THE SETUP
Posted By: StClair
Date: Saturday, 29 January 2005, 6:01 a.m.
In Response To: PISCES: TELL THEM THE END FROM THE BEGINNING!! ;-) (StClair)
THE SETUP
Posted By: RML
Date: Friday, 28 January 2005, 1:09 p.m.
We are being set up and we don't know it! The "con" is to draw as many of us as possible into the Secularists vs the Religionists argument. The framers of this argument brouhaha, by the way, are orchestrating the timing so they can sucker-punch the concept of Constitutional religious freedom, and leave it battered and bleeding on the side of the road.
The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. It stemmed from a personal letter of Thomas Jefferson in which he coined the phrase. The Constitution requires that there be no state (government) religion, and simultaneously, that the state (government) does not restrict the free exercise thereof. There's was to be no "American" church as there was an "Anglican" Church.
This new Republic was to be an oasis of unheard-of religious tolerance. It wasn't that the Founders were Christians as we know the term today; as the majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists (i.e., God doesn’t break his own rules, and you don’t need an intercessor. You, yourself are the intercessor. “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.”).
The "con" of this "separation" argument is the trusty old Hegelian Dialectic concept itself. Most of us are familiar with the process: thesis [action], causing the antithesis [reaction], which leads to the synthesis [desired outcome]. This method of historical determinism has a multitude of applications. And we, in all honesty, have a degree of pride in that we not only know of its existence, but we can site actual examples of its use. We are more than willing to be the first to throw our stones of discontent at this jezebel. "I can't wait to smash that Antithesis right between the eyes,” we growl with anticipation. “Boy, the next time I see that Synthesis, man, look out!!”
But, what we are NOT aware of is that we can be manipulated into playing an active role (usually the anthesis) without our knowledge or consent. Like the unwitting homeowner who just signed a second mortgage to have their home aluminum-sided, we have signed on the dotted-line of reactionism. The thesis (which is always the argument) has been expertly framed as an array of opposites, which is now understood to be an argument between the Secular Humanists and the Christians.
By engaging in this thesis -- now as the actual antithesis -- we are making certain that the synthesis is assured. And what is this pre-determined resultant? State religion, that's the synthesis. That's where all this is headed: the State defining/determining the laws "... respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which, to say the least, is an extreme violation of the Constitution.
Also, a very useful manipulative "chess-piece" for this argument is the unspoken reality that in the back of our minds, we willingly admit that we'd would love to see "Christianity" as the "state" religion. Go ahead, it’s okay, admit it. But who's "Christianity" would we like to see in power? Roman Catholic? Southern Baptist? Mormon? Jehovah Witness? Seventh Day Adventist? New Age Christianity? How about Jim Jones' Christianity?? And who, in the name of God, gets to choose the state religion? Everyone in the "red" states? The Supreme Court? Congress? A Constitutional referendum?
Do you see the weapons we have loaded into the social Darwinist's already powerful arsenal? By engaging in this pre-framed argument (i.e., the Dialectic), we have guaranteed their success. These "people" play 4-dimensional chess for breakfast. We are happy to plug along playing king-me checkers. They have framed the argument, and they know the end from the beginning. They know how it will play out. American Christians by and large do not.
What Can We Do?
We should no longer engage in this fallacious argument. We don't want to argue about whether social Darwinism (secularism) is less than or better than Christianity. Are you really interested in changing someone's mind? When's the last time you changed a teenager’s mind, for example?
The point is NOT to argue religion at all. We should do exactly what our Founding Fathers did which was to state the Premise, to reinvigorate the core fundamental Truth of this Nation. Their statements of belief, unlike ours, were expressed with an eloquence shadowed by the potential of hanging from the gallows. And, they unabashedly stated that their/our freedoms (endowed by our Creator) are ipso facto instilled in the citizens. These "freedoms" are deemed inalienable (i.e., incapable of being surrendered or transferred). The individual citizen then extends these rights to the individual state in which he/she lives. These states in turn empower the federal government. This is what all of our forefathers fought and died for. The Oath was to the Constitution, not to a federal government or to a president.
The state/federal government works for us, we do not work for it. Citizens, through their States, created the Federal Government, not the other way around. The Bill of Rights, Amendment Ten states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
When given the opportunity, as Judge Moore had, for example, we can freely exercise these inalienable rights (endowed by our Creator) in which our future is determined by us, not by the state. Every issue in which the state interferes with our religious expression is a violation of the Constitution. Period. There is nothing else to argue about."
http://www.bringemon.org/
Date: Saturday, 29 January 2005, 6:01 a.m.
In Response To: PISCES: TELL THEM THE END FROM THE BEGINNING!! ;-) (StClair)
THE SETUP
Posted By: RML
Date: Friday, 28 January 2005, 1:09 p.m.
We are being set up and we don't know it! The "con" is to draw as many of us as possible into the Secularists vs the Religionists argument. The framers of this argument brouhaha, by the way, are orchestrating the timing so they can sucker-punch the concept of Constitutional religious freedom, and leave it battered and bleeding on the side of the road.
The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. It stemmed from a personal letter of Thomas Jefferson in which he coined the phrase. The Constitution requires that there be no state (government) religion, and simultaneously, that the state (government) does not restrict the free exercise thereof. There's was to be no "American" church as there was an "Anglican" Church.
This new Republic was to be an oasis of unheard-of religious tolerance. It wasn't that the Founders were Christians as we know the term today; as the majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists (i.e., God doesn’t break his own rules, and you don’t need an intercessor. You, yourself are the intercessor. “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.”).
The "con" of this "separation" argument is the trusty old Hegelian Dialectic concept itself. Most of us are familiar with the process: thesis [action], causing the antithesis [reaction], which leads to the synthesis [desired outcome]. This method of historical determinism has a multitude of applications. And we, in all honesty, have a degree of pride in that we not only know of its existence, but we can site actual examples of its use. We are more than willing to be the first to throw our stones of discontent at this jezebel. "I can't wait to smash that Antithesis right between the eyes,” we growl with anticipation. “Boy, the next time I see that Synthesis, man, look out!!”
But, what we are NOT aware of is that we can be manipulated into playing an active role (usually the anthesis) without our knowledge or consent. Like the unwitting homeowner who just signed a second mortgage to have their home aluminum-sided, we have signed on the dotted-line of reactionism. The thesis (which is always the argument) has been expertly framed as an array of opposites, which is now understood to be an argument between the Secular Humanists and the Christians.
By engaging in this thesis -- now as the actual antithesis -- we are making certain that the synthesis is assured. And what is this pre-determined resultant? State religion, that's the synthesis. That's where all this is headed: the State defining/determining the laws "... respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which, to say the least, is an extreme violation of the Constitution.
Also, a very useful manipulative "chess-piece" for this argument is the unspoken reality that in the back of our minds, we willingly admit that we'd would love to see "Christianity" as the "state" religion. Go ahead, it’s okay, admit it. But who's "Christianity" would we like to see in power? Roman Catholic? Southern Baptist? Mormon? Jehovah Witness? Seventh Day Adventist? New Age Christianity? How about Jim Jones' Christianity?? And who, in the name of God, gets to choose the state religion? Everyone in the "red" states? The Supreme Court? Congress? A Constitutional referendum?
Do you see the weapons we have loaded into the social Darwinist's already powerful arsenal? By engaging in this pre-framed argument (i.e., the Dialectic), we have guaranteed their success. These "people" play 4-dimensional chess for breakfast. We are happy to plug along playing king-me checkers. They have framed the argument, and they know the end from the beginning. They know how it will play out. American Christians by and large do not.
What Can We Do?
We should no longer engage in this fallacious argument. We don't want to argue about whether social Darwinism (secularism) is less than or better than Christianity. Are you really interested in changing someone's mind? When's the last time you changed a teenager’s mind, for example?
The point is NOT to argue religion at all. We should do exactly what our Founding Fathers did which was to state the Premise, to reinvigorate the core fundamental Truth of this Nation. Their statements of belief, unlike ours, were expressed with an eloquence shadowed by the potential of hanging from the gallows. And, they unabashedly stated that their/our freedoms (endowed by our Creator) are ipso facto instilled in the citizens. These "freedoms" are deemed inalienable (i.e., incapable of being surrendered or transferred). The individual citizen then extends these rights to the individual state in which he/she lives. These states in turn empower the federal government. This is what all of our forefathers fought and died for. The Oath was to the Constitution, not to a federal government or to a president.
The state/federal government works for us, we do not work for it. Citizens, through their States, created the Federal Government, not the other way around. The Bill of Rights, Amendment Ten states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
When given the opportunity, as Judge Moore had, for example, we can freely exercise these inalienable rights (endowed by our Creator) in which our future is determined by us, not by the state. Every issue in which the state interferes with our religious expression is a violation of the Constitution. Period. There is nothing else to argue about."
http://www.bringemon.org/
posted by RML at 4:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home