One Last Thing All seems well, at least in terms of the critical mass of those who understand the way forward. I thought I should add this as a footnote since it has come up often and will come up again. It is spurred by the debate on the separation of Church and State, most recently by the Florida legislature being unable to defend the sanctity of Majority-oriented traditions that do NOT violate the Establishment Clause... imagine allowing the Satanic Temple to display a greeting in the chambers. What has become of us? In as much as it is possible, in order not to legislate from the bench and to interpret the law accurately--thereby maintaining the sanctity of the principle of Separation of Powers--it is wise for the considering judge to have the proper historical context within which to frame his or her adjudication. When such a context is not available, then it is the time-honored judicial tradition to return to the Declaration of Independence, the spirit of its letter, for guidance. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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. The early history of America is replete with savage competition among the variant brands of Christianity. Calvinists brutally attacked Methodists and Baptists mauled Anglicans. It was in this climate that the Founding Fathers found it wise that no one denomination of Christianity ought to dominate over the others and so, initially, the Separation of Church and State was supposed to maintain equality among the branches of Christianity. But our inveterate diplomat, Thomas Jefferson, infused with an air of French Egalitarianism, and no doubt riddled with the mastery of Deists of his era, abstracted away one generation of thought so that the Separation of Church and State could be interpreted to refer religion and NOT denomination. Either way, the one thing that is clear from the Declaration of Independence is that the Founding Fathers intent was always to establish that equality of man presupposes that every man has a Creator. This is not to say that Atheists are not covered by this article of... faith. Instead, it suggests quite candidly, that atheists do not know their Creator, but still must be treated equally. One does not see how this grants atheists the right--in being treated equally--to allow their non-belief in a creator thus invalidate the rights of all men by allow no Creator to exist for all because of their lack of understanding how THEY came to be. In essence, the fundamental equality espoused in the sacred Declaration of Independence PRESUPPOSES a Creator, without which equality does not exist and Majority Rule holds sway. In either circumstance, only if atheists are a majority, according to the logic of the founders, can they legally circumvent the Christian traditions that speak of the Christian Creator. If Muslims or Bhuddists were to complain about a cross or other religious symbol, the right thing to do would be to allow those to, as well, insert the objects of worship of THEIR creator in the same space. But unless a town or municipality is run by atheists in the main, then never should they be allowed to upset the Christian balance that formed this nation. As for the Satanic Temple... I have never heard of Satan creating anything but confusion. I dont see how the fathers would have allowed such ridiculous nonsense to parade as equity... in the house of Laws. Alafia Z
Posted on: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 06:00:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015