The Establishment Of Secular Atheism And The Regulation Of Religion

I did a blog about the Supreme Court establishing Atheism as the religion of the United States government earlier. I am going to show how this is in practice by comparing the United States to China. Disobedience is handled in different ways in each country. China will jail and execute you while the United States will expel you from school, fire you, or sue you.

Both countries claim to allow religious freedom but as my grandmother used to say “the proof is in the pudding”. In reality both countries the government regulates religion. In the United States this regulation causes religion to be practiced in private just like oppressed religions have always been practiced. Public display is frowned on and penalized when it occurs on governmental property. For example students are not allowed to say public prayers at sporting events. In those cases it is allowed restrictions are placed on it such as telling individuals how to say their prayers. In Indian a federal judge ruled that using Jesus’ name title, etc in prayer on state grounds is illegal.

Never mind the fact that the federal courts have no right to regulate anything as they are violating the Constitution in doing so. Our country was founded on religious tolerance not on the hatred of religion and the regulation of it. I encourage each person to stand up and proudly declare their religion and their willingness to do what is right despite the oppression of our atheistic government. Thomas Jefferson was not afraid to use God as an excuse for passing a law, and despite the fact that he believed Jesus was not the Son of God he still urged others to practice Christian virtues.

The regulation of religion is justified if a religion is found to violate the rule love your neighbor as yourself. It is best left up to the people of the United States to determine when a violation of the law love your neighbor as yourself as occurs. The government should attempt to instruct them in the way they should grow but governments as a whole are very subject to corruption. Our government being no acceptation no matter how we wish otherwise.

I did not bother linking to the evidence I used to arrive at the conclusions I stated here but If you are interested feel to contact me.

The Declaration Of Independence And Why It Applies Today

Declaration of Independence

Main purpose

Declare the thirteen colonies free from the British Empire.

Justification

Great Britain violated the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

Here are most if not all of the tenets of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God found within the Declaration of Independence.

* Natural laws are God’s laws.
* Natural law confers on people a separate but equal status
* Natural law grants that all human beings are Created equally
* Natural law proclaims that all people are given natural rights by God
* Natural law declares that governments existence to enforce the Law of Nature and Nature‘s God.
* Natural law accords People the natural right to rebel against governments that violate or fail to uphold the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
* Natural law urges patience with a government failure to do their job.

It is not in the Declaration of Independence but all our founders including Thomas Jefferson knew that natural law was based on the Judeo-Christian tenet of love your neighbor as yourself. The tenet love your neighbor as yourself applies to today’s society just like it did to the society of our Founders time.

Defending The True Civil Rights Of The United States

I believe the history of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is important in understanding it. The ACLU and other groups hate these documents because they contradict their anarchistic or other view of morality. That hate makes them the enemies of the Constitution and they are the individuals that government officers have given an oath to oppose. Many of our government officers have made themselves felons by forsaking that oath. They betrayers pretend to protect our civil rights while violating our true civil rights. They need to be fought by pointing our how they have betrayed the values of liberty our country was founded on and their betrayal endangers our safety and happiness.

I looked up Jefferson’s papers and found some attributed to him by the Avalon Project of Yale University. In these papers Locke and Sidney are credited with being the foundation upon which the bill of rights was formed. I do not know who Sidney was so I won’t address his contributions yet.

March 4, 1825

A resolution was moved and agreed to in the following words:

Whereas, it is the duty of this Board to the government under which it lives, and especially to that of which this University is the immediate creation, to pay especial attention to the principles of government which shall be inculcated therein, and to provide that none shall be inculcated which are incompatible with those on which the Constitutions of this State, and of the United States were genuinely based, in the common opinion; and for this purpose it may be necessary to point out specially where these principles are to be found legitimately developed:

Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his "Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government," and of Sidney in his "Discourses on government," may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United States, and that on the distinctive principles of the government of our State, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in, 1. The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these States. 2. The book known by the title of "The Federalist," being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning. 3. The Resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of the alien and sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the United States. 4. The valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. And that in the branch of the school of law, which is to treat on the subject of civil polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school.

To find Locke’s view on Jesus I looked up his writings where I found he wrote “The Reasonableness of Christianity”

239. In this state of darkness and error, in reference to the "true God" Our Saviour found the world. But the clear revelation he brought with him, dissipated this darkness; made the one invisible true God known to the world: and that with such evidence and energy, that polytheism and idolatry hath no where been able to withstand it. But wherever the preaching of the truth he delivered, and the light of the gospel hath come, those mists have been dispelled. And, in effect, we, see that since Our Saviour's time, the belief of one God has prevailed and spread itself over the face of the earth. For even to the light that the Messiah brought into the world with him, we must ascribe the owning, and profession of one God, which the Mahometan religion hath derived and borrowed from it. So that, in this sense, it is certainly and manifestly true of Our Saviour, what St. John says of him, I John iii. 8, "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." This light the world needed, and this light it received from him: that there is but "one God", and he "eternal, invisible;" nor like to any visible objects, nor to be represented by them....

Jefferson was a Freemason and called himself a Christian though he held that Jesus was a philosopher and not the anointed one. Like John Locke he believed that Jesus was a reformer. I have found no mention of Jesus by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Civil Government though he bases his theory of Natural Law on God’s law and mentions God several times. This is equivalent to the actions of the founders in the Declaration of Independence when they made natural law the law of the United States.

If you have read the Constitution then you know that the Ninth Amendment mentions that there are rights retained by the people. These rights as well as the one in the Constitution are obviously those that the Declaration of Independence and The Second Treatise of Civil Government attribute God giving them by nature, According to the majority of Christian philosophy Jesus is the King who God has chosen to administer his commands by putting authorities over humankind. The authorities being the government and all its branches. These authorities have an obligation to God and to their own people to rule by natural law. Natural law being based on the rule of love your neighbor as yourself.

The Supreme Court Hand Down An Anarchist Ruling On Murder Of The Sick

The following excerpts are from the Associated Press article "Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law" by Gina Holland or from the Reuters article "Canibal draws unusual distinction" by Bemhard Winkler.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Bush administration's attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die, protecting Oregon's one-of-a-kind assisted-suicide law. It was the first loss for Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court's most conservative members Clarence Thomas — in a long but restrained dissent.

I mentioned this case earlier in my bogs and showed how the Administration had the right to forbid the use of medicines in a non prescribed manner as part of their right to regulate trade state to state. The question now is will Congress step up and forbid the medicine misused to murder patients, like they forbid illegal drugs. This case sets a precedent where drugs such as cocaine and marijuana may be legalized over the federal governments objection.

I want you to notice that the six deciding judges are the same anarchist who have decided against the democratic elected governments of the United States on other cases.

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority — himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

I call them anarchist because they obviously believe in the anarchist morality that each person has total control to his/her own body and possessions even to inflicting harm on it. Thus the determining factor becomes whether an individual consented to an action such as murder or not. A comparison case to this excerpt from a current infamous murder cannibalism case in Germany.

Meiwes's legal team has argued the defendant merely acceded to Brandes's wishes and that his crime was only "killing on request," a form of illegal euthanasia that carries a maximum five-year sentence.

Prosecutors, hoping to secure a murder conviction, need to show that Meiwes killed Brandes not only because the latter had wanted to be eaten, but also due to a base desire of his own.

The six anarchist, none of who I would call moderate as the media insists on doing, have ruled in a block on other cases of note. These cases have upheld Roe v. Wade and ruled that sodomy was covered under the Constitution. All three cases are obviously decided by anarchist morality instead of the law since William Blackstone states it is the right and duty of the government to forbid suicide and treat those guilty of it by destroying their reputation and striking their name from any honor roll. He also states children yet in their mother’s womb have the right to life and that homosexuality is an deplorable crime. William Blackstone’s Commentaries were used to determine the original intent of the Constitution in Supreme Court cases even the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court decided they had the right to review the other two branches of government.

The Democrats Posturing Was Right Though Their Position Is Unconstitutional

Everybody criticizes the Democrats for their pestering during the Samuel Alitto judicial confirmation. They should remember that according to politics any judicial appointee since Robert Bork goes by the ideal that “They have the right to be silent and anything they say can and will be used against them”. This means that the Senators have to trick them into saying something incriminating and most of the Senators realize they are not that tricky. Solution get up on a soap box and expound your objections to the appointee based on known if misconstrued evidence.

Every Senator takes an oath to oppose the enemies of the their interpretation of the Constitution and they can not do that by rubber stamping President appointees. It means the original intent. Since that did not work for Robert Bork, it gives me the impression that dishonesty is prized by the Senate in a Supreme Court appointee. Well back on the original topic. The Senators job is to discern if each appointee will support or oppose the Constitution. They are also to discern if the appointee is able to use reason and logical argument based on evidence to discern the original intent of the Constitution. That knocks out that argument in Roe v. Wade that basically goes that because children within their mother’s womb are not treated equally under the law and therefore they are not persons. Because they are not persons they do not deserve to be treated equally under the law. I can see why Justice Blackmun’s daughter was hired by Planned Parenthood. I wonder if his other two daughters received similar gifts of appreciation. Which brings me to the last point. An appointee must be an individual of good character unlike the Senators that we Americans insist on electing.

In short I support the Democrats actions for reasons I specified above. This is even though I am convinced they are enemies of the Constitution. I believe they are enemies because I can not see how you can insure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity as the Constitution requires while still advocating arbitrarily and deliberately killing that same posterity. I have trouble believing that the freedom the dead enjoy is the freedom the Constitution demands.

Mexico Occupation Of The United States

Excerpt are from Low Registration in U.S. for Mexican Vote by Abe Levy

A fraction of the eligible voters registered for their first chance to vote by absentee ballot in Mexico's presidential election, authorities said Sunday.

Mexico allowed expatriate voting and a small turnout is reported. My concern is that Mexicans instead of slowly becoming citizens of the United States will remain loyal to Mexico. I believe that this is Mexico’s real goal only because I have heard Mexican propaganda that blames the United States for invading and occupying Mexican territory.

The consulate in San Antonio drew only a handful of people, including the Rev. Frank Garcia of Amistad Cristiana church, a dual citizen of Mexico and the United States. He couldn't register for lack of a voter ID card but said he passed out forms to congregation members who do have cards.

I am also not fond of the dual citizen program which requires individuals to serve two masters. I always wonder which one they will betray when the chips are down and at this time the United States is having difficulties with Mexico.

Voting advocates said the low registration demonstrated a need for fundamental changes to the program, but election officials called it a good first step toward greater democracy.

I have my doubts that Mexico is really moving toward greater democracy. I also am concerned with a large contingent of people loyal to a foreign government existing within the border of the United States. An army that can be used to accomplish political or other goals. Hopefully my fear is groundless as we are betrayed by the state and federal governments who job it is to act in the common defense of our nation,