Skip to comments.Separate secularism and state
Posted on 10/01/2011 4:01:35 PM PDT by rzman21
John Rossomando Follow John on Twitter
A reporters question to GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich whether or not he would impose Christian values on everyone else Wednesday during the announcement of his 21st Century Contract With America showcases the growing intolerance of Christians on the part of militant secularists. This is also true of the other relgiously motivated attacks on other GOP presidential candidates.
My question to this secularist journalists is: When will you keep your secular utilitarian worldview to yourself and stop trying to force everyone else to accept it?
The First Amendments establishment clause aimed to prevent Congress from legislating matters of THEOLOGY like the divinity of Christ, the number of sacraments, and the like. Never matters of morality. Even the most deistic founders like Jefferson and Franklin did not see any problem with allowing Christianity from influencing moral legislation.
Jefferson wrote the following in an 1809 letter to a certain James Fishback:
Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all religions agree (for all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, or bear false witness), and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality.
Even the Supreme Court acknowledged the place Christianity played in forging the nations common morality in the 1892 Holy Trinity case when it referenced the 1824 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case Updegraph v. Commonwealth that found that:
The constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common law doctrine of Christianity
But now what protects orthodox Christians and Jews from having courts, boards of education, legislatures, or executive agencies from imposing secular, neopagan utilitarian values on them and their children in our current era. Nothing.
In reality their morality is a jump back to the past and is a reincarnation of pagan 2nd century B.C. Epicureanism brought into the modern era through the likes of John Stuart Mill, David Hume, and John Dewey.
Neopagan utilitarianism has effectively been incorporated into our legal system without recourse for dissent.
Progressives arrogantly posit that they are the ultimate in human evolution. But how is taking a jump backwards over 2,000 years to the pre-Christian worldview where people were viewed as things anything other than regressive?
The irony is their morality is what is outdated.
Secularists feel all too confident on pretending they are the arbiters of reality and unilaterally deciding that Christians and Jews who dont accept their call to compulsory Unitarian-Universalism have no right to participate in our democracy.
The sad fact is the First Amendment no longer provides orthodox believers any protections from the whims of judges, legislators, and bureaucrats who use their power to impose their neopagan values.
Consequently, the only solution now is to push through state constitutional amendments placing the same sorts of disabilities that have been imposed on religion on militant secularism.
Only then will there be a level playing field. Until then, the values of moral egotism (aka moral relativism), sexual self-indulgence, and hostility to traditional religion will continue to be forced down our throats in the name of tolerance and enlightenment.
Restore freedom of conscience by separating militant secularism and state.
Newt has Christian values? Who knew?
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.