I have been lamenting the fact that the leaders in the Lutheran Church -have not been taking a stand against oppressive government policies-
They stood silent when the debauched LBJ put forth the 501 C3 -to shut his critics up-
This one is a statement from LCMS Pres. Harrison : If you only view one of the videos-PLEASE view this one-
Hugs From - LA Lutherans for Life!
I was up-set when I found that my former Lutheran pastor had a standing subscription to the Separationist-Magazine-he really believed that there was a Separation between Church and State-I said to him-
"I'm glad that the 'Black Regiment' (those black robed clergy who signed the Declaration of Independence ) did not believe in the separation of church and state!"-
I asked him if he remembered a Lutheran pastor -Peter Muhleberg-who became an officer army during the Revolution-
That the words Separation of Church and State are NOT in our Constitution-but they are in the old Communist Constitution!
I have also stated that - when the LUTHERAN CHURCH starts getting involved vocally-politically-
the government servants are going to get an ear-full--
Well-here is Rev- Harrison before Congress-
BTW-any 501 C3 organization can utilize 5 % of its time in 'political ' matters-
FOR FREEEEEEDOM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Well done. There is hardly anything out there on the hearings.
Amen to the first video!!
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
DI-Glad the Black Regiment did not think as you do-
Thanks for stopping by-
and for your lengthy take--
Good to hear the various churches are now speaking out against obama, they need to speak out and encourage their congregations to vote for anyone else other than obama before the election.
This is why i say we need to oppose the pro-death crowd at every turn and fight them tooth and nail. They've been given a little bit and now here we are with unborn babies murdered by the millions, abortion on demand, funded by the taxes of those who view it as murder and now those who hate it being forced to offer it as well.
The way it's going they'll be demanding that we all start slicing up fetuses or else! I know it's hard to believe but i can't guarantee it'll never happen.
As to the establishment of a 'national church'- the Founders were against that European concept - thus- Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists-assuring them that there would be no Nationally financed/established church- - His words -separation of church and state meant that the state could NOT INTERFERE w/ the church-
Like I stated- the Christian church must be involved with the affairs of state -or the state becomes tyrannous-
Post a Comment