Skip to comments.I Don't Want Freedom of Religions(Constitution)
Posted on 03/19/2012 5:09:03 PM PDT by marktwain
The attack on religious liberty is a two front war. One front you know about, the other one you may not have noticed.
Language is the blunt instrument of choice with which the secularist left in this country bludgeons our freedoms. The secularist left has successfully used seemingly slight alterations in language to change the way ordinary people perceive an argument. Most people who pay attention to these things are very much aware of this tactic, as we have seen it so often.
This is nowhere more apparent today than in the Presidents repeated use of the phrase freedom of worship rather than freedom of religion. They prefer and proffer this language change because freedom of worship is about something you do for one hour a week. Freedom of religion is about how you live in the other 167 hours of the week. The secularist left now in control of our government is content to allow one hour of free worship so long as they get to tell you how to live the other 167 hours. Of course, our Constitution does not guarantee us merely freedom of worship but freedom of religion. The first amendment is about all 168 hours a week, which is the whole point. The secularist left hopes that by repeated references to freedom of worship, you will eventually come to accept the diminution of your God-given rights.
This change in language is often coupled with another bit of lesser-known subterfuge used to rob people of their God-given freedom, the corporatizing of rights. By this, I mean the attempt to take rights that naturally and rightly belong to the individual and apply them only to a group. When these rights belong only to a group, then the government can determine who belongs to this group.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Some of us view the way we live our lives each day as an act of worship so that the choice of worship/religion poses little problem.
A very good article explaining the underlining workings of the Liberal march: “Two steps forward, one step back...is still one step forward.”
Good article. I love pulling something out of an article that I can use in debate and this one gave me an idea.
The next time someone says that since the Catholic Church accepts federal money, they must follow the rules of the government. I will ask them, “so logically speaking, the government can make any welfare recipient follow whatever religion the government deems appropriate”. Or better yet, the government would have the authority to require a welfare recipient become an atheist.