I get very antsy whenever one prominent Bible-thumper offers a suggestion concerning the First Amendment. I get downright incendiary whenever âA big list of prominent faith leaders. . . â join hands for their mutual benefit:
The First Amendment says this about religion:
To my way of thinking, those 16 words basically prohibit ideology. By prohibiting a specific doctrine from establishing a state-sponsored religion, the First Amendment automatically prohibits organized religion. Organized religions collect the money in order to sell the ideology. A few clerics from different religions made it into Congress, but none of the clerics from tradition religions were able to turn their organized religionâs ideology into a state-sponsored religion. That is the heart of the matter.
Now, letâs look at freedom of religion as opposed to freedom of worship.
Tax dollar funding can be eliminated, but I cannot see how freedom of worship can be curtailed. Freedom of religion did better than okay by traditional religions, while freedom of worship is not doing badly either. My main objection differs from the objections offered by prominent faith leaders in that freedom of worship encourages the hero-worship of the Socialist priesthood even though Socialism continues to be defined as a nothing more than another form of government. So even if our prominent faith leaders can get the change they seek on the naturalization exam they are stuck with Socialism as a state-sponsored religion.
Tax dollars is the crux of the matter.
I would have a little more respect for faith leaders if they devoted their time and efforts to having Socialism legally defined as a religion instead of trying to protect their own spot at the public trough. Frankly, faith leaders are afraid of losing their tax dollars and perks should they manage to drive the Socialist priesthood away from public purse. Cut to the chase and you see that America was at its greatest before the income tax.
Parenthetically, Remember when John Roberts said this at his confirmation hearing:
Iâve yet to see the little guy win unless Roberts thinks the Constitution means little guys are insurance industry executives, parasites and Wall Street crooks. (The stock market went up as soon as the Obamacare ruling was announced.)
To be fair to Roberts, he is entitled to rule that the big guy should have won on Obamacare. He is not entitled to lie at his confirmation hearing.
Everybody knows what the Supreme Court just did to the country ââ AGAIN. In practical terms nothing the SCOTUS orders can be implemented without tax dollars. With ultimate control of the income tax in the hands of 5 lawyers ââ not 9 ââ the High Court deliberately punishes most Americans to appease a minority of parasites.
The more the SCOTUS does to this country, the easier it is for any minority to demand protection from 5 lawyers on the High Court. Every minority now gets more protection than does an endangered species irrespective of the pain the High Court causes. In plain English, the Court rules for parasite freaks no matter how much pain they cause to the majority. My point: Do not count on the SCOTUS to uphold the First Amendment if it interrupts the flow of tax dollars going to organized religionâs priesthoods, or to the parasites on every level. After all, they are minorities.
Finally, Socialism is a highly organized religion that is financed by tax dollars. If that is not a mockery of the First Amendment it will do for now.
. . . the Constitution doesnât reference a âfreedom of worship,â itâs correctly called âfreedom of religion.â
âWe ⌠write to you with deep concern about the wording of the answer to question 51 on the study materials for the civics portion of the naturalization exam. The question asks students to provide two rights guaranteed to everyone living in the United States, and listed among the possible correct answers is âFreedom of Worship.â We write to you requesting that this answer be immediately corrected to the constitutionally accurate answer â âFreedom of Religion,ââ the letter, dated this week, explains.
âWe believe that the wording change we are requesting represents much more than a âdistinction without a difference.â Many totalitarian forms of government have allowed for the Freedom of Worship in their governmental documents but in practice severely restricted individual religious freedoms. The phrase Freedom of Worship, as it has been used throughout history, articulates an intentionally limited freedom that restricts a citizenâs rights to the four walls of a government-sanctioned house of worship and only for specific times and events.â
XXXXX
âWe ⌠write to you with deep concern about the wording of the answer to question 51 on the study materials for the civics portion of the naturalization exam. The question asks students to provide two rights guaranteed to everyone living in the United States, and listed among the possible correct answers is âFreedom of Worship.â We write to you requesting that this answer be immediately corrected to the constitutionally accurate answer â âFreedom of Religion,ââ the letter, dated this week, explains.
âWe believe that the wording change we are requesting represents much more than a âdistinction without a difference.â Many totalitarian forms of government have allowed for the Freedom of Worship in their governmental documents but in practice severely restricted individual religious freedoms. The phrase Freedom of Worship, as it has been used throughout history, articulates an intentionally limited freedom that restricts a citizenâs rights to the four walls of a government-sanctioned house of worship and only for specific times and events.â
Faith leaders: It's 'freedom of religion,' not just 'freedom of worship'
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 06/25/2015 @ 8:29 pm
Faith leaders It s freedom of religion not just freedom of worship
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 06/25/2015 @ 8:29 pm
Faith leaders It s freedom of religion not just freedom of worship
The First Amendment says this about religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;. . .
To my way of thinking, those 16 words basically prohibit ideology. By prohibiting a specific doctrine from establishing a state-sponsored religion, the First Amendment automatically prohibits organized religion. Organized religions collect the money in order to sell the ideology. A few clerics from different religions made it into Congress, but none of the clerics from tradition religions were able to turn their organized religionâs ideology into a state-sponsored religion. That is the heart of the matter.
Now, letâs look at freedom of religion as opposed to freedom of worship.
Tax dollar funding can be eliminated, but I cannot see how freedom of worship can be curtailed. Freedom of religion did better than okay by traditional religions, while freedom of worship is not doing badly either. My main objection differs from the objections offered by prominent faith leaders in that freedom of worship encourages the hero-worship of the Socialist priesthood even though Socialism continues to be defined as a nothing more than another form of government. So even if our prominent faith leaders can get the change they seek on the naturalization exam they are stuck with Socialism as a state-sponsored religion.
Tax dollars is the crux of the matter.
I would have a little more respect for faith leaders if they devoted their time and efforts to having Socialism legally defined as a religion instead of trying to protect their own spot at the public trough. Frankly, faith leaders are afraid of losing their tax dollars and perks should they manage to drive the Socialist priesthood away from public purse. Cut to the chase and you see that America was at its greatest before the income tax.
Parenthetically, Remember when John Roberts said this at his confirmation hearing:
If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me, but if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution.
Iâve yet to see the little guy win unless Roberts thinks the Constitution means little guys are insurance industry executives, parasites and Wall Street crooks. (The stock market went up as soon as the Obamacare ruling was announced.)
To be fair to Roberts, he is entitled to rule that the big guy should have won on Obamacare. He is not entitled to lie at his confirmation hearing.
Everybody knows what the Supreme Court just did to the country ââ AGAIN. In practical terms nothing the SCOTUS orders can be implemented without tax dollars. With ultimate control of the income tax in the hands of 5 lawyers ââ not 9 ââ the High Court deliberately punishes most Americans to appease a minority of parasites.
The more the SCOTUS does to this country, the easier it is for any minority to demand protection from 5 lawyers on the High Court. Every minority now gets more protection than does an endangered species irrespective of the pain the High Court causes. In plain English, the Court rules for parasite freaks no matter how much pain they cause to the majority. My point: Do not count on the SCOTUS to uphold the First Amendment if it interrupts the flow of tax dollars going to organized religionâs priesthoods, or to the parasites on every level. After all, they are minorities.
Finally, Socialism is a highly organized religion that is financed by tax dollars. If that is not a mockery of the First Amendment it will do for now.
