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.



No comments:

Post a Comment

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.