Home > Uncategorized > The Religion of Politics

The Religion of Politics

Thursday, October 20, 2011 Leave a comment Go to comments

There is two things I will not talk about is politics and religion.  Not.   Separation of church and state.  That’s all you hear when Christians want to pray at schools or graduations.   Why does the state have so much say so in everything.  I thought it was freedom of religion not freedom from religion.  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  Or the free exercise thereof.  The founders knew full well that the did not want a state church like the one they just left in England.  They wanted freedom of religion not a Church of America.

There is however a state religion that whether they believe it or not it is called Political Correctness and it is gospel to some.  They have a god called the federal govt.  The adherents of this religion believe that the federal govt. is the answer.  They believe that the federal govt. will take care of them in case they can’t.  They believe that it is the government’s responsibility to take care of them not theirs.  The Occupy Wall St. protestors are members of this religion.  They believe that they shouldn’t be responsible for their bills that they incurred.

Have you ever noticed that Christians and Jews are not covered or protected the “god” of political correctness?  Christians have been under assault through the courts in this country more than any other group.  Look at the antisemitic rhetoric coming from the wall st. protestors and quite frankly around the world.

The definition of religion in the Merriam dictionary says;  Belief in and a worship of a god or other super human agency.  There is more than this but let us just use this one.  What entity in our country serves as a super human agency?  Why it is the govt. who can solve all problems that us mere mortals can not seem to comprehend.  Well my religion is not the govt. of this country.

Political correctness stifles free speech, it hampers communication.  Instead of trying to understand each other P.C. does not allow us to talk through the issues that we are told n0t to talk about.  This in turn keeps the fires of tension stoked which empowers the leaders of political disenchantment.  Progressive liberalism is marxist, communist and socialist with a new name.  They always change their name because you just can’t say you’re a marxist, communist or socialist especially if you are running for president.  Capitalism and more importantly belief in God has made the United States of America the envy of the world.  Instead of trying to emulate and develop these tried and true polices the world continues to grapple with socialism.  As you can see europe is paying the price for these policies.  But the U.S. has slowly but surely developed some of the same policies and the liberal courts in this country are doing their best to get God out of every single facet of public life.  So what do we have?  A country that is going broke financially and morally.

We need to reject P.C. as a viable philosophy because it enslaves its adherents and has crippled our culture for long enough.  I am tired of hearing that rich people need to pay more taxes.  Have you ever got a job from a poor person?  Rich people employ people.  We don’t need to raise taxes we need more tax payers.  We need to wean people of the dolls of Govt.  America!  If the truth hurts then we need to hear it and deal with it.  There is hard times coming.  We can be part of the solution or part of the problem.

The Political Correctness Church of America believes the govt. can provide the answers to all our problems.  The govt. is not the answer.  The God of the Bible is the answer because it is true.  Faith in God is the key to our success.  Faith in the Govt. is the door that is leading this nation to its destruction.  Hope and change were good bumper stickers but it has turned out to be ropes and chains.  America is a slave to dependency and we need to break the chains and be the people we were meant to be.

May God Bless and Keep you

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Rob Day
    Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    I totally agree with you, brother. How times have changed. In the 1700’s the Bible was the SOURCE in a home to help a family not only to learn morals, but to learn reading and writing.

    In the 1800’s, the federal government required ALL schools to teach religion.

    Thomas Jefferson’s famous “separation of church and state” has been, what I believe, severely abused. This issue was brought up during the time pastors received stipends from the state as a way to continue preaching the citizens of that said state. Jefferson feared that if the states continued paying these theologians, the state would eventually resort to having only one type of religion being taught within that state. This in turn would be similar to the Church of England, the very reason our founders left England.

    However,we live in a world where the minority, in this case the atheists, believe we are to adhere to their whims .

    The good news is that I do not conform to their ideology. And I do not feel comfortable to be politically correct. Being politically correct is another tool used in an attempt to restrict my liberties. A God given right I will fight for until my last breath.

    • Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 5:06 pm

      thanks Rob your a smart man even though you’re a liberal

  2. dougindeap
    Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:37 am

    Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. They later buttressed this separation with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

    James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

    It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

    The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

  3. Rob Day
    Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    dougindeap, I believe your comment, although factual in one sense, is inadequate as a whole. You are correct to say that James Madison played a role in the creation of the Constitution, but by far was he the central role and not the only person who drafted this cherished document.

    The separation of church and state was nothing more than the clergy keeping their hands off of government and government officials keeping their hands off the church. During our Founders’ era in Europe, the clergy belonged to a “national church,” a place where the government subsidized the church. And during that time, Christians who did not participate in this national church were persecuted as political rebels.

    In America, state governments began providing subsidies to churches in order for these churches to be steadfast and assist the state in teaching their citizens morality. Jefferson feared this course of action would one day evolve into a national church in America, hence his belief in the separation of church and state.

    In 1787, the very year the Constitution was written and approved by Congress, that same body of founders also passed the Northwest Ordinance. Not going into details about this mandate, Article 3 clearly states that “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

    Who do you think drafted this important document? Thomas Jefferson.

    Our founders never intended to take Jefferson’s opinion on separation to what we are faced with today. Atheists have taken Jefferson’s words and used it as a weapon to push religion out of every crevice within government – from courthouses to public schools. Prayers are being banned in public functions, only allowing faith based people to perform their religion either in their homes or in their churches.

    This is where their liberties are being violated by a group of minorities who have poisoned Thomas Jefferson’s belief.

    When it came to religion, our Founders believed morality was essential in everyone’s life. They were searching for a religion that was universal, where ALL faiths could come together in agreement. Benjamin Franklin composed five points of fundamental religious beliefs which were founded in all religions throughout world:

    1. Recognition and worship of a Creator who made all things.

    2. That the Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.

    3. That the Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other.

    4. That all mankind live beyond this life.

    5. That in the next life mankind are judged for their conduct in this one.

    It was these five principles that our Founders spoke of as “religion in America.” And they felt these fundamentals were so important that they truly believed it should be taught in schools and applied in government. I mean, it was Thomas Jefferson who called these basic religious elements “in which God has united us all.”

    So with these facts (and there many more), one can clearly see how Atheists have taken Jefferson’s words and twisted them to their advantage, and for some reason unknown to many, was able to convince the nation that religion do not belong in government, including the public school system. And because morality is not being taught in schools, it is only the Atheists to blame for what I call the “separation of God and this nation.”

    However, I truly believe the pendulum is swinging back. I now noticed people are taking up praying, regardless how others find the practice repulsive. These morally correct individuals believe it is their God given right to do so. And I truly believe it will be much harder today to convince them otherwise.

    I remember someone once told me about an encounter with an Atheist. The Atheist wanted this person to prove to him that God exist. After this individual proved the existence of our Creator (and yes there is proof), the Atheist was not satisfied. Of course this believer of God was puzzled. Then, this person asked the Atheist, “Can you prove to me there is no God?”

    The Atheist could not answer him. And now, I ask you.

  4. dougindeap
    Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement largely coincided with another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

    This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).

    I am familiar with the Northwest Ordinance by which the Continental Congress aimed to sell lands, which it had persuaded certain states to cede to the United States, in order to reduce public debt from the Revolutionary War. Its import is rather different than you suppose. The original version drafted by Thomas Jefferson said nothing about religion or education. A committee of the Continental Congress later added a provision reserving a section in each township “for the support of religion.” That provision was dropped, prompting Madison to rejoice to James Monroe: “How a regulation so unjust in itself, foreign to the Authority of Congress, so hurtful to the sale of the public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated Bigotry, could have received the countenance of a Committee is truly a matter of astonishment.”

    A provision regarding religion was later added at the behest of Manasseh Cutler, a minister and former army chaplain, who was one of the directors of the Ohio Company, which was a land speculating company then negotiating with the Continental Congress for the purchase of lands under the ordinance. He pressed for a number of provisions, including: “Institutions for the promotion of religion and morality, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” The Congress acceded to all his demands except that one. It changed his proposal to the text you quoted, stripping it of any authorization to promote religion or religious institutions, substituting instead an inoperative expression of opinion about religion being necessary to good government, and retaining only authorization to encourage schools and education.

    All of that, of course, occurred before the Constitution in 1787 established the government and Congress we now know. Congress did not approve the Northwest Ordinance that year as you say. Rather, it reenacted the ordinance in 1789, the same year the First Amendment was proposed and two years before it was ratified, in order to give the ordinance force under the new Constitution. As the ordinance spoke of encouraging schools and education, and not religion, Congress may well have perceived no conflict.

    In 1802, when Congress first used the ordinance to admit a state to the Union, it offered the prospective state of Ohio provisions differing from those in the ordinance, including the Article 3 you quote. It substituted in its place a provision not mentioning religion and addressing only schools: “That the section No. 16, in every township sold, or directed to be sold by the United States, shall be granted to the inhabitants of such townships, for the use of schools.”

    While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another and held views such as you note regarding religion. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

    It is instructive to recall that adoption of the First Amendment reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement largely coincided with another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

    This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).

    Given that religion continues to flourish in America to this day, one might reasonably conclude that the salutary effect of separation of church and state continues.

    Finally, separation of church and state is not an atheistic concept, and it is not something that atheists have recently convinced others to embrace. Enough said about that.

    • Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 10:17 pm

      Both you guys are to smart for me. Awesome debate love to hear more. Thanx for participating.

  5. Rob
    Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 5:08 am

    I am sorry to say Dougindeap, no where in the Constitution makes the claim of the separation between church and state. As a matter of fact, your interpretation to Jefferson’s opinion is completely inaccurate to what he and the rest of our Founders were thinking when it came to religion.

    You are basing your belief on a 1947 Supreme Court decision (Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 1) where they made it perfectly clear that government, both federal and state, could not promote religion in any way. Justice Black may the comment for the court and in HIS opinion, “Neither a State nor the Federal government … can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

    The Founders would have sided with Justice Black on his opinion with the exception of not aiding ALL RELIGIONS. As mentioned before, the Founders wanted a universal type of religious doctrine. A study of morality where everyone would conceptually agree upon. Not to have religion removed from public life as an eye sore. They strongly encouraged the teaching morality. Not deterred it.

    The difference between you and I is the fact that you are basing your argument on a Supreme Court decision. I am basing mine on what the Founders dearly wanted and strived for.

    • Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 11:12 pm

      I am not college educated as probably have guessed by my literary skills or lack thereof. I don’t claim to be an expert on the law or quote opinions but what I do know is that or founders wrote things like endowed by our creator and all men are created equal. Creator and created huh! They didn’t seem to be believers in a cradle to grave almight govt. god. I know that people are going to disagree with this but Political Correctness is the religion of this culture. P.C. beliefs are being taught in schools to our children endoctrinating them into a belief system that I’m offended by and is in direct violation of the establishment clause. There I said it. Schools are being dictated to by the govt. and the unions. Can you tell me why our schools are failing. We keep dumping huge amounts of money in them and the kids aren’t learning. There is no discipline especially in the intercities. P.C. teaches that the govt. will take care of you if you can’t. Just vote me in and I will make sure that you are taken care of. Hey what happens when there is no more money to give these people and they get hungry. YOU GET GREECE.
      I’m sorry that for some reason faith in the God of the Bible is offensive to some I can’t really help that. However, I do understand it cause I was an unbeilever at one time in my life for about 32 yrs. I was as worldly (P.C.) as they come. I was always trying to get over and take advantage ( Scam ) the system and not taking responsibilty for my actions. As long as I wasn’t hurting anybody. I was like really God, come on that is such a unsophisticated world view. Heaven and Hell, love, forgiveness joy dependent on God. Thou shall not steal, kill and have no other gods before him. I liked the worldly commandents like thou shall not steal unless they are richer than you. Thou shall not kill unless you choose to terminate a pregnancy. Yea that was one I broke.
      Do not preach your religion to my kid. Where is the ACLU at when you need them? What kind of adverse effect has P.C. had on society. States like Illinois and California are broke. As a nation we are 14,000,000,000.000 dollars in debt and I believe if it wasn,t praying christians in this country we would have collapsed already. God has given us a wake up call but, the question is will we wake up. The crazy stuff that is going on in the world today is like reading the book of revelation and it is going to get worse before it gets better. If that bothers you, good if it doesn’t it should

  6. dougindeap
    Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 1:20 am

    Everson was hardly just the opinion of Justice Black. All nine justices of the Supreme Court read the Constitution to separate church and state. They differed (5-4) only in whether that constrained the state from funding the transportation of students to religious schools.

    In any event, while I agree with Everson, I do not “base” my views of separation of church and state on it. Rather, both the Supreme Court and I base our views on the intent of the founders as expressed in the Constitution (as described in the first paragraph of my first comment) and other evidence (a small sample of which is noted in the rest of my comments).

    I agree with you that the founders would not establish a government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, I think it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government–in both the founders’ time and today–largely reflect Christianity’s dominant influence in our society.

    That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. As noted above, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people’s expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people’s values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite–the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity’s influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that–and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow “lock in” (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.

    • Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 6:00 pm

      Here is the deal obviously with all due respect you are going by opinions of liberal judges and not the constitution because it is not there. The first amendment does not say seperation of church and state. The constitution is not a living breathing document it is the constitution. President Obama doesn’t like our constitution. He has directed Attorney Gen Holder not to prosecute laws that he himself does think is constitutional. He has taken an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States. I know that is opening a whole other can of worms and I will write more about that at a later date. I respectfully disagree with you Doug and agree more with Bob.

      • dougindeap
        Thursday, October 27, 2011 at 10:01 am


        I am “going by” the Constitution (as explained in the first paragraph of my first comment).

        That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

        To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate church and government, Madison and Jefferson supplied it.

        This is hardly a liberal-conservative issue–or at least it wasn’t at the time of the founding.

        Rest assured that President Obama likes our Constitution. Each branch of government, including the Legislature and Executive, must in the first instance reach its own understanding of what the Constitution means and act accordingly. The Supreme Court (since Marbury v. Madison), of course, has the final say, and when it decides what the Constitution means in a case, the other branches must act accordingly (otherwise the rule of law is dead).

        The oath of office calls on a President to defend and uphold the Constitution. It hardly requires a President to follow acts of Congress that are unconstitutional. Over history, Congress and the President have tried to avoid disputes over the Constitution, and they have largely succeeded, but such disputes nonetheless have occurred many times.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: