Our country wasn't built on secularism, and there are no laws that prevent us from discussing religion. And if there ever are, our country is doomed.
Sorry.
The crown monarch ruled over the common man based on the principle of divine right which was that the right of rule derives from God. At the time this country was starting the revolution every European state and country, including England, was run by that doctrine of divine right where kings and queens have a GOD given right TO RULE and any and all rebellion against them IS A SIN.
This is how this colony was run before the revolution and it was BASED on RELIGION and religious beliefs of divine right. The church directly influenced through religion every colony of England and all of Europe.
And the Founders of this great nation wanted NO PART of that shit and
made damn sure that THE LAW of this country would be formed WITHOUT God or religion influencing it in any way.
Anyone that does not know this is stupid, ignorant or both.
Any and all claims that this nation was founded on "Christian principles" are absurd. Just the opposite. The top Christian principle that directly affected the Founders was the religious principle of divine right.
They opposed that as indicated in The United States Constitution.
We immediately went from religion dominating government to NO religion in government.
To deny that is secularism is fraud.
This is only partly true, right up to the point marked in bold. This is where you took a wrong turn.
The mistake you make is a common error, one that is so pervasive that it requires constant correction.
It's based on the false assumption that any man, including a King, always says and does as God would have him do.
If you examine the Old Testament history of the ancient Israelites, you will see that there was a time in which the people demanded a King to rule them despite warnings and the best advice of their prophets against it.
God consented however to allow them to have a King. From that point on, one errant King after another led Israel down the road to enslavement. There were some decent Kings interspersed among the bad ones who did a reasonably good job of leading the people in a direction which pleased God. But all in all, having a King turned out to be not such a good idea after all.
It was not God's will that they should have a King in the first place, but he consented to their desire. He preferred that they didn't have a King for whatever reason. But had they chosen to not have a King and follow the advice of the sages, do you think that meant that God's intention was to exclude Him as well?
Of course not!
There are many people who do things in the name of God or Jesus Christ which are not in accordance with God's will. The evil deeds that men do should not be attributed to God if God has warned against them. The only way a person can blame God or Christ for the acts of men is to suppose that God forces them to do them. This implies that a man can have no will of his own and is thus incapable of making a decision and acting upon it. You don't believe
that do you?
If I was to blame YOU for something that I did, or if someone else was to blame YOU for something that I did, would you not consider it unreasonable of them?
Nevertheless, men often blame God for all the evil in the world.
Men, being fallible as they are, can not be trusted entirely to always say and do as they ought. THIS is why the Founding Fathers did not want the entire rule of law and all power resting in the hands of a single individual.
Such a man might wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and decide that so and so should have his head chopped off for little or no reason. If he did, what kind of fool would it take to believe that such a wicked deed could be the result of an oracle of God?
The purpose of trying to create a government with a system of "checks and balances" was intended to avoid situations like that from arising by not allowing all power to rest in the hands of so few that a conspiracy among them could result in the perversion of the law.
In case you haven't noticed, King Obama has acquired a habit of invoking the Presidential Powers Act in order to circumvent the need for Congressional approval.
The suspension of many aspects of the Bill of Rights and the liberty which this and the previous Bush administrations have granted themselves to decide which laws they should enforce and which they can ignore has grown dangerously like that of a KINGSHIP.
No person who lacks the faith that Yomamma has been granted divine wisdom and authority would agree that this is a good thing. Nevertheless the Zionist Supremacists and the Marxist black, Mexican, and dope head suckers seem to think so. One can only suppose that they seek a government redistribution of wealth more than a lasting freedom. The only way they could reasonably embrace such a notion is if they were fools enough to believe that a country can prosper under those conditions.
All that put aside, the lack of faith of the Founders in the unwavering integrity of a man, even one calling himself a King, and their desire to have some say in decisions made by the government which would affect their personal lives, should not be taken as an indication that they were Godless , that they objected to Christian principles, or that they believed that religious convictions have no role in the government.
The majority of them would probably have been aghast at the idea of a government or a society comprised of people who were either atheistic or were only willing to abide by those principles which they invented for themselves.
A society of Secular Humanists would be such a society since they recognize no greater authority than man himself. Another way of putting this is to say that they place themselves in the position of God as being the sole arbiter of moral principles. There is a push in our country at this time for just that!
The arguments they use to promote their ideology are remarkably similar to the one you have made which essentially holds that there is no such thing as a religious conviction or belief in God which can result in anything BUT evil.
However it is NOT true that just because some men may use the facade of organized religion or cloak themselves as ministers of God in order to do evil, that it follows that all religious principles are invalid and that it is impossible for men to approximate them in the practical application to their lives.
The desire of the Founders was not that their leaders become irreligious or that they should have no faith in God or conviction that all moral laws are the result of a divine being greater than man. Rather it was to prevent that some men, presenting themselves falsely as representatives of God should come in among the flock so to speak as "wolves in sheep's clothing". Men still can make a pretense of religious conviction in order to deceive the naive and gullible.
Do you see the difference? The founders intention was not to bar the divine presence or wisdom of God from the government, but to prevent the government from interfering with the religious beliefs of it's citizens.
Also, it should be remembered that the cause of the American Revolution, according to Ben Franklin, was chiefly due to the Crowns interference with the financial system within the colonies. Not only were the colonists suffering from "taxation without representation" , they were not allowed to control the economy of the colonies to serve the best interests of the colonists. They were being unfairly taken advantage of. The majority of them probably had no particular objections to the Crown per say. And had the dispute over who should control the money supply of the colonies and how much they should be taxed it is doubtful that a rebellion would have occurred at all!
A similar complaint was made by many Southerners against the North prior to the War between the States. It seemed that the North did not want to play fair when it came to tariffs and other money matters.
Isn't it often the case that so many troubles can be traced back to squabbles over money?
Is it any wonder why a verse in the Bible says something like "Money is the root of all evil." Other people say it says "Money is the root of all sorts of evil."
I don't think we have to quibble over the difference to recognize that money is indeed the source of a great many woes.
A lot of people have trouble reconciling the necessary evils of this world like "love and money", or more appropriately "sex and money", with the Christian call to "take up one's cross daily." Some people find it difficult or impossible to believe that such a thing as absolute "good" can exist in a world that centers around either one of them.
A Christian has to believe that it IS possible to make righteous decisions in the face of so many reasons that cause one to become cynical. That isn't saying that it is
easy, only that it is
possible. They also believe that it is reasonable of God to expect a man to strive towards those goals despite his occasional blunders.
The Founders believed that the "Divine right" originated with God, NOT man. They spell that out clearly in the opening to the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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;
Notice that they say that certain truths are "self evident" and that they are "endowed by their Creator".
That's hardly a declaration of secularism.
"Secularism" to them would probably mean something more like, "Let the government know it's rightful boundaries and refrain from making declarations of a religious nature that should be imposed upon men against their wishes."
In other words, government business ends where a mans private religious convictions begin. It's only when a person breaks the law or infringes upon the rights of others that the government has a right to intervene. Even then it can do so only so far as the law prescribes. And the laws are written so as to protect the
God given inalienable rights of one man against the
trespasses of another man.
The kind of governmental violation which I believe you are referring to which is often referred to as "separation of church and state" has already been committed by Papa Bush.
viz.
Guillotine Death by Noahide Laws PASSED BY CONGRESS-1991? | Home of the r??O?ution !
“Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as ‘EDUCATION DAY U.S.A.’ The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.”
“Because the NOAHIDE LAWS forbid the free exercise of religion (especially Christianity) in America, and respect on religion over another (JUDAISM over all other religions) they clearly violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause.
THEREFORE, as long as the US CONSTITUION remains in force, they CANNOT ACTIVATE THE NOAHIDE LAWS AND ENFORCE THEM IN AMERICA AT THIS TIME!
However, WHEN the CONSTITUTION IS ABOLISHED through the declaration of NATIONAL EMERGENCY, MARTIAL LAW, THEN you will see the NOAHIDE LAWS activated and the enforcers (which are the military, foreign and domestic) and their guillotines brought out in full force.
It's astonishing that so few people are aware that Bush Senior signed this House Resolution so long ago at the behest of Chabad Lubavitch, one of the most militant Jewish organizations there is.
But it's not surprising that they are unaware since the media is controlled by Jews.
Indeed, Jewish political, social, and religious organizations have been the most vocal about and active in promoting the concept of "separation of church and state".
Since none of the Jewish community has objected to the insertion of proclamations such as the Noahide Resolution, one can only surmise that it by "separation of church and state" that the "church" they are objecting to is the Christian one.
None of them have ever protested against the "separation of synagogue and state".
For those who are not familiar with the Noahide laws, it is noteworthy that the first one of them is a Jewish prohibition against "idolatry" whose definition includes the worship of any "man" as God. This would include the person Jesus Christ whom Jews consider merely a man. And that's putting it nicely.
The Noahide penalty for idolatry calls for death by guillotine. They describe this method as being the most humane among the options which are prescribed.
So are you like so many others who remain bewildered by the objections so many people have against the establishment of a "New World Order". Papa Bush used the term himself. He's the same one who signed off on the Noahide Laws in behalf of Chabad Lubavitch.
You can do simple arithmetic can't you?
There is no law against being an atheist or a Secular Humanist or even a Jew.
There are only laws which have been written according to certain principles of fairness that are designed to prevent one man from abusing another.
THOSE laws EVERYONE is bound to follow. That would include Jews as well as atheists or Satanists or any other kind of 'ist.
The principles upon which those laws are based can be gleaned from New Testament Christianity.
The law of "Divine Right" you referred to is probably something attributable to Catholicism.
Protestant Christians do not recognize the Pope as being representative of divine authority any more than they do King Yomamma.
No where in Christian theology will you find an edict demanding that non-Christians should be beheaded.
In Judaism as well as Islam you CAN!
