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Parts 1 and 2 have been archived in the August 2009 heading.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


  1. So you are suggesting that religion be put back into public schools? Do you really want to violate my rights as a Jew to raise my children with my faith? That is what would happen if religious instruction were to take place in public schools. I was in elementary school when school prayer was allowed and it was always christian prayer. As a Jewish child I was subject to abuse and ridicule because I refused to go along with it. This is what you want a return to.

  2. Thank you for your response.

    I am against public schools of any fashion. Government shouldn't be in the education business for the exact reasons you cite.

    Parents, individually or collectively, are responsible for their children's education, with curricula dictated by the free market.

    Read Part 4 of this series, which I posted last night, and, although I don't address education in particular, you will see why having government involved in education will lead to tyranny.



Comments are moderated. Comment to your heart's content. I will not publish all comments but only the best of those that are pithy, relevant, smart and in good taste.

About Me

Seeking the truth until I find it.