- Moderator
- #121
I respectfully disagree. It doesn’t matter what they believe. What matters is what they DO. When you say “what next”…you are talking about actions that violate rights of others. Those are not even under religion. A religion can believe that eating flesh and drinking blood is part of a sacrament, but if they sacrifice a virgin to do so that is breaking laws and obviously violating rights. If just talk about it or do symbolicly, no rights are violated or laws broken. Even the issue of “cults” is problematic because how exactly do you differentiate cults from a religion, particularly given that many began as “cults”. Better to keep a broad umbrella when it comes to freedom of religion and limit to not infringing on the rights of others.It isn't up to government to "pick and choose," when rights are natural rights!
The government doesn't have that option. .. . .
This cult? Does not believe in natural rights. . . they admit this, thus? They get no protection.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution of the United States of America.
If you want to live life under say, the British constitutional monarchy, or any other nation which practices Napoleonic codes? Sure. But this cult that is under discussion, from what I have researched? Does not believe in Natural law. If they don't believe in it, they don't get it. Simple.
The Satanic Temple - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
IMO? It does not even deserve tax exempt status, as its only purpose is to mock spirituality and subvert the nation.
What Are Natural Rights?
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/slaves-58189b555f9b581c0b163743.jpg)
What Are Natural Rights and How Do They Relate to U.S. Independence?
All people are born with them, but what are 'natural rights' and what vital role did they play in America’s fight for independence?www.thoughtco.com
"Natural rights are rights granted to all people by nature or God that cannot be denied or restricted by any government or individual. Natural rights are often said to be granted to people by “natural law.”
<snip>
". . . Some of Jefferson’s fellow enslaver separatists justified the obvious contradiction by explaining that only “civilized” people had natural rights, thus excluding enslaved people from eligibility.
As for Jefferson, history shows that he had long believed the slave trade was morally wrong and attempted to denounce it in the Declaration of Independence.
“He (King George) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither,” he wrote in a draft of the document.
However, Jefferson’s anti-enslavement statement was removed from the final draft of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson later blamed the removal of his statement on influential delegates who represented merchants who were at the time dependent on the Transatlantic slave trade for their livelihoods. Other delegates may have feared the possible loss of their financial support for the expected Revolutionary War. . . "
<snip>
First Amendment and Natural Rights
". . . While it was third on the list of original proposals in the Bill of Rights that Congress submitted to the states for approval, the First Amendment was the first amendment to deal with natural individual rights. Almost without exception, the rights in the First Amendment are thought to be natural rights because they deal with matters of conscience, thought, and expression.
The two clauses on religion—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” are designed to allow individuals to follow their conscience in matters of faith and worship.
Clauses relating to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition are designed to promote discussion and debate concerning the kind of governmental policies that suit a representative form of government, and arguably to promote the development of the individual’s personality.. . . "
Now. . I have studied comparative religion, and philosophy. Without natural law, ethics and ANY & ALL civic and all morality becomes subjective. Hell, look at post-modern philosophy and any school of critical theory? It justifies the subversion of any societal norm you wish to lay claim to.
At that point? You can justify anything you wish. Might makes right. And this was already debunked in Plato's Republic, BUT ONLY, if there was, "THE GOOD, i.e. a creator;" which our nation is based on. . .
. . . but without such? Slavery? Sure. Totalitarianism? Why not. Pedophilia? If it benefits those who are in power?? . . . you bet. ANYTHING GOES! Why? Because there is no justification not to allow anything, other than do unto others, etc. . . . but again, that's flimsy Humanistic sophomoric garbage? Go back and read your Republic.
And as we saw with both the publishing of our nation's two most popular books, Tom Pain's Common Sense, and Harriet Beecher Stowe's, Uncle Tom's Cabin, both? They BOTH rely on Natural Rights and a creator. It is essential to the understanding of our nation!
This cult? Is anti-American, they are not a religion, and they are working to destroy the nation. . so I ask, why should we, as a nation, protect entity that is trying to destroy and enslave us?
Just an observation, but totalitarianism is already an acceptable outcome in a number of protected religions, they are prohibited in installing that vision by the Constitution, right?
Last edited:
