Religious Freedom Reestablished!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As a Christian I cannot disagree with either of those two points.

Immie

Then, 'as a Christian', would you explain what 'freedom from religion' means?

It means the right not to choose any faith. It does NOT mean you have the right to never encounter religion or religious people. You have the right not to be "religious". You do not have the right to force this decision upon everyone you encounter while they are in your presence. IMHO

Immie

Freedom from religion also means freedom from government endorsement of religion:

Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Lynch v. Donnelly

“Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community…”

Which is exactly the intent of a significant number of Christians who seek not ‘religious expression’ in the public sector, but to send a hostile message to non-Christians that they are to be marginalized.

 

[Immanuel]

Then, 'as a Christian', would you explain what 'freedom from religion' means?

It means the right not to choose any faith. It does NOT mean you have the right to never encounter religion or religious people. You have the right not to be "religious". You do not have the right to force this decision upon everyone you encounter while they are in your presence. IMHO

Immie

Freedom from religion also means freedom from government endorsement of religion:

Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Lynch v. Donnelly

“Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community…”

Which is exactly the intent of a significant number of Christians who seek not ‘religious expression’ in the public sector, but to send a hostile message to non-Christians that they are to be marginalized.

I can agree with that, however, it appears that there is also a very vocal set of hostile individuals who seek to eliminate all religious expression in the public hearing, note I did not say governmentally endorsed expression of religion, but rather ALL religious expression.

By the way, I am very much opposed to governmental endorsement of any religion, even if it were my own denomination.

I am by no means opposed to nativity scenes on public property as long as other institutions are given equal status throughout the year. I do not consider a nativity scene to be an endorsement nor is a menorah and draidle, did I spell that right? Anyway, I happen to enjoy learning about the beliefs of other religions. I think this world would be a much better place if comparative religions were taught in high school because I believe discrimination stems from fear and ignorance.

Immie

 

[Agent.Tom]

Freedom from religion also means freedom from government endorsement of religion:

Well that's great. Except freedom "from" religion is not in the Constitution. It's freedom OF religious expression. And by the way, that has always included the freedom of individual government officials to undertake whatever their religious practices are, publicly and even in government buildings and on government property. The Constitution guarantees all public officials--be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever... the right to express their religion in any public place.

But let's keep trumpeting this bogus freedom "from" religion thingy. After all, it's catchy and the low-information zombies will fall for it hook, line, and sinker. Most of them already have. Obviously.

Unfortunately the facts can get in the way when we drill down. The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Did you catch that? The government cannot ... prohibit the free exercise [of religion].. They can't establish a religion either but, I don't remember that ever happening. And they can't create laws based on a religion either, but that's not the point of this specific discussion.

There is not a word anywhere in the Constitution that suggests anyone should be granted freedom from religion... as if the religious are supposed to scurry away apologetically, when an Atheist approaches within 100 yards. Hmph.

 

[Hollie]

Freedom from religion also means freedom from government endorsement of religion:

Well that's great. Except freedom "from" religion is not in the Constitution. It's freedom OF religious expression. And by the way, that has always included the freedom of individual government officials to undertake whatever their religious practices are, publicly and even in government buildings and on government property. The Constitution guarantees all public officials--be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever... the right to express their religion in any public place.

But let's keep trumpeting this bogus freedom "from" religion thingy. After all, it's catchy and the low-information zombies will fall for it hook, line, and sinker. Most of them already have. Obviously.

Unfortunately the facts can get in the way when we drill down. The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Did you catch that? The government cannot ... prohibit the free exercise [of religion].. They can't establish a religion either but, I don't remember that ever happening. And they can't create laws based on a religion either, but that's not the point of this specific discussion.

There is not a word anywhere in the Constitution that suggests anyone should be granted freedom from religion... as if the religious are supposed to scurry away apologetically, when an Atheist approaches within 100 yards. Hmph.

Freedom from religion is actually a pretty simple concept. The government has no limit requiring it to not ask for pledges and oaths -- in fact, oaths (devoid of all religious wording) is clearly delineated in Article VI Section 3 of the Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

What the issue here is, is the Constitution precludes the government from establishing any religion by law. Now say that part over to yourselves very slowly:
Remember, freedom of religion is default freedom from religion, else there is a legal precedence to force you to adhere to the "majority religion" (i.e., Christians are free from believing in competitive religions. Let me repeat that: free from believing in or kowtowing to competitive religions.


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.
Freedom OF religion is the same as saying Freedom FROM religion. Meaning, it should not be incumbent upon me to recognize or be ruled by religion. Don't take it personally as most religious folk do. Most often, people of religion are okay with me accepting their faith, but NOT okay with me not believing in their particular faith/gawds.


There is no way to have freedom of religion without also having freedom from religion. If it were otherwise, then Moslems could argue that Christians are not permitted to have freedom from believing in Islam! Or Christians could claim that Moslems could not be permitted to have freedomfrom christianity! Freedom from is part and parcel of freedom of.

The entire constitution is rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. So it is not any news that government is restrained from interfering with religion.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

How strange that with your babbling, you missed the part of Christianity not being mentioned in the constitution. How did you miss that? Or, does your stupor prevent you from proof reading what you write.

I seemed to have been unable to find the words "separation", "church", and "state" mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Did we forget to mention that little minute detail? Interesting how people seem to stumble and have a hard time reading the First Amendment correctly. What exactly do you have against Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and other faiths anyways? Why aren't they being allowed to freely express their faith openly according to their conscience? Interesting how we have freedom of speech, to include such freedom of expression, within that same First Amendment. Yet, there seems to be enacted certain limitations towards all beliefs except towards those who profess to be atheist. Rather interesting how one view of God has taken precedence over all others as a form of "establishment" within our country. I'd say you'd be rather hard pressed to provide historical proof that is in fact what our Founders really intended - Freedom FROM Religion.

 

[Agit8r]

"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Richard Price (October 9, 1780)

 

[PoliticalChic]

"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Richard Price (October 9, 1780)

Did you think that post applied to the OP???

If so, you must be sitting in an Ojibwe sweat lodge, on peyote.

 

[Agit8r]

"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Richard Price (October 9, 1780)

Did you think that post applied to the OP???

If so, you must be sitting in an Ojibwe sweat lodge, on peyote.

Was the civil authority called to the aid of a religion and it's literal cheerleaders? yes it was. So that would invoke the if/then statement above, by default.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Richard Price (October 9, 1780)

Did you think that post applied to the OP???

If so, you must be sitting in an Ojibwe sweat lodge, on peyote.

Was the civil authority called to the aid of a religion and it's literal cheerleaders? yes it was. So that would invoke the if/then statement above, by default.

The cause was the protection of the United States Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

 

[Agit8r]

Did you think that post applied to the OP???

If so, you must be sitting in an Ojibwe sweat lodge, on peyote.

Was the civil authority called to the aid of a religion and it's literal cheerleaders? yes it was. So that would invoke the if/then statement above, by default.

The cause was the protection of the United States Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Maybe this issue is confusing to some, but I actually attended a public high school. Nobody was forbidden from telling one another Merry Christmas or flirtatiously asking anyone to join the prayer club and whatnot, so the only real issue is over decking the halls in sectarianism.

So it must be assumed that the bill is a pretext for challenging the County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (492 U.S. 573) decision. The Christianist faction say out of one side of their mouths that Christmas is a secular holiday for legal purposes, while the other side of their mouths condemns "taking Christ out of Christmas"

America has been at war with religionism since Sept 11, 2001. people like Rick Perry need to decide whether they are with us, or against us :[

 

[NLT]

Can I get an "Amen"!!!

You most certainly can! AMEN, Sister!

I live in Texas and I consider this state to be the last bastion of freedom and Conservatism in the country. It's no wonder so many Conservatives are flocking to Texas in record numbers.

However, my excitement over Rick Perry's efforts is tempered by the fact that it's not going to spawn some kind of revival across the country. It will likely stay limited to the boundaries of this wonderful state. In fact, what he did will almost certainly result in the Secular Progressives marginalizing and shaming Texas as a backward state full of bigots and ignorant rednecks. But I don't care. I'm proud to live here.

Howdy from Allen, Texas

 

[PoliticalChic]

Was the civil authority called to the aid of a religion and it's literal cheerleaders? yes it was. So that would invoke the if/then statement above, by default.

The cause was the protection of the United States Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Maybe this issue is confusing to some, but I actually attended a public high school. Nobody was forbidden from telling one another Merry Christmas or flirtatiously asking anyone to join the prayer club and whatnot, so the only real issue is over decking the halls in sectarianism.

So it must be assumed that the bill is a pretext for challenging the County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (492 U.S. 573) decision. The Christianist faction say out of one side of their mouths that Christmas is a secular holiday for legal purposes, while the other side of their mouths condemns "taking Christ out of Christmas"

America has been at war with religionism since Sept 11, 2001. people like Rick Perry need to decide whether they are with us, or against us :[

Perry stood for justice and against this:

"Eight years ago on June 19th, the US Supreme Court announced a landmark decision on one of the most controversial topics in American jurisprudence: school prayer. In Santa Fe v. Doe, the Court ruled that public schools cannot permit student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court concluded that the football game prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events, and that the District’s policy involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at important school events. Such speech is not properly characterized as “private,” wrote Justice Stevens for the majority. In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, noted the “disturbing” tone of the Court’s opinion that “bristle[d] with hostility to all things religious in public life.”
Public schools may not allow prayers before football games » LII Announce

 

[Agit8r]

The cause was the protection of the United States Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Maybe this issue is confusing to some, but I actually attended a public high school. Nobody was forbidden from telling one another Merry Christmas or flirtatiously asking anyone to join the prayer club and whatnot, so the only real issue is over decking the halls in sectarianism.

So it must be assumed that the bill is a pretext for challenging the County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (492 U.S. 573) decision. The Christianist faction say out of one side of their mouths that Christmas is a secular holiday for legal purposes, while the other side of their mouths condemns "taking Christ out of Christmas"

America has been at war with religionism since Sept 11, 2001. people like Rick Perry need to decide whether they are with us, or against us :[

Perry stood for justice and against this:

"Eight years ago on June 19th, the US Supreme Court announced a landmark decision on one of the most controversial topics in American jurisprudence: school prayer. In Santa Fe v. Doe, the Court ruled that public schools cannot permit student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court concluded that the football game prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events, and that the District’s policy involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at important school events. Such speech is not properly characterized as “private,” wrote Justice Stevens for the majority. In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, noted the “disturbing” tone of the Court’s opinion that “bristle[d] with hostility to all things religious in public life.”
Public schools may not allow prayers before football games » LII Announce

The Santa Fe Independent School District (SFISD), a rural school district in Texas between the cities of Houston and Galveston, allowed students to offer Christian prayers over the public address system at home football games. These prayers were given by an elected student chaplain.

Two sets of current or former students and their respective mothers—one Mormon, the other Catholic—objected to this practice and filed a suit on the basis of a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Perry were actually targeting this, it would only reinforce my point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Was the civil authority called to the aid of a religion and it's literal cheerleaders? yes it was. So that would invoke the if/then statement above, by default.

The cause was the protection of the United States Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Maybe this issue is confusing to some, but I actually attended a public high school. Nobody was forbidden from telling one another Merry Christmas or flirtatiously asking anyone to join the prayer club and whatnot, so the only real issue is over decking the halls in sectarianism.

So it must be assumed that the bill is a pretext for challenging the County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (492 U.S. 573) decision. The Christianist faction say out of one side of their mouths that Christmas is a secular holiday for legal purposes, while the other side of their mouths condemns "taking Christ out of Christmas"

America has been at war with religionism since Sept 11, 2001. people like Rick Perry need to decide whether they are with us, or against us :[

Which would depend on how it’s implemented.

For now it’s just a political gimmick, as the ‘legislation’ doesn’t authorize anything that isn’t already authorized, hence the fact, again, that nothing is being ‘reestablished.’

Otherwise, America has been at war with religionism in one form or another since its inception.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You should open a history book once in a while.
Then you'd sound like less of a dunce.

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian.
“52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”

So the "Christian" thing to do when your claim is exposed as spurious at best is to use puerile slurs? Then you compound it by insulting the French without whose aid and support this nation would still be a British colony. How is this working out for you when it comes to winning friends and influencing people?

Some idiot wrote " in no way establishes the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers."
Oh....you're that idiot.

"...your claim is exposed as spurious..."
You've exposed nothing except your ignorance....

So....we have to add liar to your resume.

Thank you for proving my point.

The truth is my 'friend.'
I won't be jealous if you decide to embrace her.

With "friends" like you the "Truth" doesn't need any enemies.

"...puerile slurs?"
Your lesson today: I don't suffer fools gladly.

My condolences for having to put up with yourself on a daily basis.

 

[Agit8r]

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian.

The state religion of France prior to their revolution was Catholicism. The tithe was compulsory, to support the First Estate of the Realm. The anti-religious sentiment that followed was due to the abuses that always characterize any collusion between church and state.

 

[Shoey]

Those who respect the Constitution understand the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."
Governor Perry of Texas certainly does...


1. "Texas Gov. Rick Perry signs ‘Merry Christmas bill’ into law

2.Schools will now be able to display religious symbols as long as at least one secular or other religion’s symbol is also displayed.

3. ....allows schools to display religious symbols such as nativity scenes and Christmas trees ...

4. In addition, the new law allows staff members and students at the state’s public schools to exchange traditional holiday greetings, such as “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Hanukkah” and “happy holidays” without fear of reprisal.




5. ....I'm proud that we're standing up for religious freedom in this state,” Perry said at a “Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.”

6. “We will be monitoring this very closely,” Tom Hargins, director of communications for the ACLU of Texas, told the Daily News.

7. In May, a Texas judge ruled that the cheerleaders could continue to display signs at football games emblazoned with Bible verses.

8. Perry cited the case as “an example of the pressure on our public schools in particular to push down any reflections of religious thought or words,”..."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry signs ?Merry Christmas bill? into law - NY Daily News



Can I get an "Amen"!!!

For individuals associated with religious doctrines and beliefs, the right to freedom of expression of speech apace with freedom of religion is protected by the 1st Amendment of The US Constitution which is primarily based upon Inalienable Right (thought of an individual founded upon the Inalienable Right of self) The freedom to exercise that right through expression is protected. If we, as Americans were to nullify the Inalienable Right of Thought of the Person then Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion would not obligate efficient tutelage in the United States at present.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian.

The state religion of France prior to their revolution was Catholicism. The tithe was compulsory, to support the First Estate of the Realm. The anti-religious sentiment that followed was due to the abuses that always characterize any collusion between church and state.

Yours is a shockingly flimsy understanding of the French Revolution.

The short explanation is that it was, is, an attempt to replace God with man.




1. With the Jacobins in control, the “de-Christianization” campaign kicked into high gear. Inspired by Rousseau’s idea of the religion civile, the revolution sought to completely destroy Christianity and replace it with a religion of the state. To honor “reason” and fulfill the promise of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen that “no one may be questioned about his opinions, including his religious views,” Catholic priests were forced to stand before the revolutionary clubs and take oaths to France’s new humanocentric religion, the Cult of Reason (which is French for ‘People for the American Way’).

a. Revolutionaries smashed church art and statues.





2. In Lyon, the archbishop refused to swear allegiance to the republic, and was removed, replaced by the revolutionary bishop Antoine Lamourette. But the people of Lyon responded by 'clinging to their guns and religion.' So, the Convention ordered that Lyon, the second-largest city in France, be destroyed and a monument erected on the ashes proclaiming: “Lyon waged war against liberty; Lyon is no more.”

a. "The Cult of Reason (French: Culte de la Raison)a was an atheistic belief system established in France and intended as a replacement for Christianity during the French Revolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason


3. Joseph Fouché, head of the de-Christianization, arranged for the “bankers, scholars, aristocrats, priests, nuns, wealthy merchants, their wives, mistresses and children” to be dragged from their homes and killed by firing squads. He then wrote that Christianity in the provinces “had been struck down once and for all.”

a. Lamourette had originally thought that he could fuse revolutionary principles with Catholicism, much like today’s pro-life Democrats, based on a “can’t we all just get along” philosophy. Such gave rise to the idiom “the kiss of Lamourette.” [On July 7th, 1792, the Abbé Lamourette induced the different factions of the Legislative Assembly of France to lay aside their differences; so the deputies of the Royalists, Constitutionalists, Girondists, Jacobins, and Orleanists rushed into each other's arms, and the king was sent for to see “how these Christians loved one another;”but the reconciliation was hollow and unsound. The term is now used for a reconciliation of policy without abatement of rancour. ]Lamourette's Kiss | Infoplease.com






4. In lieu of religious holidays, which were banned, the revolutionaries put on “Fetes of Reason.” The first was in November 1793, in the Notre Dame Cathedral, which had been renamed “The Temple of Reason,” with “To Philosophy” carved on the façade and the altar named the “Altar of Reason.” It was an ACLU fantasy come true!







5. Why is it that the majority of liberal arts universities neglect teaching the French Revolution? Harvard has one course, UCLA none, Cornell none,…how to explain this? Shouldn’t the French Revolution be the cautionary tale for any civilized society, as it is the template for every bloody totalitarian dictatorship in the modern world?

a. Is the lesson important? One of the most advanced, sophisticated nations of the 18th century kills 600,000 citizens- many of it’s most valuable citizens, plus some 145,000 flee the country- and the study of same is considered insignificant???
Schom, “Napoleon Bonaparte,” p. 253.

b. Why does the liberal establishment, the segment that controls the colleges and universities, wish that American students ignore, remain ignorant about, this historically critical event???
Possibly because students might put two and two together and see this pattern: a) psychopaths like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and Chavez use a mob of rabble to gain power, b) with the same justification, the same objectives, and the same bloody results. And, might then notice that c) all were praised in the pages of the New York Times, and d) all were supported by the Democratic Party.
Coulter, "Demonic," chapter seven.



In a conspicuously related story:

"Obama sparks Catholic ire with claim: Parochial schools are ‘divisive’"
Obama sparks Catholic ire with claim: Parochial schools are 'divisive' - Washington Times



Don't hesitate to let me know if you require further remediation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Those who respect the Constitution understand the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."
Governor Perry of Texas certainly does...


1. "Texas Gov. Rick Perry signs ‘Merry Christmas bill’ into law

2.Schools will now be able to display religious symbols as long as at least one secular or other religion’s symbol is also displayed.

3. ....allows schools to display religious symbols such as nativity scenes and Christmas trees ...

4. In addition, the new law allows staff members and students at the state’s public schools to exchange traditional holiday greetings, such as “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Hanukkah” and “happy holidays” without fear of reprisal.




5. ....I'm proud that we're standing up for religious freedom in this state,” Perry said at a “Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.”

6. “We will be monitoring this very closely,” Tom Hargins, director of communications for the ACLU of Texas, told the Daily News.

7. In May, a Texas judge ruled that the cheerleaders could continue to display signs at football games emblazoned with Bible verses.

8. Perry cited the case as “an example of the pressure on our public schools in particular to push down any reflections of religious thought or words,”..."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry signs ?Merry Christmas bill? into law - NY Daily News



Can I get an "Amen"!!!

For individuals associated with religious doctrines and beliefs, the right to freedom of expression of speech apace with freedom of religion is protected by the 1st Amendment of The US Constitution which is primarily based upon Inalienable Right (thought of an individual founded upon the Inalienable Right of self) The freedom to exercise that right through expression is protected. If we, as Americans were to nullify the Inalienable Right of Thought of the Person then Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion would not obligate efficient tutelage in the United States at present.

"If we, as Americans were to nullify the Inalienable Right of Thought of the Person then Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion would not obligate efficient tutelage in the United States at present."


Say what???

 

[Derideo_Te]

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian.

The state religion of France prior to their revolution was Catholicism. The tithe was compulsory, to support the First Estate of the Realm. The anti-religious sentiment that followed was due to the abuses that always characterize any collusion between church and state.

Yours is a shockingly flimsy understanding of the French Revolution.

The short explanation is that it was, is, an attempt to replace God with man.




1. With the Jacobins in control, the “de-Christianization” campaign kicked into high gear. Inspired by Rousseau’s idea of the religion civile, the revolution sought to completely destroy Christianity and replace it with a religion of the state. To honor “reason” and fulfill the promise of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen that “no one may be questioned about his opinions, including his religious views,” Catholic priests were forced to stand before the revolutionary clubs and take oaths to France’s new humanocentric religion, the Cult of Reason (which is French for ‘People for the American Way’).

a. Revolutionaries smashed church art and statues.





2. In Lyon, the archbishop refused to swear allegiance to the republic, and was removed, replaced by the revolutionary bishop Antoine Lamourette. But the people of Lyon responded by 'clinging to their guns and religion.' So, the Convention ordered that Lyon, the second-largest city in France, be destroyed and a monument erected on the ashes proclaiming: “Lyon waged war against liberty; Lyon is no more.”

a. "The Cult of Reason (French: Culte de la Raison)a was an atheistic belief system established in France and intended as a replacement for Christianity during the French Revolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason


3. Joseph Fouché, head of the de-Christianization, arranged for the “bankers, scholars, aristocrats, priests, nuns, wealthy merchants, their wives, mistresses and children” to be dragged from their homes and killed by firing squads. He then wrote that Christianity in the provinces “had been struck down once and for all.”

a. Lamourette had originally thought that he could fuse revolutionary principles with Catholicism, much like today’s pro-life Democrats, based on a “can’t we all just get along” philosophy. Such gave rise to the idiom “the kiss of Lamourette.” [On July 7th, 1792, the Abbé Lamourette induced the different factions of the Legislative Assembly of France to lay aside their differences; so the deputies of the Royalists, Constitutionalists, Girondists, Jacobins, and Orleanists rushed into each other's arms, and the king was sent for to see “how these Christians loved one another;”but the reconciliation was hollow and unsound. The term is now used for a reconciliation of policy without abatement of rancour. ]Lamourette's Kiss | Infoplease.com






4. In lieu of religious holidays, which were banned, the revolutionaries put on “Fetes of Reason.” The first was in November 1793, in the Notre Dame Cathedral, which had been renamed “The Temple of Reason,” with “To Philosophy” carved on the façade and the altar named the “Altar of Reason.” It was an ACLU fantasy come true!







5. Why is it that the majority of liberal arts universities neglect teaching the French Revolution? Harvard has one course, UCLA none, Cornell none,…how to explain this? Shouldn’t the French Revolution be the cautionary tale for any civilized society, as it is the template for every bloody totalitarian dictatorship in the modern world?

a. Is the lesson important? One of the most advanced, sophisticated nations of the 18th century kills 600,000 citizens- many of it’s most valuable citizens, plus some 145,000 flee the country- and the study of same is considered insignificant???
Schom, “Napoleon Bonaparte,” p. 253.

b. Why does the liberal establishment, the segment that controls the colleges and universities, wish that American students ignore, remain ignorant about, this historically critical event???
Possibly because students might put two and two together and see this pattern: a) psychopaths like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and Chavez use a mob of rabble to gain power, b) with the same justification, the same objectives, and the same bloody results. And, might then notice that c) all were praised in the pages of the New York Times, and d) all were supported by the Democratic Party.
Coulter, "Demonic," chapter seven.



In a conspicuously related story:

"Obama sparks Catholic ire with claim: Parochial schools are ‘divisive’"
Obama sparks Catholic ire with claim: Parochial schools are 'divisive' - Washington Times



Don't hesitate to let me know if you require further remediation.

Any genuine "student of history" knows that the Catholic Church was instrumental in the oppression of the French people and upheld the "divine right of kings" to have absolute unfettered rule over the populace. Since the CC chose to side with the aristocracy in order to preserve it's own power and wealth it is little wonder that it suffered a backlash. Had it sided with the people none of the above would have happened. Understanding context is crucial to understanding history. Simply wallowing in the gory details for the sake of trying to score political points doesn't get you anywhere.