Posted on 02/09/2012 4:59:20 PM PST by landsbaum
Thomas Jefferson said: "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
The third president wasn't Catholic and, arguably, probably not Christian. But he understood that for the government to compel people to pay for something they find morally repugnant is "sinful and tyrannical." The 44th president clearly thinks otherwise...
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
The government has been funding ACORN, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, NPR, PBS, NEA and other leftist orgs for decades. Our enemies are funded by us!!
some did, longingly.
Who-is-blind-like-my-people alert.
The “editorial boarad” sure seems intent on posting excerpts from a single source.
“He who sups with the devil, needs a long spoon”
The Catholic Church in America, the majority of Jews, and all liberal churches haven’t learned this. They’ll continue to worship obozo.
And they will be bigger dumb@$$3$ if they buy him backing down. You know it will all be applied if he steals another election.
"To Rev. Samuel Miller, 23 January 1808
"Sir, -I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it."
"I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.
"I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect."
To James Fishback, 27 September 1809 (L&B 12:315):
"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all nations 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. In all of them we see good men, and as many in one as another. The varieties in the structure and action of the human mind as in those of the body, are the work of our Creator, against which it cannot be a religious duty to erect the standard of uniformity. The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, he has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses. It is, then, a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the innocent questions on which we schismatize."
To Miles King, 26 September 1814 (L&B 14:197-8):
"He has formed us moral agents. Not that, in the perfection of His state, He can feel pain or pleasure in anything we may do; He is far above our power; but that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own. I must ever believe that religion substantially good which produces an honest life, and we have been authorized by One whom you and I equally respect, to judge of the tree by its fruit. Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friends or our foes, are exactly the right. Nay, we have heard it said that there is not a Quaker or a Baptist, a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian, a Catholic or a Protestant in heaven; that, on entering that gate, we leave those badges of schism behind, and find ourselves united in those principles only in which God has united us all."
The same Jefferson who penned our Declaration of Independence wrote that Jesus "preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence," that "a system of morals is presented to us [by Jesus], which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man."
He wrote, "His moral doctrines...were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers...and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants, and common aids" which, Jefferson said, "will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others."
Comparing the Hebrew code which, according to Jefferson, "laid hold of actions only," "He [Jesus] pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head."
That Jefferson cut out the statements which could be directly attributable to Jesus, pasted them into a little book which he kept by his bed and read from them daily, attests to the fact that his political philosphy may have been influenced by what he considered to be the superiority of the "philosophy" of Jesus.
It is unlikely that any person alive today, including the current President, has read the writings of as many of the great philosophers as Jefferson. His talents and abilities were legend. His devotion to liberty and to the ideas essential to liberty were based on simple principles, some of which, undoubtedly, came from his understanding of the basic law underlying all valid human law: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." As Jefferson stated it, "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
Jefferson seemed to understand that the philosophy capsulated in those ideas has the power to make individuals in a society more benevolent, more loving, more caring, and more willing to take care of each other voluntarily.
What he never claimed about the teachings of Jesus was an approval of coercive, government-enforced proxy charity--that is, that some men are qualified by their election to office to "take" from hard-working citizens in order to redistribute to others in the name of benevolence.
The Muslims in America will use this, an other contortions to get around our laws.
To me there could be dangerous precedence in how this Obama /Catholic fight works out. The gander is watching from the mosques. - tom
What did they expect from a Muslim that lies and hides major parts of his life history, whom no one can say who he really is, shows utter contempt to The Constitution and any laws that don’t suit him? Did they expect him to recognize the separation of church and state? How naive, dictators like 0bama do as they please!
YES!
2000 years later and they still don’t see Judas.
When can Catholics and Christians stop pretending that the government, systematically cleansed of morality and Western ethics by the courts and elitists, has anything to do with Christianity’s moral leadership and healing role in society? Social justice is another way of saying “pass the Christian mercy buck to Stalin. He won’t murder anybody this time.”
Great Post !!!
Now, in the case of the prohibition on Chaplains, they are attacking another prong of that Amendment--freedom of speech.
Enough already! During the Revolutionary Period, the pulpit in America was resounding with the ideas of liberty, motivating "the People" to assert their Creator-endowed rights, and to reject the ideas of tyranny, no matter how they were cloaked.
They have been late to the battle of late, but now, they have been awakened.
In this particular case, the assault has come on just one doctrinal belief of one major faith group. Rest assured, though, that people of faith from all sects will be able to discern that if the assault can be framed as "women's health and contraception" today, it can be against any number of deeply-held beliefs and practices tomorrow.
James Madison declared: "Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant—they have been cheated; asleep—they have been surprised; divided—the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? ... the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government, they should watch over it ... It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free."
Obamacare/health care will soon attack the 2nd Amendment because, in their ideology, having guns in the home is a health risk that far outweights self-defense, and a heavy penalty will be levied until you turn in the guns.
I fear this will be a tar baby as well, it doesn’t make any sense for him to take this losing position otherwise.
“But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.”
This man is an anti-Christ. He may not be the main one but he is one of many. His agenda is pure evil.
“The 44th President clearly thinks otherwise...”
The 44th President is a really really smart, intelligent,intellectual, Progressive genius and he knows better than everyone else in the world.
/s/
“The Catholic Church in America, the majority of Jews, and all liberal churches...”
Good examples of secular religion hiding behind the skirts of churches and synagogues.
IMHO
I agree with you totally!
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.