That Which Is Caesar's....

[PoliticalChic]

1. While the secular Left's attempt to erase any and all signs of religion from the public arena is based on a totally bogus argument made up by KKK official and an anti-religion bigot appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin Roosevelt, there is the opposite battle, in which the church demanded its due from the state.



2. Early in Church history, it made clear that God's authority is preeminent.

Theodosius the Great, was Roman Emperor from 379 to 395. Theodosius was the last emperor to rule over both the eastern and the western halves of the Roman Empire."
Theodosius I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3." In 390 the population of Thessalonica rioted in complaint against the presence of the local Gothic garrison. The garrison commander was killed in the violence, so Theodosius ordered the Goths to kill all the spectators in the circus as retaliation; Theodoret, a contemporary witness to these events, reports:

"... the anger of the Emperor rose to the highest pitch, and he gratified his vindictive desire for vengeance by unsheathing the sword most unjustly and tyrannically against all, slaying the innocent and guilty alike. It is said seven thousand perished without any forms of law, and without even having judicial sentence passed upon them; but that, like ears of wheat in the time of harvest, they were alike cut down."
Ibid.




4. Perspective, here: This was the fourth century.....Emperors, potentates of all stripes answered to no one. The slaughter of innocents, even in the thousands, as in this case,....simply all in a days work. Unless that Emperor, claimed to be a Christian, and contemporary with the Bishop of Milan, Ambrose.

5. Ambrose, hardly a friend to non-Christians, nevertheless established a precedent that echoes throughout Western civilization: no one is above the law, in this case the laws of morality.
He excommunicated the emperor, writing:
"There was that done in the city of the Thessalonians of which no similar record exists, which I was not able to prevent happening; which, indeed, I had before said would be most atrocious when I so often petitioned against it. I dare not offer the sacrifice if you intend to be present. Is that which is not allowed after shedding the blood of one innocent person, allowed after shedding the blood of many? I do not think so."
An Ancient Bishop Rebukes His Emperor for Crimes Against Life: A Story of St. Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius « Archdiocese of Washington





6. This must be recognized as a cornerstone of our legal system, and a repudiation of the interpretation of King as God. No, there is God, and a man who must obey a higher authority. Moral authority stems from God, and not from the state.

a. "Theodosius consented to public penance at the cathedral in Milan. Ambrose had risked everything to assert ecclesiastical preeminence in moral judgment. In so doing, he provided an example that would echo through the centuries." Christianity and Progress





7. “Let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other." Thomas Paine


The law of which he speaks finds its origin in religion and morality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. In the above we can glean a step forward in the evolution of society; the king is no longer god on earth. And through that, the equality of all people is raised.



Yet, in the last century or two, a devolution has occurred. The power to decide all manner of things has flowed back into the hands of the emperor, the state.



a. "To embrace the philosophy of the Left, it is almost imperative that one reject the Bible, and religion in general. The urge of the Left to surrender choice and self government for illusion, to insist on statism and government rule rather than citizens ruling the government, is a rejection of the lesson of the Exodus.

b. The Left embraces socialism, the herd mentality of slavery. Socialism and the other totalist modes offers the incalculable benefit of freedom from thought. There are no more disquieting choices, no contradictions, there is the simple act of submission to the herd, in which the ideas of all are the same, and, therefore, equal.

c. The French Jacobins, the very provenance of the Leftists, had a way of dealing with inequality: they cut off the offenders’ heads. The Modern Liberal is more nuanced: their method is to shame, marginalize, satirize, ridicule or otherwise silence. Or at least excoriate as evil."
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 8.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. On page 221 in David Mamet’s book “The Secret Knowledge” he quotes Christopher Hollis who wrote in 1936:

“The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”

Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.
Wacko Atheists Sue Over WTC Cross |Blogs | NCRegister.com


And, if religion and morality are erased a a guide for society, what is left but the state....
.....and no restraints on its activities.

 

[Moonglow]

More fallacies than an episode of "Family Guy"..the whole argument is mute if you fail to prove that God exists and ,does exactly what humans have written into a Book which for centuries has subjugated and censored humans just as bad as a leftist dictatorship, and let us not forget those that were killed at the hands of Christians doing Christian thangs..

 

[onecut39]

9. On page 221 in David Mamet’s book “The Secret Knowledge” he quotes Christopher Hollis who wrote in 1936:

“The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”

Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.
Wacko Atheists Sue Over WTC Cross |Blogs | NCRegister.com




And, if religion and morality are erased a a guide for society, what is left but the state....
.....and no restraints on its activities.

Oh lord save mefrom these religious nut cases who know nothing of government and damn little about their own (so called) faith.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. On page 221 in David Mamet’s book “The Secret Knowledge” he quotes Christopher Hollis who wrote in 1936:

“The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”

Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.
Wacko Atheists Sue Over WTC Cross |Blogs | NCRegister.com




And, if religion and morality are erased a a guide for society, what is left but the state....
.....and no restraints on its activities.

Oh lord save mefrom these religious nut cases who know nothing of government and damn little about their own (so called) faith.

You may consider yourself saved.....

...I consider you benighted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

More fallacies than an episode of "Family Guy"..the whole argument is mute if you fail to prove that God exists and ,does exactly what humans have written into a Book which for centuries has subjugated and censored humans just as bad as a leftist dictatorship, and let us not forget those that were killed at the hands of Christians doing Christian thangs..

Where are the examples of fallacies?


And, whether God exists or not, Theodocius and Ambrose did....and that was today's lesson.


Now, free of charge, I'll include a history lesson bringing us up to today.

Take notes.


10. So, in some ways, we have come full circle, from the restraining influence that the early church imposed on the Roman emperor, to today, where there is a revival of the view that government can do whatsoever it feels necessary.



This, the Progressive movement.....the source of worship for Leftists.

Progresssive influence is largely a step back, to that time when the state could without restrictions, impose its will. The provenance of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled: Germans have a history of accepting authoritarian rule....as do Leftists.
Ring a bell?



11. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany.




12. And that is an extension of The Codex, the law from the time of Roman Emperor Justinian, which still exerts its influence on Europe and is known as the Civil Law tradition.
The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem) Rosen, "Justinian's Flea"





And, since you refer to 'fallacies,' here's one:

"...a Book which for centuries has subjugated and censored humans just as bad as a leftist dictatorship...let us not forget those that were killed at the hands of Christians doing Christian thangs (sic)."


I'd be happy to provide specifics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just as a Roman emperor believed that he needed to answer to no one or restrict his actions....
....today we have governance of the same view.

Progressives.


13. Let's take a look at the Progressive view that the state can do whatsoever it wishes.

An example of how Progressive governance looks can be seen in Teddy Roosevelt, and in Woodrow Wilson. They threw aside the constitutional restrictions when they wished. Taft condemned this as an “unsafe doctrine,” which assumes the President “is to play the part of a universal providence and set all things right.”
Pringle, “The Life and Times of William Howard Taft,” p.425.




"....play the part of a universal providence...." That means 'social justice.'



a."Given his impetuous temperament, it comes as no surprise that Roosevelt [Teddy, but equally to Franklin] had little regard for the limits the Constitution imposed on the presidency. In the United Mine Workers strike in 1902, Roosevelt threatened to order the army to run the coal mines.

Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!"
Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."



Roosevelt's disregard for the Constitution carried over to his conduct of foreign affairs. Woods explains in detail the way in which Roosevelt in 1905 arrogated to himself the power to reach a binding agreement with the Dominican Republic to administer that country's customs collections. The Constitution clearly requires that treaties be submitted to the Senate for its approval, but Roosevelt at first refused to submit the agreement to the Senate. Faced with protests, he at last did submit the treaty; but when the Senate did not act on it, Roosevelt was not deterred.

Exasperated, Roosevelt simply defied the senate, drawing up what we would today call an executive agreement, the foreign policy equivalent of an executive order."
The Mises Review: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.



Ironic? Theordore channeling Theodosius.


See what I mean about a step backwards?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Oh lord save mefrom these religious nut cases who know nothing of government and damn little about their own (so called) faith.

Oh Lord save me from these government worshiping nut cases who know nothing of Romans 13 yet try to hammer me with it as an excuse to tax me until I have nothing.

 

[Moonglow]

Taxes are a fact of life, even George Washington taxed and levied.....and had to send out the Army to collect in some cases...

 

[hobelim]

Oh lord save mefrom these religious nut cases who know nothing of government and damn little about their own (so called) faith.

Oh Lord save me from these government worshiping nut cases who know nothing of Romans 13 yet try to hammer me with it as an excuse to tax me until I have nothing.

What I find extremely astonishing is that during the time that epistle was written, 55 ce, Nero was the emperor of Rome who is remembered most for his perverse mind and his persecution of Christians..

Either Paul was patently evil or his epistle was altered.

God wants people to submit to worldly authority my ass.

 

[Gadawg73]

At the time this nation was founded what did the Founders have as their model in England and all other European states?
Monarchies where God and religion WERE the governments.
So what did the Founders see as a result of the monarchies, who ruled with iron fists under the power of divine right where God and God only ordained them as the masters over the common man?
A rise in the belief in the supernatural as over 100,000 people were burned at the stake for practicing "witchcraft", Enlightment thinkers which were influenced by the Reformation and scientific discoveries like Newton's discovery of the laws of gravity and Copernicus', Galileo and other scientists which resulted in state supported and backed by all the monarchies persecution based on religion.
As a result of that scenario across the pond the Founders structured a secular government with the United States Constitution as the foundation.
A document that does not mention God or a Supreme being anywhere in it.

 

[alang1216]

While it is true religion my temper government excess lets review some situations in today's world where theology is supreme over secular authority. Iran comes to mind as does the newest theocratic state ISIS. There are plenty of other locations where Sharia Law is the law of the land. Anyone envy them?

Least we just say "tsk, tsk, those crazy Muslims are at it again", we don't have to go back too far in time to see examples of Christian abuses. Go even further back and you'll find Jewish excess.

My conclusion is that theology and politics is a dangerous mix. A better idea is to spread the power around both inside (executive, legislative, & judicial) and outside (news/media, scientists, educators, and yes religions) of government. That is the strength of our system here as the founders knew.

 

[Mad Scientist]

At the time this nation was founded what did the Founders have as their model in England and all other European states?
Monarchies where God and religion WERE the governments.

No. England was Oppressing the Colonies, they were not the "model".

So what did the Founders see as a result of the monarchies, who ruled with iron fists under the power of divine right where God and God only ordained them as the masters over the common man?

You misunderstand.

The English Kings declared they had Divine Right to rule so they made Laws and generally did what they wanted. It's a giant Jedi Mind Trick that the British STILL accept for some reason.

Our Founding Fathers declared that Rights come from God and no man can take them away, they are Unalienable.

What you see in America today are the Politicians DECLARING themselves Kings and Above the Law so they'll do pretty much what they want.

And they will continue to do so until they're stopped.

 

[Gadawg73]

At the time this nation was founded what did the Founders have as their model in England and all other European states?
Monarchies where God and religion WERE the governments.

No. England was Oppressing the Colonies, they were not the "model".

So what did the Founders see as a result of the monarchies, who ruled with iron fists under the power of divine right where God and God only ordained them as the masters over the common man?

You misunderstand.

The English Kings declared they had Divine Right to rule so they made Laws and generally did what they wanted. It's a giant Jedi Mind Trick that the British STILL accept for some reason.

Our Founding Fathers declared that Rights come from God and no man can take them away, they are Unalienable.

What you see in America today are the Politicians DECLARING themselves Kings and Above the Law so they'll do pretty much what they want.

And they will continue to do so until they're stopped.

Most all the European nations at that time had colonies same as the English did here.
And the Founders wanted NO part of that as that policy was based on divine right, the monarchy was given his power BY GOD.
What we have here today is uninformed citizens believing this nation was founded on Christian principles.
The Founders ran from that shit. Wanted no part of it.
NO WHERE in any place in the Constitution does it state that "rights came from God".
Because they don't as that is what the monarchies conned our ancestors into believing.
People that believe our rights come from God have been manipulated and are easy to control through their religious beliefs.
Something about The Constitution.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not men and their various and changing like the wind men and their numerous and conflicting religious beliefs.

 

[Gadawg73]

Our rights do not come from God as no one has ever had the authority to speak for God anymore than anyone else. Can not even get people that follow The Bible to agree on the translations, interpretations and meanings.
Someone stating or writing down that they speak for God doesn't make it true.
Ask someone that is jailed for smoking weed if his rights were given to him by God. Wasn't God that made it illegal to smoke weed, that was man that did that.
Women were denied the right to vote by man, not God. Man changed the law. Slavery used to be legal and now it is not, man not God made that law.
Human progress has always been dependent on the greatest moral reasoning of mankind, not God. Laws can be made to make things better in society and they can be made to oppress. There are good laws and bad laws regardless of any claim that God commands or does not command law has a particular divine authority.
So let us add God to the equation. OK
How do we decide which people claiming to speak for God and which laws of the religion should be followed? Should we stone people to death that work on the Sabbath, cut off the hand off of a thief? When it comes to Scripture Americans pick and choose which laws to follow based on their own religious and moral convictions and reasoning. Some people have a greater authority to enforce their religious opinions than others. This is POLITICAL authority and not divine authority.
The Founders knew this and created a secular government with the United States Constitution, LAWS as the foundation of this country.
"The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance and superstition but at an epoch when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any former period" George Washington 1783

 

[SmedlyButler]

Our rights do not come from God as no one has ever had the authority to speak for God anymore than anyone else. Can not even get people that follow The Bible to agree on the translations, interpretations and meanings.
Someone stating or writing down that they speak for God doesn't make it true.
Ask someone that is jailed for smoking weed if his rights were given to him by God. Wasn't God that made it illegal to smoke weed, that was man that did that.
Women were denied the right to vote by man, not God. Man changed the law. Slavery used to be legal and now it is not, man not God made that law.
Human progress has always been dependent on the greatest moral reasoning of mankind, not God. Laws can be made to make things better in society and they can be made to oppress. There are good laws and bad laws regardless of any claim that God commands or does not command law has a particular divine authority.
So let us add God to the equation. OK
How do we decide which people claiming to speak for God and which laws of the religion should be followed? Should we stone people to death that work on the Sabbath, cut off the hand off of a thief? When it comes to Scripture Americans pick and choose which laws to follow based on their own religious and moral convictions and reasoning. Some people have a greater authority to enforce their religious opinions than others. This is POLITICAL authority and not divine authority.
The Founders knew this and created a secular government with the United States Constitution, LAWS as the foundation of this country.
"The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance and superstition but at an epoch when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any former period" George Washington 1783

"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."

I can't find an attribution but I like it.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Interesting that the Atheists/Agnostics and liberals are always painted by the right-wing religious zealots as somehow abhorrently evil and lack morals.
I look at the righ-wing religious zealots and bible-thumpers as abhorrently evil and lacking decent morals.
To use the bible (more specifically the Old Testament) as a guideline for morality is laughable and to insist that the people should obey Gods laws is to ignore the plain and simple fact that to date, there has been no evidence that a deity even exists. If there were clear and evident proof that a specific deity exists, we wouldn't have 20 major religions (with 17 of them rejecting the Abrahamic religions) and thousands of minor religious sects.
As for your Abrahamic religions, it is clear that Moses (doubtful that he truly existed), couldn't follow his own claims (i.e., thou shalt not kill). He killed on whims. Jericho?.....he told his followers to "kill all men, women and children," as if children were evil and had to be destroyed.
In Deuterotomy, his followers found a stranger wandering in the wilderness gathering wood on the sabbath. They took him to Moses and asked what they should do with him. We must keep in mind that in that era, one generally gathered wood to burn so that food could be cooked or, gathered food for shelter. His reponse was...."he consulted his god and was told to stone the stranger to death." So much for thou shalt not kill. While Moses wasn't a real individual, the moral is, kill those who don't follow the rules, or who your supposed prophet tells you to.
In our era, more and more people are sick of the religious zealots telling them what to do, or having their beliefs shoved down their throats.
Not having religious beliefs doesn't mean lacking morals. Simply being a humanist who believes in trying to be kind to your fellow man/woman and not hate, or commit acts which in your heart you know are wrong (murder, theft, etc.).

 

[THE LIGHT]

Our rights do not come from God as no one has ever had the authority to speak for God anymore than anyone else. Can not even get people that follow The Bible to agree on the translations, interpretations and meanings.
Someone stating or writing down that they speak for God doesn't make it true.
Ask someone that is jailed for smoking weed if his rights were given to him by God. Wasn't God that made it illegal to smoke weed, that was man that did that.
Women were denied the right to vote by man, not God. Man changed the law. Slavery used to be legal and now it is not, man not God made that law.
Human progress has always been dependent on the greatest moral reasoning of mankind, not God. Laws can be made to make things better in society and they can be made to oppress. There are good laws and bad laws regardless of any claim that God commands or does not command law has a particular divine authority.
So let us add God to the equation. OK
How do we decide which people claiming to speak for God and which laws of the religion should be followed? Should we stone people to death that work on the Sabbath, cut off the hand off of a thief? When it comes to Scripture Americans pick and choose which laws to follow based on their own religious and moral convictions and reasoning. Some people have a greater authority to enforce their religious opinions than others. This is POLITICAL authority and not divine authority.
The Founders knew this and created a secular government with the United States Constitution, LAWS as the foundation of this country.
"The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance and superstition but at an epoch when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any former period" George Washington 1783

More importantly, our rights from a God who defines himself (and the founding Fathers defined him as) the "Creator". He created you and I and everyone else in the universe to be unique and special. Each one of us he created with a purpose.

If you remove the recognition that all men were "created" equal, then it turns into a question of where did the rights come from. If we evolved, then it is a matter of whoever is the fittest god of his/her own universe. The man with the bigger gun and the biggest ego will subject all those around him/her to their morals or lack thereof.

In the name of evolution, millions of unborn children have been murdered because "evolutionary thinking" deemed them "not human", eugenics are promoted because those who "don't have a good quality of life" should be killed according to survival of the fittest, and the list goes on...

The reason there are disputes over Bible translations is because there is a thing called moral absolutes. In other words, it is worth fighting for the truth. If there was no truth then there would be nothing to dispute over, everything would be correct. You obviously believe there is a right and a wrong or you wouldn't be posting on these forums.

 

[THE LIGHT]

At the time this nation was founded what did the Founders have as their model in England and all other European states?
Monarchies where God and religion WERE the governments.
So what did the Founders see as a result of the monarchies, who ruled with iron fists under the power of divine right where God and God only ordained them as the masters over the common man?
A rise in the belief in the supernatural as over 100,000 people were burned at the stake for practicing "witchcraft", Enlightment thinkers which were influenced by the Reformation and scientific discoveries like Newton's discovery of the laws of gravity and Copernicus', Galileo and other scientists which resulted in state supported and backed by all the monarchies persecution based on religion.
As a result of that scenario across the pond the Founders structured a secular government with the United States Constitution as the foundation.
A document that does not mention God or a Supreme being anywhere in it.

And the age of "Reason" (or the "cult of reason") and the French Revolution proved how lousy the atheistic replacement of Christianity was.