Liberation Theology: The fruit of Communism and Freemasonry

"Leo XIII understood clearly where The Framers stood, and it is where every sensible person stands. The days when the Bishop of Rome could dictate his will to the sovereign in matters that belong to the polity is over, and rightly so. Governments don't derive their just powers from the phony "donations" of deathbed converts, nor by divine right. He knew that day had come and feared for his phony-baloney job."

You seem to claim that every "sensible person" wants God removed from the public square. No thanks.

"Thus, he manufactured a "heresy." This was his stock and trade, but the market wasn't anywhere near what it used to be. The American Revolution established there would be no room for the kind of monopoly Popes were used to. [It's no accident that there was only one Romanist signer of The Declaration of Independence; only two signed the Constitution.]"

The removal of God from the public life of a nation is an abomination, which has lead to where we are now. Pope Leo didn't "manufacture" this truth. The Americanist system is merely an umbrella that covered specific heresies that lead towards contempt for God in the public square, and which were beginning to assert themselves. And the reason only three Catholics signed the founding documents, is maybe, just possibly, related to the fact that Catholics comprised about 1% of the population at the time, and that Catholics were forbidden to practice law, (among other things), which meant very few Catholics were able to achieve the social and professional status that would befit the signer of said documents.

Maryland was established by Catholics, and with the Toleration Act of 1649 was the only colony to permit freedom of worship to all Christians. Protestants fleeing Anglican persecution in Virginia were granted land charters by the Catholic governor of Maryland...After establishing sufficient numbers, they overthrew the Catholic governor, burned nearly every Catholic Church in the colony, and outlawed Catholicism -- but at the same time levied a double taxation rate on Catholics.

Even in the wake of the American Revolution, some of the Framers (John Jay comes immediately to mind) still called for Catholics to be suppressed -- although I don't know of a any protest he made against the guns, money, and blood of ostensibly Catholic France that aided the United States during the Revolution.

It's really no surprise that the tiny, tiny number of Catholics in the colonies weren't involved in politics (although they gave disproportionate yeoman service to the Continental Navy). They'd have taken their lives into their hands.

You seem to claim that every "sensible person" wants God removed from the public square.

It "seems" that way because you're under the mistaken belief that the Pope is God. No. He isn't. The correct removal of a meddlesome foreign churchman from America's governance doesn't equate to the removal of God. I demand the former, and abhor the latter.

That is what the Founders advocated, That is what I advocate, and that is what Leo XIII found to be a "heresy."

A good bit of the rest of what you write is nonsense. There was, for example, complete religious freedom in Pennsylvania. Catholics could not participate in the political life of the English colonies for the same reason that could not participate in England: the oaths required of them by the Crown were oaths they could not take. That was their choice.

The real truth is that adherents of the Church of Rome were not important in the Founding of America in any sense; and most importantly not in any ideological sense. The "Americanist Heresy" was established long before Leo XIII, because the "Americanist Heresy" was really the "heresy" of the Scottish Enlightenment, which the Roman Church could not abide.

"It "seems" that way because you're under the mistaken belief that the Pope is God. No. He isn't. The correct removal of a meddlesome foreign churchman from America's governance doesn't equate to the removal of God. I demand the former, and abhor the latter."

I don't believe the pope is God. You'd apparently rather have homos grinding Christians into the dust so long as no "meddlesome" Churches are able to get involved.

"A good bit of the rest of what you write is nonsense. There was, for example, complete religious freedom in Pennsylvania."

Nearly FOUR decades after the Tolerance Act of Catholic Maryland. The Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges was not established until 1683, and revision of the charter did not cease until 1701. By the time the Pennsylvania Charter was firmly established, Protestants in Maryland had already overthrown the tolerant Catholic government of the colony.

"Catholics could not participate in the political life of the English colonies for the same reason that could not participate in England: the oaths required of them by the Crown were oaths they could not take. That was their choice."

Yes, and you can choose not to bake for a gay wedding -- you just have to accept the resulting fines and jail time. Some choice. You're parroting the same line as the democrats.

"The real truth is that adherents of the Church of Rome were not important in the Founding of America in any sense; and most importantly not in any ideological sense. The "Americanist Heresy" was established long before Leo XIII, because the "Americanist Heresy" was really the "heresy" of the Scottish Enlightenment, which the Roman Church could not abide."

Before you said Pope Leo XIII manufactured the heresey in question. Now, you're saying it existed long before. Make your mind up -- which is it? Separation of Church and state, resulting, as we see, in the persecution of Christians, is a heresy. The state does not need to establish a religion, but it does need to acknowledge Jesus Christ as sovereign king and use scripture as the basis for any and all laws, which would necessarily make all legislation compatible with the teachings of any Church worth taking seriously.

Until then, enjoy your SCOTUS coming down on the side of butt-rangers.

The state does not need to establish a religion, but it does need to acknowledge Jesus Christ as sovereign king and use scripture as the basis for any and all laws

The first part of your sentence is ENTIRELY incompatible with the second. What you are calling for is no different from Sharia.

English law is not -- and never has been -- descended from scripture. English law came to us from Roman law. Palestine was a backwater of Roman civilization. Neither the Jews, whom the Romans regarded as savages, nor their Abrahamic successors had any influence in the formation of those laws. And thank [the REAL] God for that.

Yes, and you can choose not to bake for a gay wedding -- you just have to accept the resulting fines and jail time. Some choice. You're parroting the same line as the democrats.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. The thread of the argument is why Romanists didn't participate in the Revolution. Given that it was The Crown and not the colonials that forced them to take oaths contrary to their conscience in order to participate in public life, why didn't they raise arms in a revolution to throw off the King? They had everything to gain. Yet only two men did so. And one of them may have been a de facto excommunicant.

Before you said Pope Leo XIII manufactured the heresy in question. Now, you're saying it existed long before.

Again, the reading comprehension problem rears it's ugly head. Please do try to keep up and actually read what's been posted to you. Leo's "heresy" only affirmed what the Church had known all along: that reformed Christianity in general and the Scottish Enlightenment in particular would take secular power away from his church forever. It posited authority in the minds and hands of those governed.

He chose to call it the "Americanist Heresy" to strangle the baby of liberty in its cradle. The British ship had already sailed. He could hardly assault The Enlightenment directly without even the dullards of his own flock understanding what a totalitarian kook he was. But, if you read the document, it's clear that his "Americanist Heresy" was nothing more than an assault on representative government itself.

And you yourself have now posted several pages in support of that very assault.

It’s a fraternity, nothing more, nothing less.

The fraternity has no religious beliefs, nor any theology.

The requirement of believing in G-d is simply to make sure the oaths are trustworthy.

Now, have a lot of freemasons written a bunch of pseudo-religious tripe? Anti-Roman Catholic tripe? Yep. Lots of stupid freemasons have existed.

Lots of smart ones, too, from George Washington to John Wayne.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.