I find this confusing. What the hell are you trying to say? Will reread. Of course it's necessary to separate church and state- a great advance from the holy Roman empire and other intolerant theocratic societies. Church is an instrument of domination if given the power. Separation is necessary in order to prevent any one religious confession from supplanting the state or having power over a diverse citizenry. As long as we still have States as the seat of government.
What I am trying to say is stated in the subtitle of my article. The notion — often called and defended as “separation of church and state” — that beliefs, which some call religious, should always be trumped by secular government and majority vote is non-sensical.
How do you reply to the questions I ask the reader?
This does not imply that any particular religious beliefs should trump secular majority vote. One needs to judge each situation on its own merits.
It does imply that some religious beliefs should trump a secular majority vote, for example the belief that one should not commit murder most foul.
I don't consider the proscription against murder, theft, etc. to be religious. These are rules that ensure the smooth functioning of society and must prevail whether or not you believe that they are ultimately derived from a supernatural entity.
You may not consider the proscription against murder, theft, etc. to be religious, but MANY people (as I discuss in my article) believe that the REASON these things are wrong is because God said they are wrong (they're the key points in the Ten Commandments, after all.) On this basis, religious people say that these proscriptions trump any majority-vote secular decision that would make murder, etc. legal. I don't think such people should be told to shut up on the grounds of "separation of church and state," do you?
A few years ago when same-sex marriage was being debated, a pro-same-sex-marriage group in Massachusetts used the slogan, "It's wrong to vote on rights." They meant, by this, that any two adult consenting unmarried people had a right to marry and no voting majority should be allowed to deny that right; that rights, in other words, trump secular democratic governmental power. This pro-same-sex-marriage slogan made what I consider to have been a true/good point in general; the question it didn't address, however, was whether there is a true "right" for any two adult consenting unmarried people to marry. (Clearly this group with their slogan was very confused to say the least, since virtually none of them would have said that two adult consenting unmarried siblings had the right to marry.) This pro-same-sex-marriage group was advocating that something (rights) trumped any decision by a secular government. This argument is essentially saying that there should NOT be a separation of a transcendent source of morality ("church" in short) and state.
I think it is important to have clarity on such a question. I disagreed with the same-sex-marriage group, but I never expressed my disagreement by arguing that a secular government's democratic decision trumped all else (i.e., that there should be separation of "church" and state) and that, therefore, if people voted "no" to same-sex marriage then that was the final say. I think such an argument would have been unprincipled, and could have led to wrong conclusions if applied in other contexts. I like to get the principles made clear. That's why I wrote my article.
I think that homosexuality is immoral and that no right exists for perverts of any sort, age, or species to marry, although I am not against civil union, or living together. But this is a complex subject involving the cooptation of movements for social change based on class that persisted from the early part of the 20th century, actually most of the 19th century, to the late sixties when they were stymied and undermined by "identity politics" which drew off many former rebels. The ruling class reestablishes its hegemony by allowing certain groups, such as sexual deviants to live openly and even propagandize for their cause.
Do these people of whom you speak belong to some particular church or confession? If not, then the issue has little to do with the separation of church and state. As I said, the purpose of such separation is not to abolish religion from society, but to prevent any one organized religious group or church from dominating society as had been true in the past and is still true in other parts of the world. For a list of countries which still have a state religion, just Google. There are a surprisingly large number. Is there less murder, theft, etc. in these countries than in those w/o a state sanctioned religious confession?
I use the word "church" in this context to mean a transcendent source for a moral view; this may or may not be a formal organized religion. I don't know the church-membership, if any, of the people in the group I mentioned; it is not relevant to my point.
Alright, but I think the track record of masses of free and informed people deciding against mass murder is better than the track record of unaccountable elites or dictators deciding against it.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams. The French Revolution was a very bloody and grotesque display of what happens when religion is forced out of governance. Robespierre discovered his error too late and tried to rush in a new religion, The Cult of the Supreme Being, but not soon enough to save his own life from the runaway violence of moral free revolutionary chaos. Israel does not separate religion from state, so clearly not all religions are fit to undergird a democracy. (I know, many of those Jews including the founders of Zionism were atheist Jews, however, there are many religious Jews lobbying and even committing terrorism for the State of Israel. So which religion is a very important question. As Rabbis call Palestinians Moloch and several hundred Jewish organizations in the US signed on to claim that abortion is a Jewish right, one needs to examine the details about the various religions closely. The "Semitic vengeance" of the Morgenthau Plan against Germany also deserves scrutiny. Is Cancel Culture a manifestation of Christian values or Talmudic Judaism's? As Christian principles of truth seeking and free will in the pursuit of academic truth are being pushed aside by Jewish values of censorship and coercion at places like Harvard, one needs to be willing to look honestly at what the foundations of our civilization take for granted from Christian teaching and Catholic theology so that we have a chance of preserving those important practices and institutions. Also, if we want to understand why otherwise well meaning American Christians can support the ethnic cleansing of their co-religionists from the Holy Land for the interest of the Zionist project that stole the name of the one true Church, the New Israel - Christ's Holy and Apostolic Church, one needs to trace the distortions that were peddled through the psyop Scofield Reference Bible. Many leftists have ignored the distinctions in religious currents and values because they broad brush all religion as the "opiate of the masses" and nonsense, but there is quite a lot to be seen if one is willing to look into this history with an open mind and a quest for truth. Marxism has been seen to be just as intoxicating to the masses as any other ideology or religion, btw... it is my hope that honest truth seeking people can work toward justice and reconciliation for all moving forward so that we can avoid as much bloodshed and division as possible. In my Catholic faith, we are taught that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and is sacred. Yet I am slandered as a "hater" when I try to speak about these things that will help us find our way out of conflict and mistrust. But I refuse to be intimidated by slander and I have faith that God will protect me as I seek to raise questions toward truth seeking. I truly believe the truth will set us all free and give us the best chance of having real peace on earth. Maybe I have some things wrong, but freedom of thought means we do have a right to be incorrect and incomplete in our understanding as we work to seek truth. Being ruled by fear is no way to live. If each of us seek the truth and tell it as best we can, that is our best hope for restoring our democracy and Western Civilization, imo.
I'm curious about the reluctance of Catholics to talk about Jessie Czebotar's revelations about Satanic rituals taking place in the cathedrals of major cities, as well as the widespread belief that the popes and upper echelons of the Church have been Satanic from the beginning. "Jessie Czebotar's first appearance on Aquarius Rising Africa" https://inscribedonthebelievingmind.blog/2023/10/10/jessie-czebotar-aquarius-rising/
Are you? Well there are many scandals in The Church and many false accusations as well (such as the genocide claim at the Canadian residential schools), so the truth or lack of truth of the particular claim you mention has no bearing on the truth of Christianity or whether it provided good values on which to base a moral society or whether there are many many sincere priests who administer the sacraments with integrity and sanctity in order to help people deepen their relationship to God. For Catholics, the evil and failings of individual human beings cannot overpower the Holy Spirit in guiding The Church. "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock [my note: the very one who betrayed Him three times, so clearly a flawed, fallen human like the rest of us] I shall build my Church, and the gates of hades will not overcome it." It is a question of faith.
If, as many people believe, the pope and the upper tiers of the clergy are Satanists, if they have performed human sacrifice rituals in the cathedrals, what good is the Church? More to the point, is tithing to the Church any different from tithing to the Temple of Satan?
The Church is plenty good no matter how corrupt and evil certain human beings either inside or outside of The Church choose to be. Millions of good people serve others through The Church. But most importantly, it is about sacraments to keep us connected Christ. If you want to understand what good it is, you would have to study Catholic theology and teaching and history (and not only from the point of view of those who seek to destroy it.) I recommend you do.
So, in spite of the fact that the Church is a department of the Luciferian Brotherhood and serves the Brotherhood's agenda, and in spite of the baby farms and baby-eating and sex and blood rituals on its alters for which children are used, it's a good organization.
Now, when you eat that wafer, are you certain that they didn't mix the ashes of sacrificed children in with the flour?
I feel confident that the faithful far outnumber those given to evil in the Catholic Church. I suppose we can never be sure of anything, but that is where people of faith put themselves in God's hands. Are you sure those chips you are eating in the IDF unti 8200 room you seem to be typing out of aren't similarly contaminated? I hope they aren't.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Not the Constitution, but values that, I think, must be honored when the Constitution is interpreted. Thus, the right to life should be understood to mean that every human conceived has the right to be born and to not be killed after he or she is born. The right to liberty means that every human being has the right to not be chattel.
Now, the "consent of the governed" is not the same thing as democracy. Nor is mailing in a ballot that isn't counted in order to legitimize the puppets of the Satanists who make our lives increasingly unpleasant and difficult.
The founding fathers weren't trying to create a democracy, but to institute basic safeguards against the inevitable takeover of society by the 13 families. The 13 families did prevail in the end, but they had to get rid of the Constitution (the Organic Act of 1871), commit murder, commit fraud and theft, engage in slavery and violate people's physical and spiritual integrity without their consent. It would have been much worse if they had gotten away with all of this lawfully.
A true democracy would require a great spriritual awakening, a lot of hangings, and the complete reformation of every institution -- including the majority of religious institutions. The spiritual awakening is taking place right now. Hangings are taking place. The reformation of all institutions is taking place. The most important thing to understand is that this isn't a battle in the material realm, but in the spiritual realm, where we really are all equal.
I find this confusing. What the hell are you trying to say? Will reread. Of course it's necessary to separate church and state- a great advance from the holy Roman empire and other intolerant theocratic societies. Church is an instrument of domination if given the power. Separation is necessary in order to prevent any one religious confession from supplanting the state or having power over a diverse citizenry. As long as we still have States as the seat of government.
What I am trying to say is stated in the subtitle of my article. The notion — often called and defended as “separation of church and state” — that beliefs, which some call religious, should always be trumped by secular government and majority vote is non-sensical.
How do you reply to the questions I ask the reader?
This does not imply that any particular religious beliefs should trump secular majority vote. One needs to judge each situation on its own merits.
It does imply that some religious beliefs should trump a secular majority vote, for example the belief that one should not commit murder most foul.
I don't consider the proscription against murder, theft, etc. to be religious. These are rules that ensure the smooth functioning of society and must prevail whether or not you believe that they are ultimately derived from a supernatural entity.
You may not consider the proscription against murder, theft, etc. to be religious, but MANY people (as I discuss in my article) believe that the REASON these things are wrong is because God said they are wrong (they're the key points in the Ten Commandments, after all.) On this basis, religious people say that these proscriptions trump any majority-vote secular decision that would make murder, etc. legal. I don't think such people should be told to shut up on the grounds of "separation of church and state," do you?
Why is this an issue? Is there a large group of people calling for the "right" to kill people as individuals rather than the state?
A few years ago when same-sex marriage was being debated, a pro-same-sex-marriage group in Massachusetts used the slogan, "It's wrong to vote on rights." They meant, by this, that any two adult consenting unmarried people had a right to marry and no voting majority should be allowed to deny that right; that rights, in other words, trump secular democratic governmental power. This pro-same-sex-marriage slogan made what I consider to have been a true/good point in general; the question it didn't address, however, was whether there is a true "right" for any two adult consenting unmarried people to marry. (Clearly this group with their slogan was very confused to say the least, since virtually none of them would have said that two adult consenting unmarried siblings had the right to marry.) This pro-same-sex-marriage group was advocating that something (rights) trumped any decision by a secular government. This argument is essentially saying that there should NOT be a separation of a transcendent source of morality ("church" in short) and state.
I think it is important to have clarity on such a question. I disagreed with the same-sex-marriage group, but I never expressed my disagreement by arguing that a secular government's democratic decision trumped all else (i.e., that there should be separation of "church" and state) and that, therefore, if people voted "no" to same-sex marriage then that was the final say. I think such an argument would have been unprincipled, and could have led to wrong conclusions if applied in other contexts. I like to get the principles made clear. That's why I wrote my article.
I think that homosexuality is immoral and that no right exists for perverts of any sort, age, or species to marry, although I am not against civil union, or living together. But this is a complex subject involving the cooptation of movements for social change based on class that persisted from the early part of the 20th century, actually most of the 19th century, to the late sixties when they were stymied and undermined by "identity politics" which drew off many former rebels. The ruling class reestablishes its hegemony by allowing certain groups, such as sexual deviants to live openly and even propagandize for their cause.
Do these people of whom you speak belong to some particular church or confession? If not, then the issue has little to do with the separation of church and state. As I said, the purpose of such separation is not to abolish religion from society, but to prevent any one organized religious group or church from dominating society as had been true in the past and is still true in other parts of the world. For a list of countries which still have a state religion, just Google. There are a surprisingly large number. Is there less murder, theft, etc. in these countries than in those w/o a state sanctioned religious confession?
I use the word "church" in this context to mean a transcendent source for a moral view; this may or may not be a formal organized religion. I don't know the church-membership, if any, of the people in the group I mentioned; it is not relevant to my point.
Well, yes John Locke and Jefferson accepted slavery--and by all available evidence so did Jesus and St. Paul. I don't really get the point of this.
The point is in the subtitle: "Something--call it what you will--makes murder wrong even if a majority votes to do it."
Alright, but I think the track record of masses of free and informed people deciding against mass murder is better than the track record of unaccountable elites or dictators deciding against it.
Let me clarify that there's been a lot of anti-democratic elitism in US history.
Yes again. I agree.
Yes. I agree.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams. The French Revolution was a very bloody and grotesque display of what happens when religion is forced out of governance. Robespierre discovered his error too late and tried to rush in a new religion, The Cult of the Supreme Being, but not soon enough to save his own life from the runaway violence of moral free revolutionary chaos. Israel does not separate religion from state, so clearly not all religions are fit to undergird a democracy. (I know, many of those Jews including the founders of Zionism were atheist Jews, however, there are many religious Jews lobbying and even committing terrorism for the State of Israel. So which religion is a very important question. As Rabbis call Palestinians Moloch and several hundred Jewish organizations in the US signed on to claim that abortion is a Jewish right, one needs to examine the details about the various religions closely. The "Semitic vengeance" of the Morgenthau Plan against Germany also deserves scrutiny. Is Cancel Culture a manifestation of Christian values or Talmudic Judaism's? As Christian principles of truth seeking and free will in the pursuit of academic truth are being pushed aside by Jewish values of censorship and coercion at places like Harvard, one needs to be willing to look honestly at what the foundations of our civilization take for granted from Christian teaching and Catholic theology so that we have a chance of preserving those important practices and institutions. Also, if we want to understand why otherwise well meaning American Christians can support the ethnic cleansing of their co-religionists from the Holy Land for the interest of the Zionist project that stole the name of the one true Church, the New Israel - Christ's Holy and Apostolic Church, one needs to trace the distortions that were peddled through the psyop Scofield Reference Bible. Many leftists have ignored the distinctions in religious currents and values because they broad brush all religion as the "opiate of the masses" and nonsense, but there is quite a lot to be seen if one is willing to look into this history with an open mind and a quest for truth. Marxism has been seen to be just as intoxicating to the masses as any other ideology or religion, btw... it is my hope that honest truth seeking people can work toward justice and reconciliation for all moving forward so that we can avoid as much bloodshed and division as possible. In my Catholic faith, we are taught that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and is sacred. Yet I am slandered as a "hater" when I try to speak about these things that will help us find our way out of conflict and mistrust. But I refuse to be intimidated by slander and I have faith that God will protect me as I seek to raise questions toward truth seeking. I truly believe the truth will set us all free and give us the best chance of having real peace on earth. Maybe I have some things wrong, but freedom of thought means we do have a right to be incorrect and incomplete in our understanding as we work to seek truth. Being ruled by fear is no way to live. If each of us seek the truth and tell it as best we can, that is our best hope for restoring our democracy and Western Civilization, imo.
I'm curious about the reluctance of Catholics to talk about Jessie Czebotar's revelations about Satanic rituals taking place in the cathedrals of major cities, as well as the widespread belief that the popes and upper echelons of the Church have been Satanic from the beginning. "Jessie Czebotar's first appearance on Aquarius Rising Africa" https://inscribedonthebelievingmind.blog/2023/10/10/jessie-czebotar-aquarius-rising/
"Satanic Rituals of America's Ruling Families" https://inscribedonthebelievingmind.blog/2023/08/10/satanic-rituals-americas-ruling-families/
Are you? Well there are many scandals in The Church and many false accusations as well (such as the genocide claim at the Canadian residential schools), so the truth or lack of truth of the particular claim you mention has no bearing on the truth of Christianity or whether it provided good values on which to base a moral society or whether there are many many sincere priests who administer the sacraments with integrity and sanctity in order to help people deepen their relationship to God. For Catholics, the evil and failings of individual human beings cannot overpower the Holy Spirit in guiding The Church. "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock [my note: the very one who betrayed Him three times, so clearly a flawed, fallen human like the rest of us] I shall build my Church, and the gates of hades will not overcome it." It is a question of faith.
If, as many people believe, the pope and the upper tiers of the clergy are Satanists, if they have performed human sacrifice rituals in the cathedrals, what good is the Church? More to the point, is tithing to the Church any different from tithing to the Temple of Satan?
The Church is plenty good no matter how corrupt and evil certain human beings either inside or outside of The Church choose to be. Millions of good people serve others through The Church. But most importantly, it is about sacraments to keep us connected Christ. If you want to understand what good it is, you would have to study Catholic theology and teaching and history (and not only from the point of view of those who seek to destroy it.) I recommend you do.
So, in spite of the fact that the Church is a department of the Luciferian Brotherhood and serves the Brotherhood's agenda, and in spite of the baby farms and baby-eating and sex and blood rituals on its alters for which children are used, it's a good organization.
Now, when you eat that wafer, are you certain that they didn't mix the ashes of sacrificed children in with the flour?
I feel confident that the faithful far outnumber those given to evil in the Catholic Church. I suppose we can never be sure of anything, but that is where people of faith put themselves in God's hands. Are you sure those chips you are eating in the IDF unti 8200 room you seem to be typing out of aren't similarly contaminated? I hope they aren't.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Not the Constitution, but values that, I think, must be honored when the Constitution is interpreted. Thus, the right to life should be understood to mean that every human conceived has the right to be born and to not be killed after he or she is born. The right to liberty means that every human being has the right to not be chattel.
Now, the "consent of the governed" is not the same thing as democracy. Nor is mailing in a ballot that isn't counted in order to legitimize the puppets of the Satanists who make our lives increasingly unpleasant and difficult.
The founding fathers weren't trying to create a democracy, but to institute basic safeguards against the inevitable takeover of society by the 13 families. The 13 families did prevail in the end, but they had to get rid of the Constitution (the Organic Act of 1871), commit murder, commit fraud and theft, engage in slavery and violate people's physical and spiritual integrity without their consent. It would have been much worse if they had gotten away with all of this lawfully.
A true democracy would require a great spriritual awakening, a lot of hangings, and the complete reformation of every institution -- including the majority of religious institutions. The spiritual awakening is taking place right now. Hangings are taking place. The reformation of all institutions is taking place. The most important thing to understand is that this isn't a battle in the material realm, but in the spiritual realm, where we really are all equal.
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018