The answer to that question—presented in a thoughtful article the other day—is, Yes. I say the answer is affirmative, but the author recognizes that his conclusion runs contrary not only to liberal orthodoxy but also to the views of at least a faction of “conservatives”. Note that in the subtitle the author maintains that conservatives shouldn’t even be wondering about this:
In response to NFO's reply to my comment about "religious establishments"--one of the things that the "established churches" of Europe and even the colonies did was suppress the "free exercise" of anyone who dissented from the established church. In England, John Bunyan wrote his classic "Pilgrim's Progress" while in prison for his faith. In New England, Massachusetts banished Roger Williams, and he founded Rhode Island. Later they banished Quakers, and if they dared to return they hanged them. In Virginia, where the Anglican church was established, Presbyterians were not allowed to have church buildings or worship services; they began to let that slide as the Scots-Irish began to settle in the western parts of Virginia, because they were regarded as a useful buffer against the Indian tribes, but the law stayed on the books until after the Revolution.
Today's secularists and atheists act like they are the established church in the US--groups like the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation file lawsuits to try to stop any expression of Christianity in public. They mouth things like "You can do what you want in your church services, but not in the public square." (The governor of California gave away the real game during the Covid shutdowns when he imposed harsher rules on churches than on businesses.) But real Christianity is not about what you do in a church building on Sundays; it's about how you live all the time, 24/7/365. There is very little in the New Testament about what goes on in the Sunday gathering; if you put them all together you might have a couple of pages' worth. There is a LOT about how you live daily. And the "free exercise" of religion in the Constitution includes how you live all week long, not just whether you can have services on Sunday.
While we quibble over what the Constitution really means, THEY act. This won't be solved by pols or people in black robes; it will be solved at the ground level by parents either taking over school boards and kicking out the crazies, or by abandoning the state school system entirely. Knowing teachers as I do, I thoroughly recommend the latter course. Even if you change the school board, the majority of teachers will remain leftists and will continue indoctrinating your kids. As for Christians, I'm not one, but I'm still traumatised by their complete submission to Caesar (with some very, very honorable exceptions such as Dr McCullough and Pastor MacArthur). I know what Niemoller said about "first they came for the communists..", but I have also long learned that you can't fight for people who aren't willing to fight for themselves. Christians need to get serious about the times we live in and live their faith on their sleeves.
But regarding the first part, I’d like to point out that Satan and his minions seem to be more open and active these days. And Ephesians 6:12 has not been repealed.
I remember reading "On the Road" as a teen and thinking how cool it was. Who would have guessed that from that tiny seed of rebellion against God, we'd get to the jungle of narcissism and perversion we inhabit today.
True, but as with truths about Covid and the war in Ukraine, they were drowned out by the crowd. It seems like we humans can only learn by following every crazy trend to the end.
Getting Satanism out of schools should be easy. Without God, there is no Satan. If one cannot teach about God (a mere deity to those who do not understand Who He Is,) then how can one teach about another mere deity such as Satan? Doesn't that violate the current understanding of the separation of Church and State? That would be an interesting court argument. We can't have any established religion of any kind, can we?
My difficult with the government is that they are creating religions based on climate change and now with DEI. They just don't use the word "religion."
I'll readily admit that, for many years, I was sucked into the more-libertarian view of the First Amendment and the Constitution generally. Captivated by the idea, largely based on an intensive, line-by-line college study of the Federalist Papers (particularly, Madison's recognition in No. 10 that "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm"), that the Framers were the first to take human nature fully into account in designing a near-perfect, self-effecting system to guard against the dangers of factionalism, tyranny and other evils, my view was essentially, "things will always work themselves out...our system and society will ultimately demand that." If I, a mere 35 years ago, couldn't foresee the emergence of such an organized, antisocial/degenerate push to destroy the Constitution using the very rights it provides, our Framers certainly could not. The historical view, THEIR view, has never been more important.
Here's something else to know about the First Amendment: the term "establishment of religion" in the late 1700s, when the Constitution was adopted, meant one thing--an official state church. The European countries had them--the Anglican Church in England, Wales, and Ireland; the Presbyterian Kirk in Scotland; Lutheran churches in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and much of Germany. Most of the rest of western Europe was Catholic. And those state churches worked to suppress any dissenting groups. For an example of how this worked: The bishops and archbishops of the Anglican church were part of the House of Lords in Parliament, so they were officially part of the government as well as the church. Until the mid-1800s, you had to be Anglican to be elected to political office. In Ireland, the Anglican church took steps against both Catholics and the Presbyterians of Ulster. My own Scots-Irish ancestors lived it that. And in Ireland, it wasn't just politics; if you wanted to have a legal marriage, you had to do it in an Anglican church.
Before the Revolution, many of the colonies had their own state churches--Anglican in the South, Congregational (Puritan) in New England. Because of the variation in preferred denominations among the states that formed the US, and probably because of the history of abuse by state churches, the early US government made the decision not to have a national church.
That's the background of the first part of the First Amendment.
Agreed, but I think that history is more pertinent to the Establishment Clause, than the Free Exercise issues we're dealing with here. Concur with a historical prism applied to both.
"Zhou regime’s legal apparatus is hellbent (!) on sidestepping SCOTUS efforts to protect our religious liberties" Apropos Pun; always best when amidst Truth. [Not to make light of a deeply troubling subject].
Providing this post, Mark, is much appreciated. Thank you.
This presents a very important subject that whether folks are of Faith or not, should provoke deep consternation. Totalitarian regimes historically followed this pattern to gain control. "Woke" is simply the 21st century vehicle on that path. Best regards, (WRH)
Well stated sir. Marxist/communist 'success' depend on defeating our Founding Constitutional principals based in Faith, as you so well describe here. (WRH)
And our success, Wayne, means actively living out the values that have served the best of humanity down the ages. We can only hide away for so long before the evil reaches us.
G'day S'21, very true. Puzzling how mankind seems to want to sabotage those very values. Lust for power being a strong force, but some stuff just gets destroyed with little reason. Evil just is. As always, my best to you sir! (WRH)
In response to NFO's reply to my comment about "religious establishments"--one of the things that the "established churches" of Europe and even the colonies did was suppress the "free exercise" of anyone who dissented from the established church. In England, John Bunyan wrote his classic "Pilgrim's Progress" while in prison for his faith. In New England, Massachusetts banished Roger Williams, and he founded Rhode Island. Later they banished Quakers, and if they dared to return they hanged them. In Virginia, where the Anglican church was established, Presbyterians were not allowed to have church buildings or worship services; they began to let that slide as the Scots-Irish began to settle in the western parts of Virginia, because they were regarded as a useful buffer against the Indian tribes, but the law stayed on the books until after the Revolution.
Today's secularists and atheists act like they are the established church in the US--groups like the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation file lawsuits to try to stop any expression of Christianity in public. They mouth things like "You can do what you want in your church services, but not in the public square." (The governor of California gave away the real game during the Covid shutdowns when he imposed harsher rules on churches than on businesses.) But real Christianity is not about what you do in a church building on Sundays; it's about how you live all the time, 24/7/365. There is very little in the New Testament about what goes on in the Sunday gathering; if you put them all together you might have a couple of pages' worth. There is a LOT about how you live daily. And the "free exercise" of religion in the Constitution includes how you live all week long, not just whether you can have services on Sunday.
While we quibble over what the Constitution really means, THEY act. This won't be solved by pols or people in black robes; it will be solved at the ground level by parents either taking over school boards and kicking out the crazies, or by abandoning the state school system entirely. Knowing teachers as I do, I thoroughly recommend the latter course. Even if you change the school board, the majority of teachers will remain leftists and will continue indoctrinating your kids. As for Christians, I'm not one, but I'm still traumatised by their complete submission to Caesar (with some very, very honorable exceptions such as Dr McCullough and Pastor MacArthur). I know what Niemoller said about "first they came for the communists..", but I have also long learned that you can't fight for people who aren't willing to fight for themselves. Christians need to get serious about the times we live in and live their faith on their sleeves.
But regarding the first part, I’d like to point out that Satan and his minions seem to be more open and active these days. And Ephesians 6:12 has not been repealed.
I remember reading "On the Road" as a teen and thinking how cool it was. Who would have guessed that from that tiny seed of rebellion against God, we'd get to the jungle of narcissism and perversion we inhabit today.
There were, in fact, people who did guess and who issued warnings.
True, but as with truths about Covid and the war in Ukraine, they were drowned out by the crowd. It seems like we humans can only learn by following every crazy trend to the end.
The second part of this post shows what a liar Merrick Garland is.
Getting Satanism out of schools should be easy. Without God, there is no Satan. If one cannot teach about God (a mere deity to those who do not understand Who He Is,) then how can one teach about another mere deity such as Satan? Doesn't that violate the current understanding of the separation of Church and State? That would be an interesting court argument. We can't have any established religion of any kind, can we?
My difficult with the government is that they are creating religions based on climate change and now with DEI. They just don't use the word "religion."
I'll readily admit that, for many years, I was sucked into the more-libertarian view of the First Amendment and the Constitution generally. Captivated by the idea, largely based on an intensive, line-by-line college study of the Federalist Papers (particularly, Madison's recognition in No. 10 that "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm"), that the Framers were the first to take human nature fully into account in designing a near-perfect, self-effecting system to guard against the dangers of factionalism, tyranny and other evils, my view was essentially, "things will always work themselves out...our system and society will ultimately demand that." If I, a mere 35 years ago, couldn't foresee the emergence of such an organized, antisocial/degenerate push to destroy the Constitution using the very rights it provides, our Framers certainly could not. The historical view, THEIR view, has never been more important.
Here's something else to know about the First Amendment: the term "establishment of religion" in the late 1700s, when the Constitution was adopted, meant one thing--an official state church. The European countries had them--the Anglican Church in England, Wales, and Ireland; the Presbyterian Kirk in Scotland; Lutheran churches in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and much of Germany. Most of the rest of western Europe was Catholic. And those state churches worked to suppress any dissenting groups. For an example of how this worked: The bishops and archbishops of the Anglican church were part of the House of Lords in Parliament, so they were officially part of the government as well as the church. Until the mid-1800s, you had to be Anglican to be elected to political office. In Ireland, the Anglican church took steps against both Catholics and the Presbyterians of Ulster. My own Scots-Irish ancestors lived it that. And in Ireland, it wasn't just politics; if you wanted to have a legal marriage, you had to do it in an Anglican church.
Before the Revolution, many of the colonies had their own state churches--Anglican in the South, Congregational (Puritan) in New England. Because of the variation in preferred denominations among the states that formed the US, and probably because of the history of abuse by state churches, the early US government made the decision not to have a national church.
That's the background of the first part of the First Amendment.
Agreed, but I think that history is more pertinent to the Establishment Clause, than the Free Exercise issues we're dealing with here. Concur with a historical prism applied to both.
Hell in a hand-cart.
Well, at least that will be a low-emissions journey. Greta will be pleased! Even better: to hell in a Tesla!
That that question came up shows how far down the slope we've fallen.
"Zhou regime’s legal apparatus is hellbent (!) on sidestepping SCOTUS efforts to protect our religious liberties" Apropos Pun; always best when amidst Truth. [Not to make light of a deeply troubling subject].
Providing this post, Mark, is much appreciated. Thank you.
This presents a very important subject that whether folks are of Faith or not, should provoke deep consternation. Totalitarian regimes historically followed this pattern to gain control. "Woke" is simply the 21st century vehicle on that path. Best regards, (WRH)
Thanks for this clear and instructive discussion of Constitutional interpretation. Good work!
Well stated sir. Marxist/communist 'success' depend on defeating our Founding Constitutional principals based in Faith, as you so well describe here. (WRH)
And our success, Wayne, means actively living out the values that have served the best of humanity down the ages. We can only hide away for so long before the evil reaches us.
G'day S'21, very true. Puzzling how mankind seems to want to sabotage those very values. Lust for power being a strong force, but some stuff just gets destroyed with little reason. Evil just is. As always, my best to you sir! (WRH)
Same to you, Wayne! Yes, Evil seems to have a life of its own.