Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Breaking the Law

I am responding to the well constructed arguments of a thoughtful friend. This friend believes that Conservative Churches are somehow political and the far left ones are somehow not.

A certain Baptist denomination knowingly violated US immigration law. My friend pretends this is sanctuary. There was zero evidence that any of the illegal aliens were
in any actual danger. In fact anyone familiar with the process can identify what is commonly known as a boilerplate asylum claim. This Church knowingly inserted itself into US foreign policy and knowingly violated the law. Sanctuary is not aiding and abetting communists in the Cold War. Nobody elected this Church to conduct US foreign policy. Moreover, many of these so called refugees graduated to commit crimes. A similar leap of illogic was presented by Rev Spitz who thinks abortion is an atrocity and killing abortionists is justified. Maybe, someone will start the Church of the Immaculate Reefer and sanction pot smoking next.

Religious freedom ends at criminal acts. You do not have the right to kill abortionists in the name of religious freedom. You do not have the right to knowingly
violate the immigration laws of the United States in the name of religious freedom. In fact the United States government should have immediately launched a RICO lawsuit
and seized Church property and jailed the leaders. The Clinton administration did abuse the RICO statute against anti abortion groups for far less than this Church is clearly guilty of.

Contrary to my knowledgeable friends opinion liberation theology is indeed Communism.
Pope John Paul knew plenty about communism as he lived under it. One of the Pope's greatest achievements was ridding the Catholic church of communists. Sadly other denominations were not so lucky.

12 comments:

Beamish said...

"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"If a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play and reasons and laughs it out of doors without suffering the State to be troubled with it." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224

"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547

beakerkin said...

Jefferson knew thing or two about the Constitution,

The Merry Widow said...

Paul had quite a bit to say about praying
for political leaders, not being liable to the law of the land in anything but strictly matters of G*D.
Because he recognized that nations fulfill their G*D-given tasks when they protect their citizens from dangers without and within, promote good order and protect the law abiding. Promoting peace within their borders and establishing fair and equitable laws. Executing justice impartially.
Social justice has been a communistic phrase from the late 50's.
and as such, should be rejected by any right thinking individual.
Now the establishing of equal justice under the law is a good thing, the civil rights movement started that way, and it was the right thing to do. But the hijacked version running around should be opposed, as being against good order, and true peace and justice.
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!

tmw

Always On Watch said...

A certain Baptist denomination knowingly violated US immigration law.

Not only that particular denomination. Other Christian denominations have done the same as has the Falls Church Mosque.

Some churches seem to believe that the rule of law doesn't apply to their ministry. I've never held with that view - unless the situation is like that of Daniel of the O.T.

Ducky's here said...

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses ..."

Except gay marriage of course. Clearly Jefferson isn't the last word.

I enjoy your fascist rant Beak and your complete ignorance of the role of the church in resisting unjust laws.

Beamish said...

How is Beak "fascist," Ducky? He doesn't have a left-wing bone in his body.

Oh yeah, I get it. As a leftist, you're foresworn to leave no doubt about your intellectual inadequacies.

But, c'mon Ducky. Even a stopped clock can be correct twice a day. Can't you shoot for being correct at least once a day?

nanc said...

reminds me of the old flip wilson routine "the church of what's happenin' NOW!"

if it feels good and you can find a way to get God to sanction it by twisting HIS words, then it must be okay.

nanc said...

if you just look at which churches belong to the ncc or wcc you will have your answer as to which are left or right.

Warren said...

Nostradumbass said:
"Except gay marriage of course. Clearly Jefferson isn't the last word."

Clearly, "you're" wearing your asshole as a necktie.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you! Evey time I think I've seen the stupidest post ever made, you top yourself.

Beamish, in dunceys case, pearls before swine and all that.

Warren said...

Liberation Theology, is nothing more that the usurpation and re-definition of the Church through the lens of Communist dogma.

The terms used to describe Liberation Theology have the same Marxist nomenclature used by proud little commies the world over. The procession is even called "praxis" and has a definite political context where theory and practice are refined and intertwined. The metaphysical is abandoned for the physical. Historical interpretation of the scriptures is thrown out the window and called "unscientific".

The scriptures are treated loosely and cannot be exclusively binding. The "history" of the political group or "community" becomes the normative.

The "Kingdom of God", is read against the background of Marxist hermeneutics. i.e. the Kingdom must not be understood in a spiritualist manner. It must be understood in partisan revolutionary terms and with a view to praxis.

(Then Cardinal Ratzinger, on Liberation Theology, published in December 2004), "[In Liberation Theology], The meaning of the Kingdom can only be defined by reference to the praxis of Jesus, not theoretically: it means working at the historical reality that surrounds us in order to transform it into the Kingdom.

In other words, Liberation Theology is nothing more than another Utopian scheme that attempts to make "Heaven of Earth".

Thus it becomes clear why it attracts socialists, commie maggots and people whose lifestyle conflict with the teachings of traditional Christianity. It also clearly draws those that believe that they are entitled to that which they did not earn or deserve.

It goes hand and hand with the abomination known as Social Justice.

Warren said...

Sin in Liberation Theology,(or), another reason it attracts the truly sinful:

Liberationists interpret sin not from an individual, private perspective but from a social and economic perspective. Sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men.

Thus the ten commandments are pitched out the window as groups are considered sinful but not for commission of sin but as Capitalist oppressors who have gained their wealth at the expense of the "poor" and their sins against underdeveloped poor countries.

(But why is the USA always in the stocks and not the cesspools of the world?)

In Liberation Theology, those who are oppressed, sin by acquiescing to their bondage. To go along passively with "oppression" rather than resisting and attempting to overthrow it, by violent means if necessary. (you DAMNED bunch of sinners!)

But of course, violence is considered "controversial". (wink wink)

Salvation, is not viewed in terms of life after death for the individual, but in terms of bringing about the kingdom of God on earth: i.e. a new social order where there will be "equality for all".

Of course I imagine that some will be a little more equal than others just like here> (only Ducky will get to wear his halo.)

How many times can these commies re-package this turd?

Beamish said...

Warren,

After Ducky gets gay marriage "legalized" for himself, he wants to charge men that turn him down with a "hate crime."