freedoms and setting up a State church-(a state church that's humanistic in its practice and that had far more reaching detrimental affects than one can imagine- just look at the case of the 11 month old infant Charlie sentenced to death by a panel of hospital administrators..)

Although this current government (Obama's, I wrote this over a year ago) wants to set up atheism and secularism as their official religion, i.e. Supreme Court's ruling of marriage equality. 

Hello my friends, where do you think law comes from? Man? I don't think so.  Man cannot be man's absolute authority because man's nature is flawed, man will do that which is right in his own eyes.   Ideally man needs an overseer and our founding fathers knew this.

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

Is placing the Ten Commandments on the front lawn of congress making a law respecting an establishment? No! 

It's a historical religious document important to our nations history. Just accept the fact that our country was built upon Judeo Christian morals. 

Our nations documents, letters, monuments, laws and all recorded history point to the fact that we are built upon such philosophy. That's plain history and you can't make that up. 

Who do you think thought the Ten Commandments were important enough to help in determining the laws of our country? How about those founding fathers that all millennials and our (previous) President call rich white racists; a former President and a group of people who only care whether things are fair, not in the truth about why our country is what it is. And in pursuant to that regard tear down all the ancient landmarks, ie the Ten Commandments, If you don't like it-get out! 

I'm sure you'd love to live in a place like Iraq where women are no more than property and treated like dogs, but hey, they didn't have those pesky Ten Commandments to help them that's unfair.

Hopefully with this new Administration and some common sense back on the bench, we'll see a new precedent and in return some protection put in place for those who would be so governed by their faith in God, without the fear of some secular humanist coming in and challenging them

No comments:

Post a Comment