“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

A synopsis of my analysis of the protection of religion—-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therein:
1) Using the word “respect” rather than “abridge” means congress can disrespect Islam. This implies knowledge that most religion is good. And that it is good religion is free from government laws.
2) Congress may not institute any religion.
3) Free exercise includes the use of religion or its teachings by individuals to help them in their job; this is called administrative conscience. As most religion is good, its teaching should and could be used by the individual in government, or anywhere it may help; that is what free exercise of religion is. Any limitation on one’s use of religious teaching is clearly a restriction of free exercise of religion.
I would like to teach you something. Religion is good. It can be corrupted, but it is meant to be good. The state has a more nefarious origin. Insofar as it is devoid of religion by taking everything at face value, organizing people not by spiritual ideas, but in direct contradiction, particularly elected governments, to the kingdom of god or the peak of truth being an accurate rendition of the human race. Religion is about truth to counter the severe lies of the state regarding everyone.
Wars are 90% of the time involving states, not religions. The great lie that religions start war, is just completely not true, and gives a fine example, or propaganda, pure and simple, that falsely implies, Vietnam, Korea, (both unnecessary wars) ww2, ww2 the Spanish American war? The civil war, the war with the Indians—-these were all wars of the state and government—and this fine example and exposure of propaganda, shows you just how etched propaganda is in the liberal mind. It is a highly oppressed thought pattern to associate war with religions, when the state has such a problem with war.
Often though, religion is a part of the state, and this is not too bad. Czarist Russia, The Byzantine Empire, Ancient Hebrews, traditional tribes, druids that ran legal systems, the papal state, the roman republic, all demonstrated confidence in the wisdom of religion being intimate with government. Far more so than the mere protection of religious practice, these governments were endowed with religion close to government.
 Closeness was demonstrated by building huge couches out of stone for Zeus to chill on when the Roman Republic won a campaign. The Roman Republic also had sacred geese, they would try to feed, before battle, and if the geese didn’t eat, then no battle. Likewise the religion of augury, interpreting as symbolic, events and issues; sometimes wise men would spill an animals guts, and try to foretell the future based on the way the guts looked and landed. Also, there would be animal and even human sacrifices, when things were going bad or the chips were down.

 Things were bad enough, that the notion of a higher power was an evil one, that required sacrifice. Life was fearful. The Kingdom of God was not a term then, and identifying it didn’t seem allowed; yet ultimately, that is the fear

America, a political movement, moved by people and history Christian, was not a religious movement; though the land was strange and they were across a giant sea. In many respects, through the centuries, Christianity, and other religions, have identified and tailored a place for themselves, outside government, and as such, as providing a service specific for the refutation and spiritual contrast of the letters of government. The term “The Kingdom of God” refutes, elections, disbelieves actions of government, shows an entirely different basis for decisions making and concern, than what the governments operate on now. Sin refers to the dysfunctional society we are in. The light of the path protestantism offers, seems to be of a world outside government, acknowledging the kingdom of god, and generating its needs and discussion sidestepping and under or not bothered by the radar of government. While Christianity and religion seeks to service people and society and speak to what is not seen so well, in face of an unspiritual government upon an primordially spiritual earth—we can not side step the noble ideals of political science; ultimately government and religion have the same goals of a better earth, The former need step over it assumptions to spiritual assertions, and the latter may need some power to implement and manifest spirituality and good things.

The first amendment does not say abridge, it says respect. “Congress shall make no law ‘respecting’ establishments of religion. And this choice of words is specifically to deal with a violent movement like Islam, or biting religion like vampires. If the law said ‘abridge’ then if a movement claiming to be religious threatened American society, then there would be no law that could be made to abridge it. If the first amendment reads, as it does, no law respecting religion, well then, congress may very well by this trick of legal assertion, make a law disrespecting a certain religion, and I really think you see the tricky thinking of our founders here.

I also think the argument that Islam is a political state, not a religion, is necessary to the debate. What other religion has a class system where the non Muslims have less rights, and in history, was the class that paid taxes? Right there, that pedestrian imposition upon a spiritual domain, of religion, precludes it as a religion. What other religion mandates frequent public prayer? Is that not more a bowing to the state and status quo, an obligation that reduces questioning, or at least unites questioning into one frequent mass movement, thus risking it in other venues, by the eyes of this behavior of frequent prayer gathering. There have been a thousand religions since 1000 bc, but we know so few of them. But the best definition of an uncorrupted religion, is that it gives teachings you may try to apply to improve your life. From religion, you may manifest goals. It is the opposite of oppression, it is meant to be as liberating as any activity providing learning.

Islam spread by arms and political rights. They were the Barbary pirates, whose America’s first war was with. They genocided Armenia, and terrorized Greece, persecuting other religions, as a political expression of total control, in contradiction to the free thinking spirituality engenders. All the other empires spread from state, not religious, so the image of conquering is also a political, not religious image. In the classical world, religions were always gaining and losing popularity and spreading to new places. Far from discouraging new religions, ancient cities traditionally invited cool religions from other places. There was a myriad of religion back then, and government would not think of not having anything to do and not utilizing the more successful ones to help government with its trials and tribulations.

The fault with provincial understandings of Islam is the assumption that societies need money. They don’t. Societies got along for years without money, and there is no intrisnic association of society with money. That people don’t work together and focus on common values, speaks badly of the west. More tribal societies that meet together more often as members, are clearly superior on that count. Thus seeing Islam as a means to sell us oil, for the koran promotes money and westernization, shows us the manipulation of arab land by Islam; for without it, who is to say the arab tribes would use money or part with oil?

But this religious horde, like the Visigoths and Romans, no doubt, is easy to control, because as the human is transformed to the human being within a kingdom of god, so the will to these movements come from a metaphysic, and negotiation of the universe and afterlife. These are historical statements, metaphors for larger pictures, of course, but not to be taken at face value as being a combination of a million little autonomous wills. No, these situations are controlled by metaphysics, and constitute metaphysics.

So the term The Kingdom of God, can not be outlawed, or we would lose a facile faculty of communication. It is vital. Religion is meant to be protected from the intrusions of government. No government in its right mind would abridge good religion. And the free exercise of religion must extend where an individual might find it useful.

While no law may favor one religion, certainly administrative conscience, and individuals may apply the learning of a spiritual portion of their life, to better do their job. Otherwise free exercise would be certainly prohibited. If religion can help a government, and probably many can, unofficially, doing so, must be free exercise of religion, anything less, is clearly not free.

Then we must examine the phrase Congress makes no law, then must no one make a law. In other words if congress may not abridge speech, can facets of society? If congress may not abridge speech, how can it allow contracts such as the buy out of apartment dwellers in Brooklyn by Atlantic Yards that include restrictions upon the apartment dwellers speaking out on the issue? American ideals of unsuppressed speech should extend to their tarnishments of self suppression for money. Some things are off the table in a free land, because a free land has a code. If congress can make no law, surely it would have issues with contracts suppressing speech on relevant topics; even if that suppression is self-decided on, it may still be illegal, in America, by the ideal of protected speech.

Likewise to say the mosque can be built because congress may not respect religion may local officials? Though this analogy ignores the word respect allows disrespect. And through history there have been evil negative movements speared by one ideology, embodied a one or several leaders, and this metaphysic is dangerous and not be what America becomes. And it is good and natural for government to pursue truth. One figures it would be natural for journalism as well.

Yet Journalism has not uncovered that while the threat of hell and promise of heaven is within Greek mythology and Islam, a great deal of religions are about the here and now and transformation. There is no reference to heaven and hell in the old and new testament. There is the term The Kingdom of Heaven, but it is an operating force, a place afterlife, but being a part of the metaphysical creation of this life, and metaphysical as well.

Journalism never spelled out the reformation was a reaction to the morbid corrupt fixation of roman Catholicism, at the expense of the teaching which both explains how such could be merely written, and Easter, which celebrates his being seen. How could he die for you and be seen on Sunday? That is what motivated the reformation. It is a great evil to let atheism remove spirituality from the democratic party, and journalism, and history. But at least history is understood as metaphysical and atheistic of necessity. To not consider relying on religion to make the case for the practice of religion as appropriate within government, is not good, for it rules out what ease Christian terminology and literacy provides an intelligent society. A service calling everything the world of sin insofar as it is incorporated in isolation, oppression and lies, casts down the government’s pedestrian assertions and operating assumptions; but only that wanting the false would benefit by keeping the spiritual so out of politics.

 Every single atheist I’ve ever known, or met, was raised catholic and so turned off from religion by its morbid and corrupt fascination, as to hate all religions, even though just that aspect of catholocism reduced his religion interest.

In any event, we should be looking on how we understand religion, than understanding these words of the first amendment, deconstructed as they are to protect religion. For it is in our knowledge and use of religion, that we see the vitality of its protection by government. Undoubtedly this protection has fallen, as an education that obscures spirituality arisen, as a media proclaiming truth trumpets nightly an essential cover up of the kingdom of god. If The Kingdom of God is true, which it is, then everything on the news is essentially made up. This is a lot of violence and unpleasant manifestations of universe discomfort. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the situation.

How is separation done? By a demonization of religion; so the final denial of truth in an increasingly technological and removed society, may be completed and we forget altogether that there is something more than the material world, quietly important and transforming the human to human being, in very cause of our metaphysical hardship we struggle to master. And within metaphysics are we capable of discussing as society what religion is?

Societies are limited historically.
 
What would a law respecting a religion be, anyway. Would a law respecting Christianity require a recognition of the kingdom of god, and how you are created to be of the world of man, but also, very close to god, the kingdom of god, or gods and goddesses. Truly, a law respecting Christianity would order the combination of the god, with the man, so society may go, in respect and recognition of the kingdom of god.
Surely a law respecting the jews, by congress, would be the assertion and recognition of tribal powers, or a recognition of judeo legal autonomy, or a recognition of Hebrew or encouraging journalistic writing.
Surely a law respecting the hindu would make a federal holiday out of respecting the stars and the universe above; perhaps promote discussion of the atman and brahman sort of thing, pipe in Indian music at some shopping malls.
So there are many potential laws respecting a great many religions that could be made, if this law is shown to be strikely contrived in its use of the word “respect”. And by showing how this word is meant to refrain us from blanket freedom, we may have the opportunity to see how that the respect of religions is good, and creative society should promote a direction of spiritual direction.
You know the second king of Rome, Numa, was the wisest man the romans could find after romulus disappeared in a cloud on a hill inspecting the troops one late afternoon. Numa lived in a cave and studied the stars and numbers and generally stayed his own business. So the Romans knew he was the real thing, for on making him king, his first act was to make every other day a federal holiday. And this led to a long happy reign of no end.
What law would respect druidism; creation of privat druid courts. What law would respect the pagan? Letting the most rusticated make some determinations with the stars and weather so. What law would the wiccans like? Nice parties outdoors that last weekends, where people understand Wicca.
In short the recognition of this wordplay by our founders, is a stepping stone to citations of all the useful good things different religions do. It is just an evaluation of the word “respect” and how it differs from the word, “abridge”.

Moreover, if you clearly see the different assumptions in religion, than government, then you see the convenient metaphysical cordoning of religion, religion accepts. Religion accepts government, though government stands against what Protestantism should stand for, which is rational people aware of the kingdom of god, perfectly capable of running their own, far better, society.

If you really scrutinize our bill of rights protection of religion; the separation of church and state starts there by excluding government institutionalization or promotion or anything actually respecting, not disrespecting, establishments of religion, through laws of congress. Bad government starts with an atheistic rejection of spirituality and stronger grip on the representation of the being, as more than being, even as we fully admit the protection of religion by the first amendment; we also see how the movement that has ravaged spirituality through religion has impetus from the first amendment’s own lack of further protection; creates a vacum where sucks through atheistic spirits.
The first amendment should actually be the oposite of its current protection of religious means and support laws that respect religion and demonstrate an inherent recognized worth of most religion therein even pleasantly increase the contrast between religions, as freeing the states would increase the contrast of states. The flaccid notion religions don’t like other religions would end once and for all.
When we discuss the wording, and notice the word “respect” suddenly a world of new meaning comes up. Not only can state like monogamous religions like Islam be disrespected by american law, but actual laws respecting good religion are forbidden. Thus as recognize a use of the law as a negative authority on Islam, we notice the gaping hole in the law promoting healthy religious use and exposure; of specific good citable ideas behind religion. We see a nefarious nature of America, mythologized one way, and lacking in another. The birth of America, or her federal government, far from presented on a check on intracine state warfar, and provide common defense, is presented as an ideal form of government. Our form of government is also presented as inspired by our founders, and their own thought. When actually it is very based on the roman republic, probably for its expansive imperial quality over native tribes. It protects local peaceful assembly decision-making, though in America this has been overrun by state constitution’s incorporation of towns with local officials. There is a senate of a hundred members. There are two political parties, called by then, plebes and patricians. There is an executive branch. There are elections for official posts. There are primary and candidate nominating procedures. There was a vice-president. There was a judiciary. This was the republic of Rome for many centuries before Christ.
There are significant differences, the judiciary was staffed by the lower class. There could be more than one president at a time and the term was for a year. The president traveled with the army when there was a war. Everyone was also a member of one of twenty tribes. War was more routine.
So any representation of our founder’s work framing government must include its basis in the known history of the roman republic. That’s where ignorance starts, in passing over the basis of our federal constitution as original, when it is based on a classical form of government that existed elsewhere from Rome as well; such as Carthage, and Italian Tribes with a City.
The word itself of God, to know it is the universe, seems a word of the oppressed by the universe, rather than consciously aware of the universe as oppressive.

An Attorney General’s Office, is fit to recognize the Kingdom of God; but then it would see the legislative as based upon a foolish misrepresentation of the people. What would an attorney general’s office actually do in the face of The Kingdom of God? Would they still want local decision making in peaceful assemblies?

This may evoke the popular case for popular kings, as opposed to elected officials.

The lack of allowing for simple laws of respect for establishments of religion, is where an erroneous notion of seperation of church and state may actually originate. Nor does this wording inhibit the religious conscience of the administrator or actor in their job. All the wise respect illuminating good aspects of religion. The repression masquerading as liberation may lead to historical change and restore the good name of religion. For bad government, or an overemphasis on what is false and lack of recognition of what is true, overlooks what is not seen, and responsible.

 

       Regarding the issue of Arizona issuing tax credits for schools: That is a law respecting establishments of religion: but if we are really bound to the letter of the law: For one thing it is a law made by a state, not by congress: And two, it is a law respecting all religions, not just an establishment of religion; but all establishments of religion that care to offer educational venue.

And finally what would the one law respecting christianity be. To acknowledge a situation on earth government has ignored and not registered much? And what would its effect be? To enable society to get closer to discuss earth and spiritual issues, and through the terminology of several religions?  

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: