Blogging about forensic accounting, my life, and anything else I feel warrants it. Disclaimer: Anything found on this site is not intended to be professional advice. If you are in need of professional advice, please contact a professional to give it.
It Doesn't Mean What They Want It To
Published on September 21, 2012 By Jythier In Religion

The government’s got it wrong.

For a while now, there has been a push to redefine what freedom of religion means.  Freedom of religion comes from the following:

"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."

Here’s what people seem to think it says:

Congress shall not let anybody holding public office exercise their religion.  Anybody who works for the government cannot exercise their religion during work hours.  All exercise of religion outside of strictly religious organizations is prohibited.   Government money cannot go to any religious organization, even if it provides a service better or cheaper than the government could provide.

What I’m saying is that the violation of the Constitution wasn’t when we had the Ten Commandments at the court house.  It was when we removed them.

Now we have the issue of the prayer before starting a public meeting.  Everybody on the committee agrees with it, but people who aren’t involved are up in arms about it because it brings religion into government. You know what?  Those are people in the government.  And the law doesn’t say they need to stop praying.  The law says that you, concerned citizen, cannot stop them from praying.  That’s unconstitutional for you to do.

There’s a bunch of backwards rules that are coming out of the justice system because they can’t even read a document that spells it out clearly.  The very law of our nation that is supposed to keep the government from being able to stop us from praying, celebrating, and exercising our religion has been misinterpreted to mean that they MUST stop us.

I would urge any Christian specifically, because most of this seems to apply only to us, to fight back in two ways.  One, don’t let them trample on your rights.  Two, don’t trample on the rights of other religious groups.  If a Muslim wants to pray, too, that’s HIS right and you shouldn’t stop him, either.   Show the world that it is religious persecution against the Christians instead of just a societal struggle to eliminate all religion from public life.  If it’s not, we’re going to end up in the same place as the other religions.  But what it feels like, is that we’re going to end up with a country that doesn’t allow Christianity, but allows every other religion.  I hope I’m wrong.


Comments (Page 8)
10 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10 
on Dec 18, 2012

Jythier writes:

The government’s got it wrong.

"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."

Here’s what people seem to think it says:

Congress shall not let anybody holding public office exercise their religion. Anybody who works for the government cannot exercise their religion during work hours. All exercise of religion outside of strictly religious organizations is prohibited. Government money cannot go to any religious organization, even if it provides a service better or cheaper than the government could provide.
 

This is the way things are going except for the Democrat Party who are indeed exercising their religion of Secular and Atheistic Humanism.

Just read their platform adopted this year in Charlotte, NC whose goals are atheism, abortion and debt. Remember at their convention a voice vote was taken 3 times on including a reference to God and 3 times they loudly shouted NO. Weren't they exercising their religion and its goals? I think so.

 

 

 

on Dec 18, 2012

 

I would urge any Christian specifically, because most of this seems to apply only to us, to fight back in two ways. One, don’t let them trample on your rights.

By 'rights' here you mean the Christian's free exercise of religion.

Well, tell that to the soldiers in the military who are being forced to accept homosexuality as just a normal, alternate sexual practice or to the chaplain who is being forced to marry 2 men or 2 women.  They are getting the State (civil) Religion of Secular and Atheistic Humanism handed to them.

I would add the US military to the list of the few Atheists, Agnostics who control the many.  

on Dec 21, 2012

Jytheir,

To your point about prayer, here's the latest ...

 

http://onenewsnow.com/national-security/2012/12/21/church-state-separatist-taking-on-west-point

 

on Feb 08, 2013

lulapilgrim

Quoting DESADE666, reply 88I have the same attitude with each and every religion - why should someone's belief in the supernatural play a part in government?

The courts have deemed Secular Humanism a Religion. And if you've ever read the Humanist Manifestos I and II, you will know exactly what their religious belief system is based. Why should the religious beliefs and dogmatic claims of Secular and Atheistic Humanism that support abortion, homosexual 'marriage' and other evils play a part in Government?

Can the government that supports the religion of Secular and Atheistic Humanism really be expected to protect the First Amendment rights of those who practice Christianity?

That's exactly what we are up against today and the focus of Jythier's blog.

 

 

 
I do not believe in any religion and it is irrelevant to me what a court has decided for expediancy. Religion is a con racket and as with most con rackets it worls best on the hard of thinking.

And as for faith the whole idea of having to bend my knee and apologise for stuff I have never done is ludicrous.

on Feb 08, 2013

How about for the stuff you have done?

on Feb 08, 2013

DESADE666
I do not believe in any religion

Of course you do...you just don't know it or don't want to know it.

on Feb 11, 2013

Apologise for what I have done? I assume you mean if I have done things 'wrong'? As a humanist I have a moral code, though as an anarchist I don't need others to decide for me what that code will be. However, when I have hurt people unintentionally, or been an arse after a drink or two, or killed a stray animal then yes I would apologise... Strange question, almost as though you think that only those who believe in non-existant supernatural beings are capable of morality!

on Feb 11, 2013

lulapilgrim

Quoting DESADE666, reply 109I do not believe in any religion

Of course you do...you just don't know it or don't want to know it.

 

LOL, now that sounds to me a lot like the other great get out of jail free card that the religious often bandy about when faced with insurmountable evidence, you gotta have faith! Seriously Lula, perhaps when I am on my death bed I will want to engage in wishful thinking about an afterlife but whilst I still have my senses about me I will occupy myself with more pressing, and real, matters than having to follow a load of instructions invented by bearded types thousands of years ago...

on Feb 11, 2013

DESADE666
Apologise for what I have done? I assume you mean if I have done things 'wrong'? As a humanist I have a moral code, though as an anarchist I don't need others to decide for me what that code will be. However, when I have hurt people unintentionally, or been an arse after a drink or two, or killed a stray animal then yes I would apologise... Strange question, almost as though you think that only those who believe in non-existant supernatural beings are capable of morality!

 

Actually, I was saying that you have done things wrong, and that you not only should be sorry for it in relation to who you have hurt, but also to your creator - you're misusing yourself in those instances.

on Feb 11, 2013

I don't believe in a creator.

on Feb 11, 2013

and it's a little arrogant of you to state that I have 'done things wrong', though I assume you actually mean 'done wrong things' but there's the pedant in me coming out... Of course a philosopher would have a field day with the word 'wrong' but then that's perhaps another debate...

on Feb 11, 2013

DESADE666
and it's a little arrogant of you to state that I have 'done things wrong', though I assume you actually mean 'done wrong things' but there's the pedant in me coming out... Of course a philosopher would have a field day with the word 'wrong' but then that's perhaps another debate...

 

You don't have to believe in your creator to have one.

on Feb 11, 2013

He stated you have not followed his law.  Not me.

on Feb 11, 2013

 

 

 

DESADE666
I do not believe in any religion and it is irrelevant to me what a court has decided for expediancy.

DESADE666
I don't believe in a creator.
b

DESADE666
As a humanist I have a moral code, though as an anarchist I don't need others to decide for me what that code will be.

You certainly do speak as a religious humanist whose faith is placed in the god of self and/or of man.

DESADE666
Seriously Lula, perhaps when I am on my death bed I will want to engage in wishful thinking about an afterlife but whilst I still have my senses about me I will occupy myself with more pressing, and real, matters than having to follow a load of instructions invented by bearded types thousands of years ago...

It's mighty presumptuous to wait until one's deathbed to think about afterlife.

DESADE666
I still have my senses about me I will occupy myself with more pressing, and real, matters

Consider this. In this life, these 'pressing, real matters' that you talk about are fleeting. What could be more pressing than where one will spend their eternal life?

DESADE666
I still have my senses about me I will occupy myself with more pressing, and real, matters than having to follow a load of instructions invented by bearded types thousands of years ago...

As if practicing your religion of atheistic humanism---that man is independent from God and can make his own rules--- isn't following a load of instructions invented by someone, bearded or otherwise!

on Feb 23, 2013

Hello Lula

you will persist in trying to portray 'humanism' as somehow 'religious' completely missing the point that a standard definition of religion is that it presupposes the existence of a controlling superhuman power but I'm happy to let that be because it really is difficult to make a point to someone who thinks that hair splitting and narrow responses equates to reasoned argument. I might add that I am also an anarchist and so do not believe in 'clubs' either...

You even miss the implicit humour and irony in my replies e.g. on my deathbed I might decide to convert or become one of faith - wasn't it Voltaire or some such who stated on his deathbed 'now is not the time to be making new enemies'? LOL.

I could use your approach and 'answer' your points one by one, such as 'eternal life' which I do not believe in and there is no evidence for but again let that be, it's a hollow discussion with one who relies on faith as supposed evidence and argument.

Jythia

Same old same old. 'You do not have to believe in a creator to have one'... Man, that is not an argument, not evidence, just pissing in the wind. I have never seen x-rays but I know they exist because there is evidence that proves they exist. Writing this I immediately regret it because I can already imagine the reply... Sigh... What I will say is that I have more of a problem with religion than with the concept of there being other forces or beings or entities in the universe. We didn't know about x-rays until a relatively short time ago. Christians thought the earth was the centre of the universe until Galileo...

To return to your initial argument about prayers at government meetings. What I would say is that your founding fathers had it right imho (mostly atheists and at best very shadowy in what they actually believed in but there you go, thank God for that) when they separated church and state. Whenever one man made religion has dominion over the rest it ends in bloodshed, corruption, torture of 'heretics' and the like and there are plenty of examples across the world of this state of affairs. The pluralism that a true 'freedom of religion' law supports is actually quite healthy in tempering the bloodthirsty evangelism of individual religions, most of which are HELL bent on obliterating anyone with a different mindset.

Ok, that's enough from me, it's not fun anymore... off I go to create a new religion based on a deity who believes in humanism. Might just catch on.

10 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10