Saturday, March 3, 2012

The Church, Way Ahead on The Marriage Issue

How far ahead is the Church from the State. One of the principle ideas in America is 'seperation of Church from State'. This is in fact one of the most narcissistic notion ever devised and adhered to in this psychologically immature nation. This was an idea that is said to have been based in the first amendment which states that;

Article 1, The Bill of Rights

                      "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." 

I would argue that the federal government with The Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has indeed crossed the line towards the establishment of a religion. The dogmas of this secular religion are that homosexuality is psychologically healthy and that contraception and abortion have to be made mandatory. Who then is their god? The almighty dollar is their god. Head of the Health and Human Services Kathleen Seibelius herself made it clear that the contraceptive mandate will save money on the expenses of child care down the road. This coupled with the over population study that suggest it is imperative that the population be curtailed today. Although at the same time there is no mandate towards chastity where sex is kept in the marriage.

The more common reading of 'seperation of Church and state' comes from Thomas Jefferson who in a letter to a concerned Protestant minister

"Letter from the Danbury Baptists:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson } "
This was Jefferson's final reply on this matter:

"To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802."

Clearly at this point there is some subtle differences between the State's establishment of religion and it's response to actions and not opinion's and the 'wall of separation between Church and State' established by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist ministers and reiterated in the Everson V. Board of Education Supreme Court case in 1947 where Justice Hugo Black asserted the same.  Everson V. Board of Education was a Supreme Court decision that found taxed based reimbursements to the parents of children who attended public school as well as religious education was permissible and DID NOT constitute an endorsement of any one religion.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

Such was Justice Black justification for upholding the legitimacy of reimbursements to parents whose children attend religious schools. The dissenting view written by Justice Wiley Rutledge argued.

"The funds used here were raised by taxation. The Court does not dispute nor could it that their use does in fact give aid and encouragement to religious instruction. It only concludes that this aid is not 'support' in law. But Madison and Jefferson were concerned with aid and support in fact not as a legal conclusion 'entangled in precedents.' Here parents pay money to send their children to parochial schools and funds raised by taxation are used to reimburse them. This not only helps the children to get to school and the parents to send them. It aids them in a substantial way to get the very thing which they are sent to the particular school to secure, namely, religious training and teaching." 330 U.S. 1, 45.

"The funds used here were raised by taxation." True, however the religious also pay taxes and so have rights as citizens to receive the benefits of the state. The religious are members of both their religious affiliations and the state, where then does this separation between state and religion lie? The Western wall of the Temple Mount can be found in Jerusalem, the Great Wall of China can be found in China, where then is this 'wall of separation between Church and State"? 

Here in lies the problem when the first amendment precluding the State from establishing a religion is confuscated with Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist ministers. The metaphor of 'seperation of Church and State' presumes first of that this is possible when in fact this metaphor is nothing but an imaginary separation which cannot exist since the religious are also in fact citizens. Effectively, there is no separation of the religious from the state.The separation that can take place is in the mind, hence the metaphor. In fact, Jefferson interestingly enough was not a Baptist he was a deist and personally renounce any of the supernatural aspects of the Christian theology, literally blacking them out of the very same New Testament which he shared with the Danbury Baptist. Thus, Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist whom he was corresponding had two distinct theological practices.
Hence, they both had a vested interest in keeping government from establishing a state religion without actually being members of the same faith themselves. Demonstrating the effectiveness of the first amendment and how was to be practiced and implemented.

Today, the 'wall of seperation', this metaphor commonly used, is seen as a method of keeping religion from over stepping the bounds of the State rather than vice versa. When the protestant minister wrote Jefferson it was precisely because it was not quite clear as to how the religious were free to carry out their practices and beliefs in light of the Constitution and the common law. Clearly, the concern of the ministers was exactly what we see today, that the government will make the interpretation that religious rights were granted by the government rather than them being unalienable, granted from God and outside of the government dictates.

Here is an excellent explanation of the insecurities held by the Danbury Baptist and Jefferson over how Article one was worded and where Jefferson stood on the matter of the "wall of separation between Church and State' by David Barton in 2001.

Contraception plays a pivotal health care role and as a modern device a series departure between the values of the Church and that of the world. It was the subject to of Pope Paul Encyclia "Humane Vitae" which explain that there must be no division between the marital act and procreation. In fact, that prophetic encyclia has proven to reveal the social, psychological and spiritual ill's done to people's who have legalized the practice. Today for instance there is 'gay-marriages' and legalized abortion. Women in the United States including the most talented women are more sexual objects than in any other time in U.S. history, hardly a singer or actress accepts an award in something that most 'decent' women would not wear. Sex trafficking is up, prostitution is seen as a credible way of making of a living even for women of good back ground, pornography itself is legal making that a legitimate career choice for millions of young American women.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Psychiatric Health

Thomas Jefferson slept with his slaves, he apparently found the wall of separation between slaves and their master to be permeable whenever it suited him. Thomas Jefferson's removal of all supernatural references from his New Testament also reveals him to be not just a deists who has a god which does not interfere with man during man's existence, i.e. not the Christian God but has a split in his mind, a compartmentalization which he employs to justify his actions. To adhere to the metaphor (which is impossible) of a separation of Church and State via an imaginary wall is to follow in the foot steps of a narcissist, someone suffering with a personality disorder, in fact it's psychotic if one actually intends to claim such a wall exists.

With these separations as between the marital act and procreation via contraceptives, we find this entire culture of compartmentalized existences. Homosexuality is legitimize by a separation between intercourse and fertility, prostitution and pornography as well. We also find abortion is legitimized as a separation between a human being's person hood and a human fetus being considered nothing more than a ball of cells. This is a interpretation, a world view that is being forced upon the Catholic who does not share this perception of human existence. The Catholic is distinguished via three theological principles, that of sacramentality, mediation and communion. The world view, which it has to be separation of the religious or the supernatural from the natural is that whatever is accommodating to man, man can have. Ostensibly in the same vein that a common law marriage is established between a man and woman after a set number of years of co-habitation the natural world naturally establishes it's own religion out of a organic evolution of metaphysical necessity whereby for the sake of convince behaviours here to fore shunned from a Christian perspective and valued base have to be acknowledge such as homosexuality, contraception and abortion. These values when enforced by federal and state legislation erect themselves as dogmas of a secular faith which is entrusted to carry on the state with man as god, hence secularist have their own religion, which is most evident in 'gay-marriages'. Where to fore in Christiandom vows are made between not merely man and man but with God as the one who sanctifies the union and is arbiter of marital obligations, in a 'gay-marriage' there is no actual obligations, as there is no enforceable roles to play or discernible breeches of roles. This is because 'gay-marriage' it self is farcical and playful, which can only be the case when both participants are gay. What's more since the 'gay-marriage' was established by the state it can and has been abolished by the same, in fact the state has as the arbiter the power to forcible divorce those it has joined together as their identity as a married couple is solely recognized by the state and friends but only the state has the legislative authority to join and disband the two. The defacto demurrage which is the psychological habitation of both contraceptive users and homosexuals, a state of play, lives by the thesis that because it can not exist, it is permissible. Which contrarily is ostensibly the reason for the atheistic stance of the state, because God does exist, He is not permitted to enter into the state. This is the basic reasoning that one can't go away from something that is not.

Yet as early on as the 1930's we see that the Catholic Church was well aware of the evils that would arise with the State's meddling in Holy matrimony by the prophet Pius XI in his book where he describe the establishment of a "culture" of "license of base fornicating women".

To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

This is predicament that we find ourselves in here today. The writing above however, is from 1930.  Truly a prophet proves himself.

No comments:

Post a Comment