Saturday, September 26, 2009

Separation of Church and State Part 6

This post is probably the last of a debate that I had with (what appears to be) atheists who claim to be champions of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. One can only show so much patience before the obvious becomes clear and one has to move on. Remember the participant who calls himself yahweh, solely to ridicule and insult believers? I unpack him in this post.

I will post the final presentation on the separation of Church and State in the next post. That ought to illustrate my perception of the problem, its threats and hopefully the solution as I see it.


The disappointment level of the collective intellectual depth of this group is certainly rising and you accuse me of not reading your posts? I only missed Albatross’ gender.

Not once did I comment on a preference or otherwise for Christianity or Judaism, or any other religion for that matter and yet you posted stock answers and inaccuracies about the subject matter that smells of intellectual dishonesty. Really, people. You should be able to do better than that. If you had said you were high-school dropouts, I would have understood some of your ignorance, but you bragged about your two decades of study and prowess in constitutional law. And you have this to show for that?

I pointed to the fact that you ignore the significance that a religious institution’s form of government holds for a civil government. I posted statements that anyone can look up and verify if you were not so locked up in your own thought-inbreeding.

Looking at a religious institution’s form of government would show several things:

1) That religious beliefs in general are the primary influence of civil governments.

2) Drilling down point #1 above: religious institutions with theocratic forms of government are the primary threat to civil governments.

3) That a theocratic form of government is identifiable by a hierarchical structure, i.e. some are more or less worthy in the religious institution that others.

4) That the U.S. constitution has neutered the natural tendency of most of the theocratic religious institutions, which operate in the U.S., to threaten the civil government. This means we have nothing to fear from theocratic religious institutions such as the RCC or the Church of England as long as the separation of church and state is vigorously pursued.

5) That it is pointless quoting the Framers in opposition to or support of the separation of church and state unless we recognize the real threat to the separation of church and state.

6) Since religious institutions are the direction from where an attack on the civil government will most likely be launched again, it behooves the protectors to recognize the enemy and discern the signs of imminent mobilization. Failure to do so, as you do in your drunken stupor of self satisfaction, is suicide.

There are many more REAL threats to the separation of church and state, which is evident and in your face, but your haughtiness blinds you to the realities of those threats.

I pointed out that yahweh’s derision of Christians, which he gleefully repeats as often as he can, is just a charade and cover for a personal vendetta.

He calls himself a champion of the protection of church and state, which cannot be further from the truth; he is rather a saboteur of the constitution deriding fellow Americans under the cover of the First Amendment while the First Amendment protects him only from being prosecuted for his utterances. The First Amendment doesn’t protect him against the exposure of his foul character and covert intentions to poison the constitution. If it were not so, he wouldn’t have displayed such great pleasure in assuring that the most foul language is used to describe the dearest treasures of fellow Americans. So much for E Pluribus Unum in his understanding of the U.S. constitution.

He has no clue what a Christian or a Jew is and is even more clueless how to identify a hypocrite from a true Christian or Jew, yet, the insults and derision of a people whom he doesn’t know and doesn’t want to know is his banner-speak.

If he had any inkling of knowledge about the people whom he derides, he would have known that taking for himself the name of the God for whom these people are willing to die, even for the mere mention of that name they are willing to be burned alive, he would have realized they are not in the least offended by his particular abuse of that name.

He would have realized that the people who revere that name know their God intimately and a cheap fake like him is a joke because the followers of the God with that name have an Olympic-style fitness recognizing real threats and dangers from infinitely more sophisticated enemies than him. All he has accomplished was to expose his inadequacies and flawed character, which is evident in his reasoning, too. That is far more profound seen in the light of his profession being a champion for the constitution.

I tried to point you to the real threats of your stated cause, showing an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, making the complex simple and easy to comprehend, and you respond like fools who are kicking stones in a sewer not minding one bit the stench that surrounds you.

I don’t mind debating anyone but fools tax a person’s patience. Perhaps the saying, “don’t argue with fools because bystanders would not be able to tell the difference” is aptly applicable here. Craig, I must admit, attempted to engage in a debate.

Are you really as intellectually bankrupt as your postings suggest? If that’s the case and the separation of church and state depends on you, it is in serious jeopardy.

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him well.


Now I wish to move on.

Thanks

Nico

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Separation of Church and State Part 5

This post is basically a continuation of a debate that I have with (what appears to be) atheists that claim they are champions of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. Remember the participant who calls himself yahweh, solely to ridicule and insult believers? I refer to him in particular.


I am taking care of a family emergency, which explains my absence.

However, briefly, the atrocities of the Anglican Church against the Presbyterians and Quakers were due to the systemic tyranny that lies within theocratic religious institutions, erroneously corralled together with all Christians. The Church of England is nothing but a derivative of the RCC, which Henry VIII created for very selfish reasons, having retained all its hierarchies and tyrannical trappings only neutered by the establishment of a democratic parliament. The RCC suffers from a similar neutering of its tyrannical DNA by the U.S. constitution. Calling the Church of England Protestant is patently false and ignorant.

Only religious institutions that have a non-hierarchical form of government pose no threat to civil governments, because the Bible clearly teaches the separation of church and state and true Christians (those are the ones who hold to sola scriptura) believe and practice that. You didn't know that, huh? The Framers did.

It should be obvious to atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim and Christian alike that their actions are governed by the doctrines to which they subscribe. yahweh, you, too, should be able to recognize that the Christian doctrine is enumerated by one thing only: the Bible because Christians choose for it to be so for reasons that are none of your business, nor of anyone else's. Similarly, the RCC's doctrine is enumerated by three things: the Bible, the Magisterium and Church Tradition (theirs) because they choose for it to be so for reasons that are also none of your business.

What is our business, however, is the form of church government to which a religious organization holds. A theocratic form of church government is part of the RCC’s DNA, which is also so of Islam and the Church of England to name only a few. Theocracies are de facto hierarchical forms of government, which are totally intolerant of civil governments since they recognize only their papal head as both head of state and of the church. It is this singular tenet of the theocratic form of church government that inescapably leads to tyranny as history has shown.

Ignorami like you (not meant pejoratively) fail to grasp the deadly threat that this poses to civil governments. If you did, you would recognize that deriding Jesus and the other tenets of Christianity is of no value to you or anyone else and all it accomplishes is exposing your personal lack of understanding that derision of fellow Americans is not only counter-constitutional but it sows the seeds of tyranny. The same deriding words you use in your speech against Christians were used, almost word-for-word, by the judges of the Inquisition, Popes and bishops to condemn Christians (who dared to speak out against the brutal practices of the RCC) and then burn them alive, cut their guts open so animals could finish them off, dash children against trees, rape and murder women and children and so on. Your behavior might have found favor with the Roman Catholics 500 years ago, yahweh, but the U.S. constitution rebukes you and casts you out for attacking fellow Americans who happen to believe otherwise than you do.

Regarding Jefferson's perspective on the Bible, Jesus and other Christian elements, there is only one question that needs to be answered when we talk about the constitution: Would Jefferson have deliberately crusaded to remove the "good works" doctrine of Jesus, a doctrine which he admired, from the premise and mindset of the constitution? There is overwhelming evidence that he would have not. This good-works doctrine of Jesus motivated him so much that he even proceeded to produce his own version of the Bible, which is an anathema to true Christians, but that’s beside the point. It explained the conviction with which he approached life and his influence on the formulation of the constitution.

His stated love for Jesus’ good works doctrine was a primary motivator for his entire conduct and life. So, did Jefferson envisage a "secular" (no such thing IMO, which I will prove in another post) constitution or did he envisage one founded on his perception of the Christian tenets? The latter is staring you all in the face, even evident in yahweh's quotes.



Thanks

Nico

Monday, September 21, 2009

Church and State Part 4

I know I promised to write about the objections of the AU (Americans United for Separation of Church and State), but while I was doing research on them, I stumbled across their comments page about the separation of Church and State on their site. I read through all their comments, some 130 of them, to get a feel for both sides of the issue. Needless to say, all but one subscriber were pro the AU position, which is not surprising. However, I found interesting comments from a subscriber who called himself yahweh (lower case "Y") obviously to taunt Christians and Jews, as his comments indicated.

The arguments mostly revolved around the constitution and whether the Framers of the constitution were Christian or not. Quotations from Framers proving both positions were cited, which I didn't verify. However, yahweh's comments seemed to deserve particular attention. My comments that I posted on their site are below.

I couldn’t find any rational argument about the constitution. What is rather sad is yahweh’s blatant disrespect for Christianity. The constitution was drawn up to prevent tyranny from both religious as well as secular quarters. Judging by your taunting disrespect for Christianity, whether you believe it or not, place you, by your own admission, squarely in the secular-tyranny corner against which the Framers drafted the constitution. (They also made sure that the constitution does not frame a democracy but a republic, to protect the nation against mob-tyranny.)

The Framers were not all Christians although they proclaimed Christian virtues. Why? Because they recognized that the Judeo/Christian civil/economic model is the only model in the history of mankind that provides universal liberty and prosperity. There has never been and never will be another civil/economic model that will be able to surpass the Judeo/Christian model in its virtues. It’s recognition of that reality on which Christians claim that the Framers were of the Christian persuasion; and it’s their contra-Christian statements that non-Christian proponents use to claim the contrary. Both are correct. Basically, it’s not important of what particular religious conviction the Framers were.

The Framers recognized that there is no such thing as a secular form of government. Once a government has claimed ’secular’ status, it is firmly on its way to become tyrannical. Similarly, once a government has claimed ‘religious’ status, it, too, is firmly on its way to become tyrannical.

So, what, then, is this we have here in the U.S.? Is it a Christian constitution or a secular constitution? The Christian and non-Christian Framers realized that the constitution can be neither. It has to be a civil/economic model that leverages the precepts of the Judeo/Christian doctrine without requiring its practitioners to become converts.

We have a model of government that was founded on Judeo/Christian principles, for which participation is not seated in the belief in the doctrine, but it is seated in the application of its precepts.

This principle was not invented by the Framers but it is a generally accepted principle throughout history. It is equally applicable to civil and criminal law. The thief sits in jail because, while knowing the precepts of the doctrine of the law, he was not obedient to them and suffered the punishment that follows disobedience. It is irrelevant whether he believed in the law or not. The honest man avoids prison for fear of the punishment and shame that a conviction brings, whether he believes in the law or not. Obeying the doctrine is the sole prerequisite for the obedient to reap rewards and avoid punishment while disobedience is the sole cause of punishment and loss of rewards for the violator. Believing in the doctrine is not required.

So, yahweh, (purposely not writing your name with a capital letter because you apparently believe it’s a statement of belief if you should write Jesus’ name with a capital “J”, which is a requirement for proper syntax) there is really no need for you to ridicule other people’s religion since it doesn’t concern you and it is, quite frankly, none of your business what others believe. Islam is an exception on this rule: the terms of their doctrine, like Christianity, is accessible by anyone, clearly defined and comprehensible. Their doctrine, unlike Christianity, teaches that the one, who doesn’t believe it, should be killed. Muslims in the U.S., who are enjoying the liberty and prosperity that our constitution brings, are caught in the middle: they don’t want to sacrifice the liberty and prosperity that the Judeo/Christian civil/economic model brings, but they are terrified at the wrath of the “true” Muslims, those who are clearly identifiable by their doctrine. (Incidentally, the attacks on 9/11 struck a huge chasm in Islam, too.)

The important thing, if you wish to be obedient to the constitution, is to accept and become obedient to the Judeo/Christian civil/economic model without the necessity to believe in its doctrine. It is clear you despise (not only don’t believe) the doctrine of true Christians and their God, which is fine. That’s your prerogative. But you should refrain from openly injuring them by your blasphemous (to them), public outcries purely to demonstrate your disdain for their doctrine. To Christians, Jesus is God Almighty, the prophesied Messiah, Son of God. You are not pressured, enticed or discriminated against to believe it but you are, by the constitution’s spirit and call to unity (E Pluribus Unum) prohibited from injurious actions against them. If you continue to act out your disdain for Christians in this way, you are a proponent of tyranny of the secular kind, which makes you an enemy of the constitution and thus, an enemy of America. And, it appears, so is AU. I am still catching up on their modus operandi and beliefs, so I will reserve judgment on that.

Let’s just get something else out of the way. The “Christian” part of the Judeo/Christian economic model, excludes theocratic religious doctrines, such as Roman Catholicism (Pope is the boss, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are the “informed” and the regular folks are the laity), Mormonism, Islam, and Scientology. The classic accusation of so-called violence in the name of religion lies at the door of theocracies, not true Christianity. Not everyone who claims to act in the name of God does so in the name of God.

Well, how do we know what is true Christianity or Judaism or a true of anything for that matter, even a true American? You have to look at the doctrine. The doctrine must be clearly defined and freely available for all to read. For those who claim to be Christians, you must look at the Bible and the Bible only. It is clear for all to read and judge whether someone is a Christian or not. Reading it to determine if someone claiming to be so is a true Christian doesn’t make you a believer, so there is no need to fear reading the Bible. Roman Catholicism, for example, has additional doctrines added to the Bible, such as the Magisterium and Church Tradition. So, they cannot really claim to be “true” Christians; they are, rather, “true” Roman Catholics. Similarly, Mormons cannot claim to be true Christians either, because they added the Book of Mormon to their doctrine. They can, at best, claim to be “true” Mormons. In the same vein a true American is someone who is obedient to the U.S. constitution. Anyone is free to judge a professing Christian by the Bible; a professing Roman Catholic by the Bible, the Magisterium and their church’s traditions; an American by the constitution; and so on.

Judaism shares with true Christianity a crucial element in the understanding of governments and that is the calling: “Do whatever you do as if you are doing it for God and not for men.” Therein lies the foundation of our constitution and the requirement that all, believers and unbelievers, partake in the precepts of this doctrine, not to enslave it’s adherents, but to liberate them and make the bounty of its fruits a reachable pursuit for all who are obedient to it. From that stems the highly successful and rich doctrine of capitalism. Those are the tenets of the constitution of the United States of America.

Having “one nation under God” and “In God we trust” publicly displayed should not offend anyone because it’s not there to shove Christianity in anyone’s face but it’s the free expression of the people, some believing it expresses their faith in God and others acknowledging the precepts on which our constitution was founded. (Incidentally, that taxpayer money should pay for license plates of any nature is wrong. Why can you and I not pay for our own license plates, regardless of the inscriptions on it?)

People who speak like yahweh does, are saboteurs of this truth; ignorant at best. I don’t mean to insult you, yahweh, but I want to bring to your attention that your utterances are destructive and counter-constitutional, despite your apparent defense of it. Rather show respect to all Americans, not only those who sing in your choir.

Finally, folks, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comments.


Thanks

Nico

Friday, September 4, 2009

Church and State Part 3

Parts 1 and 2 have been archived in the August 2009 heading.

Even though I focused on the declarations of the AU (Americans United for Separation of Church and State) thus far, there is no intent to attack them or single them out in particular but I rather want to use them as an example of the general prevailing mood in this respect.

The AU declares their support for the following issues:

1. The free exercise of religion. I’ll go along with that.

2. Separation of church and state. I’ll go along with that provided we define what that means, as I shall discuss in a following posting.

3. Judicial nominees that strongly support separation of church and state. I’ll go along with that with the understanding of point 2 above.

4. The right of each religious group to define marriage on its own terms.

What? I thought that marriage was a civil institution. Listen to what the AU is on record as saying, "The government must also recognize that while many couples choose to be married in a house of worship, marriage itself is ultimately a civil institution; access to it should not be defined or limited because of religious strictures."

The way they phrased that statement, "...marriage is ultimately a civil institution..." clears up many misconceptions about this. Religious groups should be able to define marriage on their own terms but they, too, are ultimately subject to the Civil Kingdom. That's not only what it sounds like, Folks, but experience teaches us that the Civil Kingdom has found ways to increasingly exercise control over the Religious Kingdom with the same bribes and sweet talk with which they invaded it in the past.

To attack the schools with lawsuits, as Messrs. Falwell and Robertson did, claiming schools have religious foundations while that treasure is in the hands of the Civil Kingdom, was futile and no court could have consented to such an initiative without ignoring the law.

That public sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of a religious bias in schools is indisputable not only because of the poor results education in the hands of the Civil Kingdom delivered, but also because of the increasing influence over the minds and perceptions of the youth steering them in an anti-American direction.

What is the one thing common to all non-violent takeovers of any civilization? Education, and in two parts: First, dumb it down so that graduates would not understand the rhetoric; and second, get to the kids at as young an age as possible, preferably already in kindergarten. These parts are already in place and what does the Religious Kingdom's generals do to stop these invasions? Nothing. No concerted effort from the Religious Kingdom to stop these raiders from repeatedly breaching the "wall" to drag off more treasures every day.

What should Jerry and Pat have done, instead? There is no easy answer since the colt has bolted and the barn door can only be closed behind it.

Perhaps, when they had the support of the people they should have attacked the real causes, getting the Religious Kingdom's treasures back: Removing education from the government and returning it to the people where it had been and where it belongs, so that future generations would inherit the character and traditions of the people, not bureaucrats. And, while they were at it, bring marriage back to the Religious Kingdom by removing any and all government benefits, incentives, and discrimination from the law that involves marital status.

In Part Four, I will look at the things that the AU opposes. There are some interesting stuff to explore there.

About Me

Seeking the truth until I find it.