It is beyond me how the first five words of the amendment take precedence over “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” regarding religion. By stopping me from putting up a nativity on public land IS prohibition so long as any other item that is of personal belief i.e. global warming is permitted. Actually, I believe this twisted view has it’s roots in prohibited speech called politically correct.
Webster’s College Bound Dictionary (1956 edition), religion was defined as, “anything a man places his faith in, believes in, and adheres to.” A belief in God was the example. From this we had the phrase, “he is very religious about his job”.
Religion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth.[1]
[I]n the frame of western religious thought,[3] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[4] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.
Sacred-profane dichotomy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article is about Émile Durkheim’s identified central characteristic of religion. For The Sacred and Profane by The Smashing Pumpkins, see Machina/The Machines of God.
French sociologist Émile Durkheim considered the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane to be the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden."[1] In Durkheim’s theory, the sacred represented the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, on the other hand, involved mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the dichotomy sacred/profane was not equivalent to good/evil. The sacred could be good or evil, and the profane could be either as well.[2]
Criticism
Durkheim’s claim of the universality of this dichotomy for all religions/cults has been criticized by scholars like British anthropologist Jack Goody.[3] Goody also noted that many societies have no words that translate as sacred or profane and that ultimately, just like the distinction between natural and supernatural, it was very much a product of European religious thought rather than a universally applicable criterion.[4]
Some Eastern religions like Buddhism disapprove of cultivating dualism, even between the sacred and the profane. A disciple is first asked to cultivate "a good mind".[citation needed] In the intermediate stage, the disciple is asked to "break through the good mind" (i.e., stop distinguishing between the sacred and the profane).[citation needed] In the final stage of learning, the monk lets go of all conceptualizations of good and bad or sacred and profane.[citation needed] This is called the final good, and can thus said to be simply a different definition of good and evil, rather than truly forbidding or throwing away the concept.
This brings to the end that secularism, global warming, socialism, and any other belief that is considered to be a truth is religious, and a religion. They are most certainly sacred, as the practitioners of the same are willing to sacrifice all of western civilization in the practice of this belief system.
Therefore, to claim there is a freedom “from” religion is an oxymoron. What we have is religious people forcing their beliefs upon us, and declare them as some kind of truth, therefore the “debate is over” and political correctness comes into play.
Political correctness (noun) and politically correct (adjective) (PC) are the terms applied to language, ideas, policies, and behaviour meant to enforce ideologic conformity to an orthodox authority. The usages are principally pejorative — ridiculing the “unquestionable authority” of the orthodoxy and the authority figure. The adjectival term politically incorrect denotes language and ideas, unconstrained by orthodoxy, that might offend the orthodox PC folk. The usage controversy lies in the implicitly negative connotation of political correctness, while politically incorrect implicitly connotes a positive self-description, e.g. Bill Maher, host of the US television political discussion programme Politically Incorrect (1993–96, 1997–2002). [1][2] – Wikipedia
“[T]erms applied to language, ideas, policies, and behaviour meant to enforce ideologic conformity to an orthodox authority figure.”
Political correctness is nothing more than the liberals refusal to debate an issue therefore marking it out of bounds. They have no defense for their reason of though, therefore they quail the subject with ridicule declaring it to be “politically incorrect” thereby, out of bounds. By forcing this opinion upon the news media and/or the pubic it is an outright form of censorship and infringement upon the First Amendment plain and simple.
It is of and oddity to me that the ACLU has never once went to court to protect the First Amendment regarding this issue, but, on the contrary, they have done the exact opposite.
Whereas, it would be safe to say, they are not in all reality a guardian of the First Amendment, or and advocate of the same. They are in fact, active in censorship by disqualifying their religious beliefs as being what it is, a religion, while claiming freedom “from” religion, they are tentatively and actively forcing their religious beliefs upon the rest of society. The exact thing the First Amendment is there to protect us from.
Fact: If one has any belief, the same has a religion, or religious belief. Therefore, freedom “from” religion is a complete impossibility, that is, unless the individual is brain dead.
Socialism is just a fancy word for slavery.
That’s the view from here,
Duane
No comments:
Post a Comment