Are you thankful you exist?


Socialism, Communism, and all political theories that involve attaining some degree of utopia here and now, at bottom express a dissatisfaction with the way that God has made things. They intensely dislike the world that God has made. And in their own faltering political ways, they attempt to get rid of these great blunders that God has created.

The main thing that proponents of Utopian societies want to get rid of are the limitations of our individual circumstances. That we should be constrained by our humble or poor birth, or the defectiveness of our culture or environment, is seen as a great evil. God has made us to struggle with this evil and this is something Utopians will not do. By means of money, i.e. distributing large piles into equal smaller ones, circumstances  and the struggles it would take to rise above them are left behind.

The majority of complaints stem from the existence of suffering and evil. And here I cannot but be baffled. To exist in this world is to be confronted by the challenge of every second. Each tick of the clock brings change and, thus, something to adapt to; something to struggle with. We imagine that evil and suffering is somehow inflicted upon us because God is himself evil and torturous. Yet, when we write our stories and books we add suffering and evil in the mix. We give our heroes a villain to fight with. We give them monstrous struggles to overcome. We send children into terrible abusive places and to terrible abusive people. We ordain the deaths of thousands of fictional people. We turn almost the entire world into soulless horrible inhuman zombies that destroy every piece of humanity it finds; yet we call the story good, and we pay good money to see them on film. Through imagination we create entire worlds and dash them to pieces. But, do the readers of these stories then turn around and call the authors evil? Do we blame them for the suffering they write? No.

The end of the road for people who continually complain about their personal struggles is the wish for death. It is the desire not to exist; to leave this real actual story. It is really an unthankfulness for existing. This is exactly where I am baffled. Because, despite the suffering I’ve endured, I still count it better to exist than not. And though I may understand someone’s desire to leave this world after having endured so much pain, I cannot think that about anyone who lives in the West. We have so much: technology, medicine, and many amenities in life. Yet, we are the most unthankful bunch I’ve seen. We constantly want each other’s things for ourselves, especially each other’s money; and we paint ourselves as victims of every challenge God sends our way. Every second we endure we find something more to complain about.

We are such hypocrites; who write end-of-the-world stories with great suffering in them, and then berate God for doing the same. I, for one, would rather meet the challenge and try to rise above the circumstances than be idle and unthankful. Every political Utopian desire is a wish to rewrite our actual story into a non-story: a state of existence where we endure through time but never leave the condition of happiness; a place where we become human pets in a little earthly terrarium that the government takes care of. And that, my friends, is not even a fairy tale. It’s doesn’t even count as a story. Neither can I imagine that that is what Heaven is. I certainly wouldn’t want to go there.

Essay: The Anatomy of a Queer Change

The unequal treatment of black Americans in this nation’s past was a result of an inconsistent application of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. To wit, all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Even though we began with equal liberty for all, we singled out people with darker skin color and decided they did not have equal liberty. We unjustly discriminated because the principle was not applied equally.

Now, liberty for all is not the liberty to do whatever one wants. A man does not have the liberty to rape, murder, or extort. So, why is this discrimination just? Because, the principle of liberty comes with an inherent exclusion. Liberty does not provide for all acts, it only provides for some. All principles (even definitions) have boundaries, outlines, and invisible shapes that cannot be smudged, changed, or crossed.

In an atmosphere of equal liberty, marriage is applied the same way to everybody. Marriage, being the life-long union of man and woman as one flesh, comes with boundaries, outlines, and invisible shapes just like liberty. And it is available to all. If a certain group of people were not given the same opportunity to marry, say, everyone in the state of Maryland, we would be guilty of unjust discrimination. But, everyone everywhere has the opportunity to get married. Even those in the LGBT community have the same opportunity to marry, keeping in mind what marriage is. The principle is equally applied, and always has been in an atmosphere of liberty, to all no matter the race, color, or sexual orientation.

How does marriage justly discriminate? Given its boundaries, outline, and invisible shapes, we can justly prohibit children from marrying. Also within that prohibition are multiple partners, animals, and material things. Marriage simply doesn’t provide for these. What about the union of a man and a man? Whatever this union is, it is not marriage; it is not within its scope. Marriage essentially states A and B equals AB, where AB is a new and distinct entity. A same-sex union is: A and A equals AA, where AA is a new and distinct entity. On the pain on logic, AA is not AB; and where marriage is only AB, AA cannot be recognized as marriage. AA is, indeed, a union but it is not marriage.

This does not mean that there can never be a union AA. It can exist as long as it is provided for within the scope of equal liberty. Being that liberty does not encompass all acts, but only some; the American public must decide whether this act should be encouraged or merely tolerated.

However, we have not been given a chance to decide that. The acceptance of the same-sex union follows upon the sexual freedom and expression that burst its way into the American consciousness a few decades ago. Without the sexual revolution which liberated the sexual act from the confines of marriage, same-sex unions would not be given consideration. The acceptance of same-sex unions is parasitic upon the sexual revolution. But, this revolution did not find its freedom within the limited principle of liberty expressed in the Declaration of Independence. It found its expression within the freedom of doing what one wants. This type of freedom is not a principle or a definition; it is rather, a non-principle and a non-definition. It has no boundaries, outlines, or invisible shapes, but is rather a rejection of them.

As much as these behaviors have latched themselves onto the culture lately, it’s fair to say that we will not be given a chance to decide whether to include these behaviors within the scope of American liberty. That it already is within the scope of liberty is a foregone conclusion which is taken for granted. And as the definition of liberty has expanded within the American consciousness, so too will the definition of marriage expand to include same-sex unions. The courts need not decide this at all. Even as the momentum of the sexual revolution has not subsided, neither will the momentum of same-sex unions; for it is parasitic upon that revolution.

The revolution did not ask permission; neither did it present reasons and arguments for public consideration. It came with bald assertions and passionate declarations of new-found liberty, and rejections of established definitions and principles. The new course of action in the service of same-sex unions, however, is now to shape a new definition of marriage to replace the old. But, how will they do this?

Reason finds the natural shapes and boundaries of a definition, and arguments attempt to establish them. But, the arguments given for this redefinition are sometimes emotional. Envy and jealousy have found their expression in the form of entitlement complaints and tax benefits. Because union AB is given benefits by the government, union AA should be given the same benefits. But, the tax code is not the target for a change. The method of change is a redefinition of a foundational institution of society. AA is to be defined identically to AB.

Another emotional appeal is the accusation of marriage discrimination toward same-sex couples. They aren’t allowed to marry and this is unjust discrimination. But, is it really unjust? Union AB has always been available to everyone everywhere. The principle has been consistently applied to all. No one is denied the opportunity to union AB. So, if the appeal is not valid, why is it so effective? Because, it foists the new definition of marriage upon the collective consciousness without us realizing it. As a consequence, the opposite sides talk past one another, using the same words but meaning different things. The language has been changed. This has been repeated long enough that proponents of traditional marriage have to specify what they mean now or risk being misunderstood.

A third argument is that same-sex couples share the same burdens of society and so should share in the benefits as well. If the same work is put in, there cannot be an unequal distribution of benefits or the government is unjustly discriminating against a certain group. This particular argument could have merit if it didn’t expand the boundary line and shape of the definition so much that one cannot see where it ends. A man who wants to marry a beast still carries his share of the burdens of society. A father who wants to marry his 18 year old daughter shares the same societal load. An AB couple with a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend carries society’s burdens. So would a man who marries two women. In fact, it might be shown that polygamy carries an even greater share and deserves consideration over same-sex unions. As we have seen, this principle applies to much more than same-sex couples.

The biggest hurdle proponents of same-sex marriage have to overcome is to provide an argument that clearly establishes a definition of marriage allowing the addition of union AA while clearly excluding all other possible unions. Until they can show this, its redefinition opens the door to the legitimization of other unintended unions and weakens their position.

Even if only the tax code is changed to add union AA, the reasons for doing so would be reasons to open it up to the other unions. The amount of money to be paid to the newly legitimized unions would significantly drain the few pots of money the government has left not already assigned to paying off the debt. This is especially poignant considering the potential abuse of the new unions in order to get more money. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the military. Military members get a basic housing allowance on top of their basic pay. And if both married members happen to be military, that allowance is doubled. The temptation to form a union for the sake of money is quite tempting. What’s to stop two friends of the same sex from forming a union for the sake of the housing allowance and still continuing to have sexual relationships with the opposite sex? After all, they can take up the slogan repeated by so many today that the government should have no interest in what goes on in the bedroom. The money that will be given to the civilian population who form genuine unions and ones for convenience is staggering. If we are to say that the government should enforce the conditions of the union and make infractions punishable by law in order to save money, then we should dispense with the previous slogan altogether and admit that the government should have been punishing offenders of AB unions all along. The adulterer should have been punished alongside the abuser and the one committing fraud. Apparently, boundaries do matter.

There is one final argument to consider. Proponents of traditional marriage say that male and female are complementary in a way that, say, male and male, is not. This natural fit is obvious and any argument that would expand the definition to other unions is always going to be less obvious. Thus, they use nature to argue for the legitimacy of union AB to the exclusion of all others, calling them unnatural. But, the other side points out that homosexual behavior is found in animals. It is, therefore, natural. Moreover, for the person with those types of desires, the natural attraction is to the same sex. They can try to be attracted to the opposite sex, but they fail miserably and end up going where their bodies naturally lead them. They are essentially born with a natural homosexual leaning.

We can grant that homosexual behavior is found in nature, but that is not an argument for homosexuality. Rape and incest is also found in nature. Should we do that too?  Lions kill off the other male lions in the struggle for establishing a pride. Should we do that too? The female praying mantis has sometimes been known to kill the male during sex. Should that be a natural practice for us? Proponents of AA unions are looking at this backwards. We should not ask, what is found in nature so that we can mimic it; but rather, what is natural sexual behavior for human beings. That is the prime question that needs an answer with real definition and a clear boundary.

Moreover, we can also grant that, for the person of a homosexual orientation from birth, attraction to the same sex is natural, of a sort. But, principles and definitions are always selective of human nature. People throughout history have never said that everything we do is good. After all, the schizophrenic, the psychotic, and other folks psychologically disordered are born that way and we do not call their condition good. Rape is a thing found in human nature, but we do not call it good. Humanity selects certain behaviors, calls them good, and wraps definitions and principles around them. It’s not hard to see that a small amount of people born homosexual is not very harmful to society; but if a large percentage of the world population were born that way, the human race would be in danger of extinction. We would no longer be fit for survival. This natural inclination could wipe us out. However, there’s little evidence that homosexuality is on the rise. But, how much of a harmful thing should we tolerate? To encourage homosexual behavior is to encourage the extinction of that respective family’s genetics. It’s an abrupt stop to the survival of their genes.

Given the possible harm to the human race, this behavior seems to be a malformation of human psychology, a harmful mutation, rather than the way humanity should naturally operate. To be natural is to survive. Some people are born with physical deformities, and we recognize the harm that disposition is to their survival. We help them out, and we do not require them to fix their deformities. We take special care of our invalid, weak, and mentally and physically ill-developed; but we do not ask them to change first. Society needs to realize this applies to the homosexual community as well and stop treating them as outcasts because they don’t change. They simply cannot change. Some members of the human race can no more change their sexual orientation than a lame man can fix his legs. The only legitimate issue society might have with the homosexual community is this: that people born with deformed legs acknowledge that people normally walk straight. The person inclined toward addictive behaviors acknowledges that people should not naturally be this way. But, the homosexual does not acknowledge any such thing. To him, straight is an option, not the way humanity naturally ought to be. As long as the lines are blurred concerning what is good for society, certain members of society will find it hard to accept those who blur it.

Some understanding needs to happen on both sides of this discussion. But, the road to peace should not be paved with hurtful and accusing words. Much more can be debated, even alternative methods of conceiving a child available today and what exactly constitutes harm, but let us acknowledge each other’s faults. Let us realize the wrong in us and then may we see clearly to fix the wrong in others, if it can indeed be fixed. And let us also remember this, that love does not bend with the remover to remove before it loves. It loves while we are yet in the wrong.

Atheism and the Bonds of Society

“An atheist is a person who questions every kind of authority, and this is the thing that is important. Because, if we can, without blinking an eye, question the ultimate authority, God, who must be obeyed; then we can question the authority of the state, we can question the authority of a university structure, we can question the authority of our employer, we can question anything.”

–Madalyn Murray O’Hair (quote from here)

“A being, independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself…”

— Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England

“Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.”

“For in all states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom; for liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man’s humor might domineer over him?)”

–1. John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration,  2. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government

“For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.”

–Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England

The law of human nature is not, in all points, a limitation of human freedom but a direction of a freewill agent toward his proper interest. That law does not deserve the description of confinement which prevents us from falling off of cliffs and getting stuck in ditches. It’s aim is to preserve and broaden our freedom, not only to restrain.

If no God exists, then no law of human nature exists. If no law of human nature exists, then all government of human society is arbitrary and has no objective foundation or obligation upon men.

Moreover, there is no foundation for the establishment of government by free discourse in light of atheism because there is no objective and equal value of human persons to respect concerning each other’s jurisdiction or dominion over one another. Others need not respect the property (life, liberty, and estate) of their neighbors because no one has laid equality upon them or an obligation to respect.

The only reason, outside of the law of human nature, that can be maintained concerning respect of property, is only in the pursuit of certain social ends: i.e. If it is the case that men are pleased to preserve their property, then they need only confine their actions in such a manner as to meet those ends. But, let it be clear, if there is no superior being to lay an obligation upon them, then the choice to confine one’s action toward the preservation of property is arbitrary, and only holds so much as men are pleased to do so.

Also on atheism, outside of society, freedom is to do what one lists. There is no security within which one may conduct one’s affairs without constant threat of harm, and that harm cannot be considered illegitimate. There is no law the victim may appeal to, neither has he right to punish the offender, although, he may punish the offender if it so pleases him.

Furthermore, since rules of society are arbitrary, in a democratic society where the social end is peace with one another, those who think themselves outside this arbitrary law can rightly consider it tyranny. Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, and right cannot be defined by arbitrary decision if a person is not pleased to accept that arbitrary decision.

This is why John Locke states that promises and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, cannot hold for an atheist. He has no law but such as he prescribes to himself and it holds as long as it pleases him to hold it.

The objection may arise, “But there are, indeed moral atheists. Are you saying that atheist are inherently immoral?” No. Because there is a law of human nature and they can apprehend it as much as the religious man can. They can be just as moral or even more so than the Christian because the same law holds for both and both understand it. Not only does the law of nature govern them, but the laws of the society they are in confine their actions as well. However, since the atheist has rejected God, the only foundation for moral obligation; the option is left open to him to reject the law of society and the bonds of nature’s law, even in the smallest of measures, because his true foundation is whatever pleases him.

The Enemy Within


The Adversary Culture, as Lionel Trilling indicates, believes “a primary function of art and thought is to liberate the individual from the tyranny of his culture… and to permit him to stand beyond it in an autonomy of perception and judgment.” In this view, society and government are thought to have negative characteristics such as force, compulsion, control, and coercion while the individual is thought to have positive qualities such as liberty, independence, will, and goodness.

(Lionel Trilling, Beyond Culture [New York, 1965], p. xiii.)

But let us not forget the reason for society in the first place. Our short lives here on earth are of an uncertain duration, frail, and fleeting. This being the case, we have need of several outward supports that the pain of hard work can provide in order to make our lives comfortable. For these “supports” are not provided to us by nature nor do they spontaneously appear in front of us prepared for our use. We must work to attain them. Crops don’t plant themselves. However, there are men who violently take the fruits of other men’s labors rather than put in the work to attain these things for themselves. Therefore, the possession of what honest work has acquired needs to be preserved, as does liberty and strength. This state of affairs leads men to enter into a society that by mutual assistance they may secure their property, liberty, and outward things pertaining to this life while providing a defense from external violence. This can hardly be thought of in negative terms.

What is not so easy to defend against is the inward threat of violence to the very fabric of society. For people who desire the overthrow of a particular society do not couch their intentions in plain terms, but rather they emphasize liberty and equality. Liberty and equality can be rightly used to change an unjust law or tradition in society and improve parts of society. But this is not the aim of these particular people. If their real intentions were known, the public would be aware of it and provide a defense against it.

It is curious that movements of “liberation from society” tend to emphasize group identity which gives rise to new traditions and conformities; and given enough power, these movements would replace the old tradition with a “tradition of the new”. And presumably, after a sufficient time has past when the “new society” has been established, another liberation movement would develop to oppose that culture. This attitude of “counter-culture” hinders the members of the movement from bargaining with the current society or the next one, or suggesting a new code of law to follow, or presenting a new constitution, or even demonstrating how their way is somehow better. This is not improvement. This is liberation for the sake of liberation, and speaks more of discontentment and envy than a sensible improvement in society. Instead, it is the dissolution of society in order to violate the protection of honest men’s possessions and make lawful the unlawful deeds of thieves. This is what lies behind slogans like “We are the 99%” in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

It is the duty of the civil officer to secure the just possession of the things belonging to this life and to execute laws equally and without partiality and to preserve the commonwealth. Therefore, words contrary to the main aim of society, which is each of its member’s well-being, and the moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of our well-being should not be tolerated by the civil officer. These words are doubly not to be tolerated when accompanied with actions that demonstrate violence toward rules of civilized society and indicate that on the occasion that they seize the government, they would possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow citizens thereby making insecure what we thought to secure in the first place: our money, lands, houses, and such like that we obtained with our hard work.

And what sense would it make to allow these harmful words or actions on the grounds of free speech? Individuals who enter into movements or groups of this nature admit implicitly that their allegiance lies not with their fellow citizens nor their protection or safety, but to another. For the civil officer to allow this, is to allow a kind of foreign jurisdiction in his own jurisdiction, and enlisted soldiers, as it were, against the people he is sworn to protect.


(picture from

The Age of Manipulation

This is the age of information, but more like the bombardment of information. From the internet to the millions of books, everyone who can write wants their voice to be heard and given as much consideration as the millions of others who want to be heard. The public processes information too fast and with so much volume, it is hardly surprising that people know very little about a whole lot of subjects. In previous times when words and information were scarce, people put time and labor into their reading. The public, then, knew very well the value of every word and the implications that could be drawn from each one. Now, the public is pushed on every side by words. For each modern word touts an agenda and a bias. Feeling a responsibility to give every writer equal audience, the public gorges itself on more and more information. And just when it is just about to vomit, it forces more down its collective throat. As a consequence, the public has become indistinguishable from a lazy man who, because he cannot manage to govern himself, is manipulated not by the man with the wisest words, but by the man who speaks the most often.

The Failure of Segregated Cultures

America isn’t living up to this Latin phrase. Instead, segregated cultures are encouraged by the political push of multiculturalism. The threats produced by multiculturalism are a consequence of the modern desire to try and make everything equal. It is a logical fallacy to believe that all cultures or ideas are equal. There must be competing ideas for society to be preserved and to progress. Otherwise, society will be destroyed by the most harmful ideas and cultures because they didn’t recognize the inherent threats that come with them. Neither will there be any improvement unless superior ideas can be singled out. In order for society to be preserved it needs to identify which ideas define it and require those ideas to be lived out by its citizens and its immigrants. America has tolerated segregated communities long enough, reacting too cautiously or fearfully to the unacceptable views or practices produced by them. America has cowered in fear too long at the label of white, male, European oppressor by other cultures that did not produce the ideas that founded this country they love to live in. Multiculturalism has failed. Let America now take pride in its roots and its founding. Let America export its ideas and distribute them among the nations that envy our wealth, and show them how they can do the same instead of permitting their ideas to tear us down in the name of equality. America is indeed unequal, because it is better than any other nation in existence. Let the world be changed by its example.

What is the legitimate basis for governmental law? The will of God or the will of man?

Men who value liberty but believe themselves to be self-sufficient in matters of truth and existence and who have no need for authority apart from themselves, also have no compulsion to follow laws, except laws conforming to their own reasoning or inclination. Contrariwise, men who value liberty but believe themselves to be in a state of dependence on a Superior Being for matters of truth and existence, eventually accept the will of this Being on whom they depend to be the foundation for self-restraint and morality. The extent to which man believes himself to be dependent affects the degree of his adherence to the will of his Maker.

This superior Being; having brought matter into existence and provided it with rules for motion, has also, in bestowing upon man a freewill, given a law of nature whereby man’s actions may be conducted in accordance with his greatest happiness. Man’s reason, although corrupt, has the ability to discover this law of nature manifested by the moral standards men have held each other accountable to from the beginning of time until now. Because of man’s corrupted reasoning, moral standards look different throughout history, but never amount to a total difference. A greater understanding of the natural law provides better individual self-regulation, which in turn, keeps liberty free from corruption.

This doctrine applies to all men at all times and in all places, regardless of belief, religion, or disposition. No legitimate rule in existence can oppose this law of nature without corrupting man’s happiness, or providing a false happiness. Therefore, pure liberty cannot exist without the self-governance of man founded upon the will of his maker.

George Washington said in his farewell address in 1796, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

What is the proper relationship between religion and the government?

Is it the complete separation between church and state? Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists didn’t completely define the “wall” he talked about.  The wall itself seems to be penetrated at times by Jefferson’s own words in the Declaration of Independence which reveals that the source of life, freedom, and man’s ability to be happy comes from the Creator.

In 1787, the Northwest Ordinance allowed for the creation of five states, of which, Ohio was first. The ordinance states, “No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.” This predates the First Amendment to the US Constitution which was adopted in 1791. This ordinance provided for religious freedom in the territory. It further states that religion and morality are to be taught. Article three says, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” From reading the ordinance, it is obvious that this “religion and morality” was taught in public schools and paid for with public taxes.

The constitution of Massachusetts written in 1780 by John Adams asserts, “As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality.” It goes on to instruct that groups, political bodies, and religious societies should carry out this public worship authorized through the legislature.

Are these legal documents breaching the “wall of separation” that Jefferson talks about? Do they violate the First Amendment? Or do these writers and framers of legal documents and constitutions understand better than we do the proper relationship between church and state? A comparison of public scenes from the 18th century and today shows us that the former had greater religious freedom than the modern people of today. I postulate that this wall of separation as is thought of in the modern sense actually inhibits the freedom of expression and freedom of worship. If you doubt my statement and begin to invoke the undefined “wall”, consider if you will ever hear in your lifetime, a speech from a government official with these words:

“I congratulate the people of the United States on the assembling of Congress at the permanent seat of their government; and I congratulate you, gentlemen, on the prospect of a residence not to be exchanged. It would be unbecoming the representatives of this nation to assemble for the first time in this solemn temple without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the universe and imploring his blessing. You will consider it as the capitol of a great nation, advancing with unexampled rapidity in arts, in commerce, in wealth, and in population, and possessing within itself those resources which, if not thrown away or lamentably misdirected, will secure to it a long course of prosperity and self-government. May this territory be the residence of virtue and happiness! In this city may piety and virtue, that wisdom and magnanimity, that constancy and self-government, which adorned the great character whose name it bears, be forever held in veneration! Here, and throughout our country, may simple manners, pure morals, and true religion forever flourish.”

–  John Adams, November25, 1800, the year the first Congress opened session in the Capitol.

I submit to you, the reader, we have lost some freedom when any religious expression in public places and public institutions is allowed to be defeated by a “wall”.

Separation of Church and State

Enhanced by Zemanta