Originally Posted by CTD


I have some good news: we can prove - absolutely and beyond dispute - what 'freedom of religion' really is!

I submit for your perusal an unique document, of surprising significance


Now I'm supposing some may have been a little disappointed. "Sure that Virginia Statute's fine work, but how does it really prove anything?"

Okay, you need to realize - not just casually be vaguely aware, but realize - some things. The intent of the Virginia Statute is clear; things are spelled out in detail. It cannot be disputed that the intention was for Christianity to compete on a level playing field with other ideas. It cannot be disputed that the reason for doing so was Christian, and uniquely so. It cannot be disputed that America was intended to become ever more Christian over time. Review and see.

Advocates of atheism and such, know what they need. They know their perpetual self-contradiction cannot compete. They know other false religions can't either. Even on the issue of a level playing field - the very ground rules, they absolutely must dispute Christianity.

They tell us the proper place to be a Christian is in private; that we are to be just like them in public. They tell us that's what "separation of church and state" entails.
Care for an example?

Quote
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible." - Barack Obama


Contrast such silliness with the Virginia Statute. If ideas are to compete, and truth prevail, surely the place where advocates of false garbage are not to be protected is the public arena. That's where the competition must occur! In private is where they're "safe" from exposure to truth. It would be wrong to go barging into their homes or their pagan ceremonies demanding that they stop and listen to us.

Scoffers get everything backwards, everything! The public venues are the places ideas are to compete, without question. Just because someone has no confidence in their hopeless, weak trash - that's no reason to restrict freedom!

Clearly America was a Christian country (no other worldview has ever even remotely approached such measures); clearly the Virginia Statute was passed for the purpose of helping it become moreso. Are you seeing some significance yet?

There's more. Geographically, Virginia's right in the middle. Many of the names one associates with the founding of the United States are Virginian. They were influential, and well-traveled, well-aware of the sentiments of Americans in all regions. On that basis alone we might maintain the Virginia Statute represents the overall thinking of Americans during the era.

But there is no need to even go near that path. Enemies of liberty have hung all their hopes on one single phrase. Rather than consult the actual U.S. Constitution itself, they always trot out "separation of church and state." They count on people to misunderstand, to be utterly ignorant of the meaning. (Or at least to consider flagrantly anti-Christian twists and distortions as "legitimate points of view".)

The Virginia Statute is the cure. It is! It really, really is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Their own little out-of-context, cherry-picked, misinterpreted phrase can no longer be any mystery at all. The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.

The Virginia Statute was written ... by Thomas Jefferson. We know exactly what he meant, down to the small details!

So how then might one imagine a Soviet style "separation of church and state" is what Jefferson had in mind? The enemy, desperate at this point, might suggest Jefferson changed his mind, right?

Let them! We've got that covered too. First of all, it is the intention of the people that matters. Neither the Virginians nor the U.S. Congress, much less the Constitutional Convention endorsed any Soviet style concepts. Even if Jefferson had lost his mind, what bearing would that have on the issues?

He didn't, and history proves it. We know what Thomas Jefferson was talking about, period. We know he didn't radically alter his views because before his death he specified the marker to be placed on his grave, the accomplishments for which he desired to be remembered.

Check it out:
[Linked Image]

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM82BW_Thomas_Jefferson_Grave_Marker_Columbia_Missouri

Quote
(The Original Epitaph)

Here Was Buried
Thomas Jefferson

Author
Of the Declaration of
American Independence
of
The Statute of Virginia
For Religious Freedom and
Father of the University
Of Virginia

Born April 2nd
1745 O.S.
Died July 4, 1826


There you have it. Done deal. No gainsaying, no playing stupid, no chance to deceive one single soul. We know what liberty we were intended to have, and so does everyone else.

Now here it is again. Ain't it beautiful?

Quote
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1785
..........

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.


bunnydance harp yesnod stickdance horray guitarrock smileyfamily signpraisegod

Last edited by CTD; 01/06/12 09:23 PM. Reason: whatever...

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson