12/01/06 10:16 PM
Location: Missouri, United States of America
Member since: 12/04/11 09:13 PM
Last online: 01/10/20 09:08 PM
| Separation of church and state |
|Thomas Jefferson was the one who suggested that there be a legislative separation between the church and state. There is a part of the country that has used this phrase as if it were something like what Seti, the pharaoh of Egypt, did to erase the name of Moses from the monuments of Egypt. They want to erase the name and image of religion from every pylon and monument in our country. That was never the intent of Thomas Jefferson. His intention was to keep a single religion from using government to oppress other religions. The vast majority of the founding fathers of this country were devoutly religious, including George Washington. It is necessary for adults to not only hear the words, but understand the intent behind what is said. Intellectual blindness comes from such things. There is always a segment of society so myopic and arrogant that they can only hear themselves. Terrorism is based on such things. Rationalization is a great evil. There is something liberating about stopping to try and fit square pegs into round holes. It is a form of faith in oneself. We can trust that what is right will surface on its own if only we get out of the way. The colonists had just come from countries were politics and religion had been mixed together in an unholy concoction. Jefferson was completely right in what he did. Jefferson put an end to institutionalized religion that could be legislated by monarchs and presidents. That didn't mean he wanted to get rid of the concept of God, nor did he want to rid Washington D.C. from seeking for God's blessings in what they did.|
The colonists came to America seeking religious freedom. Historians would tell you they came here to get rich, or find financial opportunity. However, that doesn't make sense when you realize that in the late 1700's, America was a frontier with many hardships. They already had other kinds of freedom in Western Europe. The one they lacked was religious freedom.
Atheists have picked up the rhetoric of "Separation of Church and State" as if it meant that their agenda to rid this country of God is correct. It isn't correct. Suggesting that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" means to get rid of religious symbols is like trying to match the meaning of the swastika with the meaning of the flag of Israel. They are enemies of each other. They are polar opposites. The atheists know that, though they won't often admit it.
It takes an adult to let the chips fall where they may and to see the truth when it doesn't necessarily vindicate your opinion. Those who want to cleanse Government from all the symbols associated with God are like little children
bickering it's mine it's mine it's mine.
Atheists suggest that they are taking the "high road" because science is behind what they say. I am not sure I would be a willing partner of much of our scientific protocols. Much of that is shameful too. It is one thing to say that science is unbiased and quite another to suggest that remarkable claims require remarkable proof. That is the clearest admission of bias I have ever heard. Science should be the first one poised on edge of their seats looking for discovery, rather than being the ones raising all the barriers. True science would provide for every kind of exposition in the halls government. We allow tens of thousands of lobbyists to influence legislators and we can't tolerate a few pictures and some stone carvings suggesting peace and justice for all? Where are the priorities of that?
These people who moan against religious symbols more than they moan against private lobbies should pick up on another old phrase. "If you don't learn about history you are doomed to repeat it". The longest civilizations in the world were ones with some religious basis, right or wrong. That is a fact. If there were no such thing as religion one should invent it as the best way of extending political longevity. Ask the communists about that one, if you can't see farther back in history. If I were a politician I would encourage religious based rhetoric of peace every time I could, whether I believed in it or not. The
number one weapon against Islamic terrorism is to use the rhetoric of peace clearly stated in the Koran and positively taught by Mohamed. That would be more powerful than military invasion. We should build radio stations next to the borders of Iran and read to them from the Koran over the airwaves. That would do more to bring peace than to drop a bomb on them. Americans should consider that it is probably more important to rebuild the mosques than it is to rebuild the police
departments. The police don't teach moral principles. They just enforce them after the crimes have been committed. I have said for a long time that the solution to the problem in the middle east is more an issue that could be solved by Madison Avenue than one that could be solved by Wall Street or the Pentagon.
If you want to save lives then "a stitch in time saves nine". Start with reminding people who they are before you try and enforce who they have become.
This came from an email newsletter Ancientmanuscripts.com
There are two ways of spreading light - to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it