In Reply to: Tell us more, our liberties are under siege posted by The Killer Piglet on April 20, 2002 at 00:58:37:
Dear K-P;I agree with most of your post and I admire your passion for liberty.
I must offer one important clarification though. Perhaps unconsciously, you have slipped into inaccurate but pervasive ahistorical jargon. The Constitution does NOT provide or ordain "separation" of Church and State. That is a much later re-interpretation by people whose agenda is anti-freedom of religion rather than pro-freedom of religion.
The Constitution forbids "Establishment" of religion; that is a different kettle of fish. No "State Church." (And had there been a State Church back then it would have been Presbyterian or Episcopal.) The Constitution forbids the State from requiring membership in any particular church and forbids the State from directly supporting any particular church by financial levies on the general population.
The Constitution does not mandate hostility to organized religion, although many people think and act as though that were so. The First Congress gathered under the new Constitution, as one of its first acts established a Chaplaincy. Still active today. Every session starts with a prayer. Even today. That is not "separation," nor should it be. What is forbidden is "establishment."
The Founding fathers recognized that far above the risks of the tyranny of the clerisy, the nobility, or the military, was the risk of the tyranny of unfettered unreformed human greed, anger, and lust, and that the only checks on these evils were found in education and spirituality. This is not to posit that the Founding Fathers held any consensus on the form that spirituality and education should take other than it should be "liberal" in the classical sense of freeing man from ignorance, prejudice, and base desires.
When you read their speeches, you can only conclude that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. were telling Americans that they had so far failed in the mission God had set them out on; and viewing history, you can see that after much anguish, most of us have come to agree and have asked God's help in doing better.
The founding fathers all knew that liberty makes sense only if people use liberty to fulfill their spiritual destinies. Otherwise, the lessons of history still are that societies end up as prisons or jungles.
And of course I agree that Doyanne Foynstoyn is a person totally lacking in integrity, all the better to make room for her astounding ambition. Had she been in Rome, hers would have been the second dagger into old Julius.
Pax et lux, et 'viva Christo Rey,'
JOHN
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- An important clarification - John Marks 04/20/0207:48:32 04/20/02 (12)
- Re: An important clarification - Analog Scott 18:37:43 04/20/02 (2)
- Freedom of, and from, religion -t - The Killer Piglet 19:09:57 04/20/02 (1)
- Re: Freedom of, and from, religion -t - Analog Scott 20:10:13 04/20/02 (0)
- The Constitution is not a sacred document - Norm 12:54:31 04/20/02 (5)
- I am sorry for your reading comprehension difficulties - John Marks 13:35:49 04/20/02 (4)
- When you cannot be right at least be nasty.. - Norm 15:53:58 04/20/02 (3)
- Even more sorry for your reading comprehension difficulties - John Marks 17:41:03 04/20/02 (1)
- The last bastion of the fool is anger - Norm 20:56:03 04/20/02 (0)
- Religion has been a double edge sword - The Killer Piglet 16:23:34 04/20/02 (0)
- Nice spin. - Rob Thomas 10:29:51 04/20/02 (0)
- Re: An important clarification - Sean 08:57:44 04/20/02 (1)
- No need - John Marks 09:57:36 04/20/02 (0)