Sunday, March 1, 2015

My Deep Thought for the Day:

I was listening to Pastor Levon Yuelle on the Radio this AM while getting ready for church and it occurred to me:

I wish liberals had as much concern for the Constitutional Separation of Powers as they do the mythical "Separation of Church and State".

Well, I haven't had my full regimen of coffee yet.


  1. Valid point on Liberals, but while said separation of church/state is not enshrined in our founding documents...neither is the power to endorse or validate any religious faith.

    1. Wow, you rarely come to Ed's, but CI TO THE RESCUE when we can accuse conservatives of somehow 'endorsing or validating' a religious faith..Particularly CHRISTIANITY, right, CI? :-)

      No, I've yet to see where ANYBODY has forced Christianity or any other religion on anybody in America...but you go right ahead.

    2. By the way, while those of you who shriek about our gov't pushing Christianity on Americans, I truly believe that:
      A. that's ridiculous
      B. it's opening a door for religions nobody saw coming
      C. and paving the way.

    3. We've had this conversation before.
      I'm surprised a simple observation has been so enlarged upon.
      Long after our founding, most states had religious references in their constitutions.
      This implies that the Constitutional Restraint was only on the federal government! At least originally.

    4. Ed, it always gets 'enlarged upon' for some reason; the teeniest little thing that smacks of faith in the public square and OFF WE GO AGAIN.
      And, of course, nobody here ever said anything of the sort.
      Interesting observation that restraint was only on the feds originally; would that it were again!

    5. Z - Defensive much? Who mentioned Christianity? To borrow your style - NOBODY.

      You don't think it's a cogent point that while there is no specified separation of church and state in our founding documents...there likewise is no role to endorse faith? You merely get your hackles up because you think somebody is demeaning your beliefs, when there is any justifiable opposition to using government venues to proselytize?

      It's not I who is 'shrieking'.

    6. I'm reminded of enumerated powers. But I can't get the analogy right :)
      I don't see us conservative Christians looking for a theocracy, just a nod to the historicity of creches in the public square, ten commandments and other imagery that have been present in courtrooms forever, etc.
      Prayer in the classroom? Maybe that's an "offense" to be removed, but our country was the better served with an understanding that there's a God who supersedes us all. Who our rights come from. Who can be appealed to in times of national crisis. Imaginary or not.

    7. Fair points...and I appreciate your reasoning, but how do you define the 'public square'. How do 'we' as a nation of many beliefs and none? I think that there is plenty of 'public square' beyond the government venues that are sought for the 'nod'.

      Prayer in school? Happens every day, in every school. Prayer is communication between the faithful and their deity. What those who seek such want is not what is already available, but the institutionalization of the act.

      I agree that the vast majority of Christians do not want a theocracy, but a I think a similar number want their beliefs legislated for all citizens to some extent, no?

    8. Well, prayer in school is always taken as teacher or student led.
      Problematic in a not so Christian culture.
      "beliefs legislated"?
      Their values, not their doctrine.
      No abortion/murder.
      No forced acceptance of depraved behavior.
      The Republican Party was formed to combat slavery AND polygamy.

    9. CI....all I ask is where Christianity is ever pushed on anybody in America.
      Please stop twisting our words, it's just plain odd. Can you show me where faith is endorsed in America?

      Or do you believe all the relics of the Founding Fathers should come down tomorrow....the image of Moses in Congress' Chambers, anything like that should come down?

      Let us know about this vast number of people who want their beliefs 'legislated'....I'd be interested in knowing.

      I worked in a Christian high school where no prayer was led in class....who prays in public schools??? Who wants guided prayers in school, anyway?

    10. Z - You know the answer to every question you ask. You know that faith is endorsed every time a government venue is used to preach, proselytize or know this because the commenters at your blog complain every time it occurs with a Muslim flavor. Leaving aside for now, the special financial privileges bestowed on religious institutions, and legal exemptions bestowed upon those who profess faith.

      You know that laws passed, upheld and/or maintained, that are based on 'biblical values'...sans secular legislating one's beliefs. And you know very well which laws those are.

      For one so defensive of how your faith is allegedly portrayed, you have always seemed so unknowledgeable of the well funded lobbying groups who explicitly seek to have biblical values installed by law.

      I'm not sure if you're trying to move the goal posts...I earlier said 'institutionalized' prayer, not 'guided'.

    11. Of course my point about guided prayer is any prayer not done in private at one's whatever God that person wants to pray for. I so hope you're not against that, too, because there can be no mind police to make sure that Christian or Buddhist shuts up.
      Guided prayer would be teacher led, obviously. There is no institutional prayer in schools, as you know.

      I don't believe ANY prayer in a public place needs to have anything but "GOD" I don't believe in Mohammed or Jesus or Buddha pushing in any public venue. Of course, having said that, I delight in the fact that some teenagers resent having to leave Jesus out of prayers, etc.

      Taking away financial privileges from religious institutions (ALL, not just Christian, by the way) will effectively be the end of most religious institutions, so I do understand your hopes for that, but one only needs to watch our culture falling apart and values eroding on every level of society to see why at least attempting to keep religious institutions open is important.

      Yes, I am very defensive, almost as defensive as you are of anything that smacks of any faith.
      I'm waiting to hear which laws have been 'installed' with biblical values; what a relief that would be. Except I haven't heard any of them passed...

      I won't be coming back; it's the same junk we've discussed for a year now and I'll just say I wish you luck. And I wish you hope.

    12. Well, if you're not coming back, there's little reason for me to give you the answers that "you're waiting to hear" [though you already know].....or to refute your typical mischaracterizations of what I "hope for".

      Good luck to you.

  2. The separation of church and state meme has long been another ruse for gaining power. They've use it to selectively silence critics in the churches. Using the power of IRS 501 (c) 1 so that donors to targeted churches could no longer write off contributions. Over time, critics in each religious institution were replaced with either more cowed individuals or those more aligned with the Prog movement.

    There is the evidence of the effectiveness of the Prog's patience, in the (formerly) religious realm alone, of what the Fabian's intended when they preached and practiced "the long march through the institutions."

  3. Let me put the question/comments mentioned above in simpler language in the form of a challenge:
    Find "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution for me.
    Cite the article.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Did somebody say that it was? Equally you could ask where in the Constitution, the government retains the enumerated power to endorse a religious faith.

    3. CI: Indeed, in fact the constitution specifically says there can be no religious test for any position in government (or, by extension, government tax supported institution).

      Yet, for example, they seem to be enforcing the belief in global warming, so the complaint remains selective. Want a new job or keep your job as a climate scientist in NASA or any tax paid supported research? Better not offer up any evidence that disproves global warming.

    4. Absolutely. But what you proffer is not a new phenomenon. Subjective bias will be levied against employees in many different venues throughout history. You support the King's policies, or you aren't employed by the King.

    5. Hold on CI: This is not a king-based society.
      The proscription in the Constitution is clear.
      The government cannot enforce belief systems without violating that proscription.

    6. Pardon my perhaps awkward analogy to our government that often rules as if it were monarchial. Beyond that, I am in agreement with you.

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. Good. Now consider how this idea provides you with more ammunition with which to demonstrate how out of bounds is the government with which you find fault.

      They supply all sorts of science projects with your tax dollars. Then within those they support campaigns that are completely NOT based upon the scientific method. Not only "go along with the consensus or be shut out," but even "show how the consensus is wrong in any way and be shut out."

      The latest is the campaign against Willie Soon, and supported by editorials in the NY Times and WaPo to name two. One synopsis:

      This is far worse than anything currently being waged by a traditional religious institution. In supporting and enforcing the CAGW belief, they are seeing to it that good science is being flushed by bad science; a sort of Gresham's Law in science, and with tax dollars and the courts (who sustain expansion of the intrusions by govt entities like the EPA and Interior Dept).

    9. CAGW being an article of faith in the theology of Humanism.

  4. I have many wishes for liberals:

    I wish they would practice what they preach (and refrain from being awful, horrible hypocrites), and give up their cars, their dependence on coal and nuclear energy, and simply leave the grid. And I wish they would not engage in any western style capitalism, which they hate, and give up their cell phones, computers and gas furnaces. I wish they would all move into the desert and live in harmony with the lizards. We will leave them alone, we promise.

    I wish they would listen to me. But my wishes are just that - wishes. Reality is that liberals will remain abject hypocrites to their dying day. Unfortunately.

    1. You ought to do a Your Voice Your Ad.

  5. I just realized the thought I offered has more to do with Separation of Powers and libs not enforcing that, and I haven't heard from Ducky.
    The minor comparison point on Church and State started a hail of comments.

    1. Well, you got the response you did because you added the word "mythical" to you comparison point.

      The lesson here is how easy it is to direct a discussion away from the key point. It's one thing for the adversaries to do it, entirely another to do it yourself. Are you absolutely certain you didn't want to discuss the myth?

    2. Naw, just contrasting myth and reality.

  6. Why do you assume we aren't concerned?

    1. Because liberals are not joining conservatives in an effort to stop Obama's overreach.

    2. Ed, that begs the question...why aren't they? Surely Liberals are [mostly] smart enough to understand that Obama is setting precedent....precedent that they will be disarmed in stopping when the White House is occupied by a Republican.

    3. They know repubs won't stoop to their tactics.
      Won't dismiss Senate rules to get their way.
      Won't ignore restraints on executive power.