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?
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.
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?