Saturday, November 24, 2012

Thank You James Madison...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tranny

On why religion has no place in governance. And why the wise recognized it 227years ago. Note: All emphasis is mine.

James Madison [1785] - To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia --- A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure. {Please Continue Reading}

Reinforcing right so as to ensure continued enlightenment...


  1. "It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god." T.Jefferson

    Pretty much agree with that, except that in this country, certain religious people would go berserk if a nontheist were to run for the presidency.

    Look at what the Christianists say about Mr. Obama. They don't believe he's a Christian, even though he has professed to be one time and again. What kind of demented religionist would insult a person in this way? A fanatic.

    We don't need religious fanatics involved in government. They've already inserted themselves into women's vaginas and in their decisions on medical procedures that should involve only her, her family and her doctor. These sorts of fanatics believe in limited government on their religious terms only.

    Happily, their days are numbered. More and more young people are turning away from religious fanaticism, and religon itself. One only has to look at the Middle East to understand how destructive and dehumanizing religious fanaticism is.

    1. Well said Shaw. Thank you for posting your thoughts here.

      Personally I am good with everyone believing and worshiping as they choose. As long as they respect the right of all others to do the same.

      Fanaticism or extremism in any religon is indeed dehumanizing as you have pointed out. It is quite dangerous and destructive. History bears this out.

      Spiritually is one thing and has great merit in my mind. Organized religon, based on the traditions of man is something else altogether different IMHO.

    2. "We don't need religious fanatics involved in government."

      But when President Obama closes speeches to the Nation with "God Bless America", none of the liberals complain.

      When President Obama took the Oath of Office (in 2009) by swearing upon the Bible reported to have belonged to Lincoln, the liberals say nothing.

      When President Obama says his policies are based on his Christian faith, the liberals turn a deaf ear.

      When African-Americans for Obama purposely use the pulpits of black churches to push Obama for President, with his knowledge and permission, the liberals play mute.

      You want separation of church and state when it is convenient for your regime, but of course will allow it when it pushes your agendas. Tedious.

      As a Covenant Christian, I can tell you that Jesus does not want to be President, nor does He wish to be in our government. He has His Kingdom, already.

      I find it blatantly hypocritical for you to malign a woman's vagina by saying the government should stay out of it. Oh. Wait. No, you want those Christians to stay out of omen's vaginas. The government can come in any time they want. Your god is obvious, Shaw. Tedious.

    3. Don the issue is not what the president, me, you, or anyone else chooses to, or not to personally believe with respect to religion. The issue is when religion becomes a large criteria in policy decisions.

      Each individual should have that right to follow what they believe, however they do not have the right force their beliefs on others. The choice as to drinking, smoking, giving birth, or having an abortion, among many others should rest with the individual. And I believe in the case of abortion with consultation with their partner or family, however ultimately the final decision rests with them.

      The issue as I see it is "they" is the government and in these personal issues "they" have no business. Aside from assuring that the rights of all concerned are projected. With respect to abortion Roe -v- Wade resolved the issue. And anything beyond the 1'st trimester should be the cut off point. Unless the life or well being of the women is at risk. As for other procedure Shaw may be alluding to, well I would generally agree with her.

      It would be engaging to have a conversation on the broader issues this covers.

      It is nice to see you visit my humble site again Don, a lot has changed since we last discussed issues. My personal circumstances have changed greatly. With the sole exception of wife and family, the all important aspect of ones life. I hope all is well with you and your family, and you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. And... Christmas will soon be once again upon us.

      Take care, hope you stop in again as you always have something of substance to add to a conversation.

    4. Shaw: A "doctor" harming a child for fun and profit is not a personal matter. Abortion is at heart a human rights issue, not a religious issue. After all, you will find groups from all faiths on all sides of the issue. Killing a person is no more a matter for a mother, doctor, and family than spousal rape is just a private matter between a man and his wife. The bloodthirsty and compassionless people who favor abortion are much more fanatics than those who want to end the violence.

  2. A embryo is not a child.

    I agree with Les, and he agrees with me on the subject of abortion.

    dmarks' rhetoric "killing," "rape," "bloodthirsty" and "compassionless" is nothing more than fanatical posturing, trying to pass as debate. When a person wades into crazy talk like that, he should be ignored, at least until reasonable arguments can be made.

    BTW, Les, I recently read in the news that contraception has helped lower the number of abortions. And yet certain people in this country [Rick Santorum, for example] were calling contraception "wrong."

    DB,Jr., President Obama is not a religious fanatic. He includes God in his speech and swore on the Bible at his inauguration because of tradition, not because it is law. I have no problem with religious tradition, so long as it doesn't impinge on my and my family's freedom to avoid it.

    Forcing a certain religion on public school children by way of Bible readings and prayers violates the 1st Amendment. There's no reason for it. Children are free to pray in their homes, churches, and to themselves anytime anywhere. No one would stop any citizen from praying to him or herself. What seems to be the problem is that certain religious fanatics want to impose their religious traditions onto ALL American citizens. The Constitution prohibits that. It's a simple concept, really, but one that causes such controversy.

    1. @Shaw,

      You said:
      "I have no problem with religious tradition, so long as it doesn't impinge on my and my family's freedom to avoid it."

      Good. Avoid this:

      This goes beyond complaining about a Nativity Scene on public land. This guy is our President. You should be more worried about his policy-making than about local culture. Just admit it. You will give him a free pass.

    2. @Shaw,

      And forcing school children to sing praises to a man is acceptable?

      Here's an oldie but a goodie. If they were singing about Jesus, libs would fall over themselves in protest. But, no. They are praising Barack Hussein Obama. Religious fanaticism comes in all shapes and sizes, apparently, and the teacher responsible is a joke.


      Your argument will fail because it is based on double-standardism and liberal hypocrisy.

    3. Shaw said: "A embryo is not a child."

      Sorry, you re-defining words does not fly here. Just because you say something that is untrue does not mean we have to accept it. And have you ever heard of the term "with child"?

      Regardless, your logic, if it is such, falls apart. Most abortions are performed on children who are not in the embryo stage. So even if it were true, it applies to only some abortions. So if we follow you along, perhaps we could ban all abortions except on embryos. That is where you are leading us. Fine?

      "dmarks' rhetoric "killing,""

      What is rhetoric to you is fact. No matter how you try to whitewash it, someone is being killed.


      This was part of an appropriate analogy. I was comparing two situations of malicious violence against another person. I oppose both. You favor one of them. Who is the fanatic?

      "bloodthirsty" and "compassionless"

      These are apt terms for a side that is strongly in favor of killing people.

      "is nothing more than fanatical posturing, trying to pass as debate."

      The fanatics are found among the killers and those who support it.

      "When a person wades into crazy talk like that, he should be ignored, at least until reasonable arguments can be made."

      The only thing "crazy" is bloodthirsty logic (and lies, such as that these young people are not children) all in support of violence, a sick thrill that some find from killing the weak.

      If anything should be ignored, it is the illogical arguments in favor of abortion which seek to increase a body count at the expense of all reason.

    4. Shaw; It is reasonable to expect contraception would reduce the number of abortions. As to Santorum and that mindset one can only shake their head in amazement. As I said somewhere that dude would have been a real threat to liberties of the individual. It is unfortunate the many socons have such limited thinking. I think it is mostly laziness.

    5. Well dmarks, I agree with Shaw, an embryo is not a child. I suppose it depends on ones definition of when an embryo becomes a child is. I kind of hold to the view that when a fetus can survive outside the womb (on life support) it has become a child and abortion except to preserve the health and/or life of the women should be prohibited.

    6. Don, I agree that forcing children to sing praises to an authority figure, no matter who they may be is undesirable. Teaching respect for that person is appropriate however. If ones personal feeling for the person is admiration it is fine, on the individual level for that person. It is not fine to "indoctrinate" young children so as to nuture that feeling within them without their understanding why.

      The same applies to religion.

  3. Les, this is just the sort of nonsense I refer to in my remarks on religious fanatics. In certain parts of the south, this sort of mixing of politics and religion goes unchallenged. And yet it is conservatives who whine all the time about "liberal indoctrination" in public schools.

    1. Shaw, there is a bit of truth to what conservatives are saying abojt liberal indoctrination.

      However, having said that, you are correct about the socon's desire to mix government and religion, giving religious concerns more sway. It is a dangerous path and can lead only to an ill ending should it ever occur.

  4. And yes, Les. I would accept your abortion compromise. But I doubt the hardline pro-lifers would. Nor would President Obama, who once defended abortion as a form of death penalty to young but definitely born Americans who had full citizenship rights under the law.

    1. My issue with the President is his acceptance of abortion as being the right of the women long after the fetus has become viable and in fact a child. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the Presidents views Shaw I would appreciate you correcting my error. Or shooting a link to refute it.

  5. @Les,

    You said:
    "The issue is when religion becomes a large criteria in policy decisions."

    Hence, the link to the article referring to President Obama saying his 'christian faith' guide his policy-making. (See former comments)

    The stereotype is that white Republicans are all Bible-thumping zealots out to create a Theocracy and oppress the vaginas of women. Yikes. When here we have a sitting President tell us that his 'christian faith' is the basis for his policies. If I say to you that I believe God is against abortion, you and I disagree and we move on. I'm neither an elected official nor politician. When a politician says that God is against abortion, too many people tear their clothes and scream oppression!, and it becomes fodder for the left to use. Yet, again, here we have a sitting President who blatantly espouses his 'christian faith' as his policy-making template. Which is worse? Is it worse that you and I disagree on the issue of Jesus, as private citizens, or is it worse that our half-caucasian President violates the separation of church and state so openly, and no one calls him on it since he is a liberal and not a lily-white Republican politician? (Oh the race card plays so well doesn't it?)

    This situation demands resolution and exposure.

    Les, we agree on the separation of church and state. We do. I bristle when any politician calls their faith into policy, be they liberal or non-liberal. Some secular things do find their commonality in faith, it's true. That whole 'thou shalt not murder' thing plays well no matter what your faith may be.

    I simply want the light of truth to shine on hypocrisy, no matter where it is found. In this context, Obama has not only violated the liberal stance of 'separation of church and state', (which is NOT in our Constitution, as you well know), but has also seen fit to exploit black churches for political gain. Yikes.

  6. Here is what President Obama actually said:

    "In an interview with the Washington National Cathedral magazine, President Obama discussed how his faith influenced his politics — saying that at the end of the day 'God is in control.'

    “First and foremost, my Christian faith gives me a perspective and security that I don’t think I would have otherwise: that I am loved. That, at the end of the day, God is in control," Obama said.

    Obama also tied faith in God to his belief in a compassionate role for government.

    "Faith tells us that there is something about this world that ties our interest to the welfare of a child who can’t get the health care they need, or a parent who can’t find work after the plant shut down, or a family going hungry," Obama told the magazine."

    Nowhere does President Obama say he MAKES POLICY based on his religious beliefs. His faith influences his politics in as much as caring for those who cannot help themselves is a humane policy that no one would disagree with, whether that policy is influenced by a belief in a god or because that is the morally correct position to take.

    Mr. Obama doesn't propose laws based on a religious doctrine. Helping those most in need isn't just a Christian value, it's a universal value that all decent people, religious and nonreligious, embrace.

    If a politician says he or she is against abortion because of his or her religious belief, there's no wrong in saying it. What is wrong is to legislate a religious belief into law. There are many religions that do not consider abortion as wrong.

    DB,Jr.: "Yet, again, here we have a sitting President who blatantly espouses his 'christian faith' as his policy-making template."

    Mr. Obama DID NOT say that. Please go back and read his actual words, not your interpretation of them.

    DB, Jr.: "Which is worse? Is it worse that you and I disagree on the issue of Jesus, as private citizens, or is it worse that our half-caucasian President violates the separation of church and state so openly, and no one calls him on it since he is a liberal and not a lily-white Republican politician? (Oh the race card plays so well doesn't it?)"

    Why on earth did you bring the president's race into this discussion? You played that card. No one here did. President Obama has not VIOLATED any law or the Constitution, since he has not proposed any legislation based on his religious beliefs.

    That you deliberately misinterpret this is an insight into what your motive is in this discussion.

    1. LOL! Brilliant deflections!

      For President Obama to say that God is in control is different than bringing God into politics in what way, exactly? Just admit it, Shaw: your President is using religion to advance his regime. He is the big violator of church and state.

      And don't play the victim with your passive aggression in saying that you know what my motive is in this discussion. What are you, a 12-year old girl who thinks she's on Twitter? Do grow up.

      Chew on this:

      How does it feel to be 'the man', now that your party has 'won' and taken control of America? How ironic. Why doesn't President Obama let the Bush tax cuts expire, since he has fixed the economy already? How many females are slaughtered in the name of abortion-on-demand? How about that African-Americans for Obama organization who used the pulpits of churches to preach Obama? Why isn't the IRS investigating them for violating tax status benefits? How many minorities do your party kill off with Planned Parenthood? Did you know that 7 of the top ten wealthiest folks in Congress are Democrats? How's that class warfare thing working out for you, now? Your liberalism is rife with inconsistencies, Shaw.

    2. Oh, and Shaw...don't ever butt into a conversation between myself and Les again. You took comments I made to Les and used them. Don't.

    3. Shaw; Your reply was accurate, reasoned, and well stated. thank you.

    4. Don, As this is an open forum (after moderation anyway :-)) Shaw making general comment on the thread on anything anyone expresses here is really okay.

    5. Les,

      As you wish. My apologies to Shaw, then.

  7. Shaw's got you on this. Jr. You specifically used Obama's race as part of an argument against him. That much is certain. What is not certain is that your partially-racist argument wasn't claiming that Obama being half-caucasian made him inferior, but that is just one reasonable extrapolation from what you wrote. After all, if he had been 100% caucasian, you would not have bashed him for it.

    "Oh the race card plays so well doesn't it?"

    Yes, and by bashing OBama for his skin color, Jr played it.

    1. As I know you from conversations and discussing issues back when you actively politically blogging I know you are nor a racist. But dmarks is correct, it is reasonable extrapolation those that do not know you might be likely to make. I know, as I have got caught in a miss use of words to describe something and been accused of the same.

    2. *facepalm*

      So by pointing out his half-whiteness, I am the racist?

      I shiver to discover that the knee-jerk PC of the leftists has somehow invaded Rational Nation USA. He's half-white, half-black. Fact.

      His half-blackness, which the liberals cling to, is the reason none of the liberals want to critique him for fear of being called racist. Oh, the irony.

    3. Les,

      I know you and I disagree on abortion and when life begins. A friend sent me this earlier today, and I wanted to shoot it your way. Just a thought, nothing more.

      I am sure you see what I am saying. ;)

    4. Actually they have not invaded RN USA core principles and belief system, refer to site manifesto page. However, I prefer diverse interaction as we live in a diverse society with a plenitude of divergent ideas.

  8. These religious right morons have obviously never even read a word of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc.. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers were deists who often spoke of Christianity in comedic terms and who also strongly preferred a secular form of government. Thankfully, we still have a few conservatives left who understand the matter like you do, Les.

  9. Leave religion out of government, but let the religious be part of the process!

    1. They are, they can vote. They can use their faith to even help guide them in their votes if in Congress or the Senate. What they cannot do, nor should they, is attempt to IMPOSE their beliefs and will upon others.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.