SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
And, of course, there’s that analytically tricky puzzle of the doctrine of “Separation of Church and State” to very simply demystify here, since it is one of the most misunderstood and abused subjects, on both sides, which was ever structurally primed for being as inherently, rationally indispensable, in its true meaning, as it is capable of falsifyingly and destructively cutting, again, either way! When “gnats” are “strained” with “issues” such as saying a prayer in a public place, or removing a courthouse shrine, to the sacrilegious “swallowing of camels” such as the one below (Matthew 23:24)? When it’s endlessly, circularly, jactitatorily, thus insolubly (even, for that matter, in itself) debated, as to whether God belongs either "in" or "out," the third and only correct alternative is totally overlooked; just as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, point was not, as is commonly assumed, that the racially and economically dispossessed be simply “in” (particularly as the most tokenly, exceptionally, mystifyingly propagandistic “ultra-success stories”), rather than “out.” For one thing, the “Sacred” is inherently inseparable in its involvement with the “secular,” as the Judicial indispensably serves to unite them!
The point is, not to keep God out, but rather to fit Him in, as accurately, systematically, comprehensively as possible! And the first absolutely indispensable step, here, is to formally, officially, technically, and rigidly acknowledge the very opposite of the Vaticanly "Infallible” Pattern from which the original immigrants had fled, but with a scripturally, philosophically, ambiguously muddled “understanding” of exactly what to establish in its place! They did, of course, more clearly understand, for instance, that, speaking of "Rendering Unto Caesar," the TRUE Christian Church has no Roman Catholic Authority, in THIS world, to FORCEFULLY override the state, rather than being limited to the same rationally moral persuasion Christ restricted Himself to, as a Visiting Ambassador from "Another Country." Likewise, the very reason God originally wanted the ancient Israelites to prefer HIM as their KING, was, at least in theory, finally being realized, in a country supposedly ruled only by LAWS, rather than the CAPRICIOUSLY, VICIOUSLY ARBITRARY WHIMS of “men!” In actual practice, however, not only do most professing Christian-Americans, in their CARNALLY-ROOTED HANG-UPS about an "Establishment of Religion," correspondingly LOSE SIGHT THE FOREST FOR THE TREES, via the kinds of "denominationalism" more accurately described in I Corinthians 3 than in Revelation 2 and 3; but, in the process, they are the very ones MOST "SEPARATELY" GUNG-HO TO, "AT LEAST" MUCH MORE DISHONESTLY, MUDDLE-HEADEDLY, "IN SPIRIT" ALONE, IDOLATROUSLY WORSHIP--AT LEAST--THEIR STATE! What even these "Protestant Fundamentalists" quite Roman Catholically forget, and EVEN MORE SO, for "NOT" FORGETTING IT, but ONLY IN WORDS, is, basically, that, IN THIS CASE, THE OPPOSITE OF INFALLIBLE IS, OF COURSE, FALLIBLE.
The sole PRACTICAL exception, of course, to the rule that even “Christian Morality” is not to be “RELIGIOUSLY FORCED” on anyone, has to do with the “secularly,” formally-instituted Law-of-the-Land itself, and where it ARBITRARILY draws the line, between SOME of the KINDS of scripturally valid injunctions it CANNOT, BY NATURE, avoid, and still other such scripturally valid injunctions, as if the latter category embodied something entirely different, IN NATURE OR PRINCIPLE, from the former. The basis employed for the purpose of setting such a distinction in stone is not entirely lacking in at least the appearance of embodying an objectively sound foundation, if one accepts the premise that there are forms of individually private immorality which have no pragmatically detrimental impact upon others, or “conveniently” rationalizes away particularly the more “indirectly, flexibly murky” cause-and-effect connections between the one and the other. Murder, for just one great big kind of example, however it may be defined, just as SOME definition MUST INDISPENSABLY exist, is something virtually all agree must be collectively, formally regulated, if not for “Idealistically Moral” Reasons, then out of an absolutely pragmatic necessity, even in the most otherwise superlatively corrupt of societies. Indeed, such an imperative even succeeds at overriding any possible argument, based on “religious liberty,” in favor of HUMAN SACRIFICE, regardless of how “legally adult” and willing even the prospective victim himself may happen to be, and despite the extent to which it can be rationally rather than “emotionally” argued that such conditions would be by definition in total accord with Mill’s Utilitarian Formula, along with SUICIDE.
Yet, for instance, adultery is, on the contrary, regarded as a “totally private” affair, a “victimless” crime, if even an actual crime at all, rather than something the legal unacceptability of which is arguably immune even to a “democratic vote” to the contrary. However, to the extent that even a discouraging of adultery, or anything but heterosexual marriage, may happen to become the Law of the Land, by way of a “democratic vote,” those in opposition formally have only the “pragmatic” argument with which to contend, and even to more easily, undetectably falsify, insofar as the Constitution even “pragmatically” let-alone Idealistically shuns any formally, categorically-binding position as to the historical veracity of the biblically scriptural record. If American law, which is in theory mandatorily formulated on the basis of everything officially defined as “science,” or, more generically stated, as objectively involuntary “truth-in-itself,” is not in the least equipped to come to a pragmatically as well as idealistically indispensable conclusion as to this particular question, then what business does the public school have being involved AT ALL with the teaching of history, while “legally” demanding that all parents submit their children to whatever instruction is allegedly being offered?
One will argue, of course, to the contrary, that this question, at the very least, cannot be “provably” settled, either way, and must, therefore, be put “on ice.” Yet, in addition to the arguably questionable “necessity” of considering this issue “hopelessly unsolvable,” either way, if not to the “conclusive proving” that the bible is “factually false,” this is something which, by its very nature, cannot be put “on ice,” any more than the WRONG conclusion can possibly avoid the most TERMINALLY DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS, EITHER WAY. Would formally, Constitutionally arriving at the CORRECT conclusion result, for instance, also in mandatory church attendance on the Sabbath, even the REAL one, for a most radically normative change? First of all, is it not “arbitrarily oppressive,” yet accepted as “validly given,” even by professing unbelievers, that most have no choice but to consider Saturdays and Sundays, as well as “Christmas,” to be holidays? There need be no “secularly” legal penalty for failing to attend, or even for working on that day, but those who believe such days stand for nothing genuinely sacred nevertheless have no practical choice but to live within the constraints popularly, socially, if not legally associated with such officially “secular” holidays.
The State is obligated to God, and even Divinely-Ordained, as it is, with all its current imperfections, on its very face, to be there; if only in the very characteristically imperfect sense Pontius Pilate had nevertheless been permitted to be (JOHN 19:9-11), until he was finally no more; due to whatever form and by whatever means no less Divinely-Ordained to replace him, and with the proof of such being self-evidently confirmed in the very concretely and irresistibly pragmatic unfolding of the historically and prophetically teleological patterning itself! Or, in the words of Leibniz, it’s the difference, here, between the (perfect) will of God determining the outcome, and the (permissive) will of God being determined by the outcome, even in such comparatively rare and precious instances where the two are humanly chosen to coalesce into one. But the real goal, the highest ideal, as per man’s own responsibility (and not merely “pre-determined passivity”) in the bargain, is to strive for as perfect-an-expression as possible, through the State, of God’s will! However, contrary to the claim of the Papacy, even or rather exclusively regarding itself, there is—NO NECESSARY OR EVEN PROBABLE CONNECTION—between any “human” government as it ACTUALLY IS—regardless of how “religiously” although anything but scripturally “infallible” (II THESSALONIANS 2:1-8) it claims to be—and as it OBJECTIVELY OUGHT TO BE!
Again, “Church” and “State” are “Separate,” not because there exists no rightfully-indispensable place for their involvement with one-another (quite inherently to the contrary!), but only in the sense that the kind of connection which objectively should be the actual case is—not necessarily—or even predominantly--the ACTUAL case at all, and would inherently fail to be thereby immutably incorruptible, even if the “Church” were in a more perfect alignment, even with itself, let-alone with the State; just as there is no formally theoretical provision for striving to make such the case, if the State, or, for that matter, the Church, is no less technically ill-defined as being, at one end, an INHERENTLY ARBITRARY Legislator, in an INHERENTLY AMORAL UNIVERSE, or else, at the other end, "Inherently Infallible" as it is, as self-allegedly measured against the most objectively, perfectly universal standards, and with the “proof” of this claim being found in Revelation 13:4! This is the very “proof” which scripture itself says NOT to go by, and yet the very one invoked by Roman Catholicism over the centuries! Those who love to quote the Apostles Peter and Paul (Romans 13) (I Peter 2:13-25), in defense of the very spirit of STATE WORSHIP (but, of course, even more rhetorically, mystifyingly speaking, without CALLING it THAT, and, if necessary, EXPLICITLY denying it to themselves to be PRECISELY THAT!), “conveniently” overlook the fact that the scriptural passages in question are outlining the RESPONSIBILITIES, even and especially of kings, unto the King of Kings! Note that again! It’s the RESPONSIBILITIES of kings which are being emphasized—and NOT their supposed "INFALLIBILITIES!"
None of the kings and princes of this world embody “Infallible Guarantees,” in the sense popularly, pseudo-religiously, IDOLATROUSLY misinterpreted (at least, quite incoherently, self-contradictorily, subjectively, hypocritically enough, in the names of their own respective governments alone, or even, for that matter, religious “denominations,” I CORINTHIANS 3), that they will perfectly fulfill the moral responsibilities they inherently have toward THEIR KING! And, of course, even the obedience to these entities scripturally mandated must be just as dutifully tempered with a most literally vital understanding and application of--Acts 5:29—even to the point, if necessary, of PHYSICAL MARTYRDOM, in case of an INHERENTLY IRRECONCILIABLE CONFLICT between Church and State! There are those who are currently attempting to argue that the doctrine of “Separation of Church and State” really has no rightful place, and was never meant, by the Founding Fathers, to have any place, within the formal context of American Constitutional philosophy and law. Yet, to the contrary, minus the real meaning of this doctrine, which is literally and unmistakably inscribed in the First Amendment, there is nothing left to distinguish what currently exists from the more Classically, Archetypally Roman Catholic paradigm, save the only thing structurally remaining, namely, an otherwise arbitrarily “secular” rule by the majority. The only formally coherent policy, in light of all these inherently relevant observations, is, for instance, to define the Judicial Branch as being mandated to evaluate laws in a Categorically Imperative sense, while the Legislature is responsible merely for formulating HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES consistent with the Categorical Imperative.
The Constitution, theoretically speaking, was not designed in the spirit of a merely invented set of rules, with the will of the majority, alone, or even primarily and decisively, as well as arbitrarily, serving to determine what these rules shall be. It was rather conceived in the spirit of a discovery of “Natural Laws” which are, in themselves, inalterably what they are, regardless of what even the most indomitably overwhelming majority might have to say to the contrary. These “Natural Laws” are PHYSICAL, when viewed in terms of merely factual causes and effects. But they also, more primarily, and in themselves, serve to outline the most sacredly, religiously idealistic of moral obligations, or, more precisely, the necessary means of fulfilling such obligations. In the latter sense, of course, they can coherently, philosophically have no meaning, IN THEMSELVES, relative to the Categorical Imperative, in the absence of a Lawgiver; for, otherwise, minus any genuinely and Divinely-binding authority, the only IDEALISTICALLY, SACREDLY MORAL IMPERATIVES possibly remaining, if one can even bear, in all good conscience, to call them that, are those which people alone arbitrarily, subjectively decide they ought to respect. If, as such, they freely choose not to care about the physically inevitable consequences of violating “Natural law,” then only the police exist to just as arbitrarily override them. While it is true that Kant soundly distinguishes the AUTONOMOUS AUTHORITY of the Categorical Imperative, his First Postulate of Pure-Practical Reason, from God, in its Three Formulations, thus likewise, in the process, reflecting a more SOBERLY WELL-BALANCED Spirit of the Modern Age, this distinction is merely something “provisionally epistemic” in scope, and meant, in the most Rationally A-Priori frame of reference, to lead to a realization of the NECESSARY CONNECTION of the First Postulate with the OTHER TWO POSTULATES.
Moreover, merely to conform with “Natural Law” in a prevailingly degenerate spirit of “Enlightened Self-Interest,” as a MERE MEANS to the END of making life “WORK," for oneself alone, INTRINSICALLY, as well as, THEREFORE ALONE, for others, also, but INSTRUMENTALLY, as those upon whose "pragmatically good will" you depend, does not, by itself, fulfill one’s obligation to the INHERENT SACREDNESS of the Moral Law. In fact, as the sole or even primarily decisive motivator of one’s “obedience,” it actually VIOLATES the Moral Law! The Law also “WORKS,” as well, and indeed by nature quite optimally, uniquely, when universally obeyed; but, most IDEALLY, SACREDLY, as a RESULT--NOT the CAUSE. However, when “virtually” everyone is concerned only about good because henceforth different and correspondingly better results, all characteristically wait for others to act, for another to take the initial risk, so that the concern alone with “good results” doesn’t end up yielding even that much! This sordidly prevailing reality also serves to reconfirm the victimizingly, selfishly degenerate form of "Liberally Progressive Humanitarianism,” or, that is to say, "ALTRUISTIC" HEDONISM in general! About the only such creatures who at all at least appear to “defy” this formula are those “professionally” and “sophisticatedly,” selfishly engaged, at the “Vanguard” of the struggle, in one way or another, because it’s their “journalistic” or other nevertheless jealously well-guarded business, one which “conveniently” combines their “Concern for Humanity” with their NEED TO SELFISHLY MAKE A LIVING, and, hopefully, to them, in the process, even the “BIGGEST NAME,” from among all their “peers,” for themselves! Notice, for example, how BOTH SIDES virtually INSIST upon "PREACHING ONLY TO THE CHOIR," while so very correspondingly and CONSPICUOUSLY-PEDDLING THEIR BOOKS!!! And they're WHINING, NOW, about Bush's determination to TAKE EVEN THE INTERNET AWAY FROM THEM!!!
Then, again, one hears these "Liberally Progressive Humanitarians" indignantly retorting to the effect that they REALLY DO NEED THE MONEY, and for the most NOBLY PHILANTHROPIC CAUSES of all! Yet, these are also the same people who INSIST UPON quoting their "Hippie," their "merely Buddhistic" Jesus, in a most "Sentimentally Free-Floating" concept of "the Spirit," where he speaks about NOT WORRYING ABOUT THE MONEY! And He's speaking, in case they "conveniently" forgot, to ANYBODY BUT those who DON'T NEED THE MONEY! While these SWINISHLY, VULGARLY DISRESPECTFUL "Liberals" VICIOUSLY MOCK the Gospel, minus any opportunity on my part to present a rebuttal, despite my numerous requests over the years; they continue SNEERING to the effect that I "owe" them money, just because I "DARE" to TUNE IN! Well, I'll monitor them all I see fit, for as long as I am technologically able to do so; just as I'll be the ONLY one to decide, contrary to their PRESUMPTUOUSNESS, not only how much, "if" anything, of what I hear is WORTH MONETARILY REWARDING, but also what MY REAL MOTIVES are; particularly in light of, to say the least, my strongest suspicions they are even quite "consciously" and collusively in the employment of those they lyingly claim "have it in" for them, as the very reason they're the only ones, on a carefully, "scientifically" well-controlled "Left," who are permitted any kind of public forum! In fact, if, for instance, KPFK (90.7 FM, LA), is really as hard-up for money as its own salaried, jet-setting, world-touring executives continually whine; then why don't they, again, for instance, put their good "Liberally Democratic Humanitarian" buddy, Michael Moore, publicly on the line, to pay at least a "matching fund," for every subscriber, while he's enjoying all that FREE COMMERCIAL TIME from them?
But, then, if obedience to the Moral Law, which, for our purposes here, finds its hypothetically ever-guiding content in the “Natural Law,” inherently yields the most “workable” or “pragmatically optimal” results, even though obedience for the sole or primarily decisive sake of the results does not constitute obedience in the most intrinsically sacred sense, then exactly what does constitute such obedience? As Kant so accurately explained, one must be MOTIVATED to obey the Law, for ITS OWN SAKE, simply because it is the Law, independently of any concern for “results.” This serves to distinguish a PURELY REVERENT SPIRIT, from one which views the Law as nothing more than a UTILITARIAN MEANS TO AN END. Corollarily, and in conjunction with that more SOBERLY WELL-BALANCED Spirit of the Modern Age mentioned above, one’s own MOTIVATIONALLY GOOD FAITH quite naturally embodies the responsibility of SELF-LEGISLATING the very CONTENT of his Duties, not in the form of subjectively invented mandates, but in the sense that what is OBJECTIVELY true can be SELF-DEMONSTRATED, minus the need of any “faith” in another’s supposed “authority” from without, which CHARACTERISTICALLY AND MISCHIEVOUSLY MISGUIDES! Many sincere moral subjects of the “pre-enlightened” past failed, by way of the most VIOLENTLY DEHUMANIZING forms of PSEUDO-OLIGARCHICAL breeding, to know any better. However, it is only natural to at least suspect that a scandalously high cross-section of such “lower-class peasants” were “conveniently” self-blinded, as well, by their own fundamentally Sartrean “Bad Faith” at assuming any REAL SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, coupled with an equally, hysterically, even quite artificially or “socially” deforming preoccupation only with what they were taught it required to selfishly “get to Heaven,” and “avoid Hell,” REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS INVOLVED!
When I describe even obedience to the “Natural Law” itself as being “arbitrary,” I do not mean in the strictly operational sense of the term, in which obedience to it, from a rationally sound mind, in view of the results expected, is ANYTHING BUT arbitrary. Even such operationally well-directed obedience is “arbitrary,” but only in the sense of being motivationally regarded, in the process, as a PERSONAL PREFERENCE, rather than an OBJECTIVELY MORAL IMPERATIVE; or, that is to say, as something which fails to be regarded as an INTRINSICALLY SACRED DUTY, in the sense that a strictly individual penalty is not viewed to be the INEVITABLE RESULT of its VIOLATION. Even the “Deistic Naturalists” can talk about “Idealistically Sacred Moral duty” all they wish, but, in the absence of a metaphysically, infallibly built-in POWER to ENFORCE the Law, via the most inevitable if not immediate or even earthly rewards and punishments, then the Law Itself, the CONTENT of the IMPERATIVE on which such individual Duty is based, is INHERENTLY DEPRIVED of any OBJECTIVELY-ROOTED SUBSTANCE. One might argue that God set a strictly Deistic universe in motion, with the rewards and penalties structurally built-in. But such a view fails to satisfy the STRICTEST PHILOSOPHICAL DEMAND. Moral Duty is a STRICTLY INDIVIDUAL RESPOPNSIBILITY, just as no judgments or decisions are ever by nature anything but individually made. Even the most widespread consensus cannot by nature exist at all, save as a composite of freely individual decisions. Since it is only individuals who make decisions, and only individuals who are motivated in any way to do so; then it necessarily follows that, in the presence of anything short of an Eternally Infallible God, to hold each individual, each moral decision, to an inescapably Judicial accounting, it is NOTHING BUT EMPTY WORDS to speak of “Individual Moral Duty” AT ALL!
However, in the process, let us not confuse the individually motivational ideal of “psychologically transcending” the very SPIRIT of OBEDIENCE to Law as an Imperative, rather than as something one does not HAVE to be COMMANDED in order to obey, with an elimination of the rationally philosophical NECESSITY that there be metaphysically, infallibly built-in rewards and punishments; just as, for that matter, the greatest if not the only real rewards, paradoxically enough, are being eternally earned by those who reverently fulfill their duty with the attitude that pleasing God constitutes ITS OWN REWARD! God does, of course, punish collectively, and just as arbitrarily as anything else, even to the point of visiting the sins of the fathers upon the sons, unto the third and fourth generations. And this, to be sure, is, among other things, “Natural Law” in action; intended to, among other things, BURN IN the point that SIN is INHERENTLY VICTIMIZING, and must ultimately be categorically eliminated from within any socially viable context. However, the cause and effect here is not Judicial, in the STRICTEST SENSE, as can only be the case, again, when individuals are held to account for their own inescapably free decisions and motivations. If this is not an inherently metaphysical necessity, then the Christ, who VOLUNTARILY DIED, for the sins of every freely-repentant individual, did so entirely FOR NOTHING! The same "Last Judgment" Billy Graham Continually refers to, is described in Revelation 20. The only other structurally conceivable manner of satisfying the abovestated philosophical demand, is via “Reincarnation." But there simply is no “Reincarnation," just as the wording of Hebrews 9:27 leaves no room for anything but the most logically incoherent misinterpretation here. Moreover, neither is Revelation 3:12 a reference to “Reincarnation," but rather to the fact that, at the point of Revelation 12:14-17, now shortly to come, the 144,000, and the 144,000 alone, from among the then living, are--PERMANENTLY--HOME--FREE!!!
Indeed, the average "Liberal Progressive" dogmatically, even “indignantly” boasts of needing no Savior to open the door individually unto him, while self-masquerading his “freely-chosen humanitarianism” as the "true spirit" of being "Above the Law" in a biblically New Testament sense; but minus any genuinely humble acknowledgment of its INHERENTLY OBJECTIVE NATURE as a DUTY in EITHER case, rather than as something he is “free” as "opposed" to "commanded" to do. To the extent that he’s among the “theistic” rather than ATHEISTIC “Liberals,” he is more characteristically of a Buddhist-type orientation, the kind which, when analytically distilled, amounts to the contention that “sin” is nothing, in the view of Christ Himself, but the result of a perverted way of viewing or experiencing the world, one which is merely compounded by the “ILLUSION” that SIN REALLY EXISTS, that is, by the “ILLUSION,” as contained in the elaborate “Zen Koan” called the bible, that there can possibly exist ANYTHING BUT GOD! His only real concern, like the “strict Epicurean” he characteristically is, amounts to the “Pig Philosophy," the "Philosophy Satisfied," of "Altruistic" Hedonism, the kind from which one can expect no gesture of compassion, regardless of how desperately as well as deservedly needed, and how easily bestowable, unless it expects to be, in some way, selfishly and immediately rewarded in return, rather than “cynically used” and “taken advantage of.”
It is possible, in the strictest structural sense, for such a “Liberally Progressive Humanitarian" to genuinely embrace the SPIRIT of the Categorical Imperative; but while being characteristically incoherent, on a formally theoretical level (including his contemptuous rejection of certain “inconsequential” if not “detrimental” COMMANDMENTS from the Lord), in his definition of the necessary metaphysical conditions; even while speaking in terms of an otherwise “gratuitously undemanding” SOUNDNESS-IN-ITSELF of an objectively, categorically-binding concept of Moral Duty, and also at least "inadvertently," that is, unbelievingly, benefitting from what amounts in-itself to an existentially Kantian equation (he conceived it as a rationally viable substitution, within the limits of “Reason Alone,” which, in a sense, is not entirely inaccurate, given that moral repentance is what subjectively warrants the blessings of Romans 4:4-8, even if the recipient is not necessarily aware of the exact nature of the connection involved) between being judicially pardoned for one’s imperfections due to the substitutionally self-sacrificial merits of another, and through the atonement of one’s own repentantly deserving change of heart per se. However, my experience with such "merely theoretical" or HISTORICALLY FALSIFYING albeit otherwise "Existentially Authentic" limitations in such an individual tends to suggest something characteristically no more redeemably, decisively flattering, on his behalf, than has been his KIND of ATTITUDE toward everything I personally as well as philosophically embody!
His Republican Party, "Christian Fundamentalist" opponents are, of course, really only too "DEMANDINGLY STOIC" in TEMPERAMENT, and irrespective of the merits of any particular imperatives involved, to suit him, but particularly with the kinds of "MILITARILY HEROIC SACRIFICES" as well as "ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY" which "Liberal Progressives" merely quite “conveniently” or “morally” rather than selfishly and decadently ascertain, ACCURATELY in EITHER case, to be more sinisterly immoral than anything else; save, of course, to the extent that, for instance, any from among these “Liberal Progressives” are economically well-privileged themselves, beyond the overall societal norm, with everything they alone have so rightfully, capitalistically, honestly earned, thus “owing” nobody anything, rather than needing to rancorously, jealously “Liberate” for themselves, that is, for “The People,” in the form of a violently Marxist Revolution! In fact, the “Righteously Republican Rewards” of SADISTICALLY MURDERING “sinners” are used as “proof” of the “real origin” rather than the “MERELY” SYSTEMATIC PERVERSION of ideas such as “God,” along with at least “His” concept of “Duty,” in the “strictest metaphysical” and "BLOODLESSLY ABSTRACT" sense!
And, speaking of “economic self-sufficiency,” it’s pathetically ironic that most “Right-Wing, fundamentalist Christians” wholeheartedly buy into the typically perverted version of the “Separation of Church and State” doctrine for the actual purpose of avoiding the taxation of churches. Moreover, they base their argument upon a “Rendering Unto Caesar” doctrine which makes incalculably more sense by INVERTING their interpretation of it, so that it reads as their duty to pay their fair portion of taxes, in exchange for all the public services from which they likewise share in the common benefit. Particularly as of late, the Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing who most popularly and characteristically prevail, as the “heads of their flocks,” are raking in the most obscenely astronomical sums, from “free love gifts,” often enough, as fixed, mandatory amounts, but “not” in exchange for some "love gift" from the "minister," which proves, “de facto,” to be a most profitably capitalistic transaction for him! And, as one understandably cynical agnostic recently observed, these same “ministers” are the ones preaching against “State Welfare” of any kind, but particularly for the poor so “gratuitously” filling their coffers, as well as those of the State! But even this is not enough to satisfy them, as they insist upon having it BOTH WAYS, while otherwise whining about being kept “separate” from “government!” Such a dishonestly ever-swindling mentality, coupled with the more “Classically Spiritual” equivalent of today’s "Liberally Progressive" or "humanistically altruistic" HEDONISTS, but in the form of an “Otherworldly” motive to “Virtue,” merely as a MEANS of “getting into Heaven” as such, hardly serves as the kind of inspirationally proselytizing example of what it means to help get the government more in alignment with Divine Standards of Righteousness! Indeed, these "Christian Fundamentalists" quite “conveniently” wanted God OUT, to such an extent that their entire strategy has backfired!
So, then, here we currently have it; the supremely, characteristically paradigmal spectacle of a President Bush, who believes in the existence of sin, and sinners, and punishment. He’s a self-confessed sinner, too; but, one who has “repented,” and been “born again,” unlike all his enemies, who quite conveniently “deserve” to die, rather than merely having their blood sucked and their flesh eaten by a predator who also quite sadistically loves in the process to TORTURE and MURDER for ITS OWN SAKE! The “Liberally Progressive” dilemma is that the very kind who “invented” the very concept of sin appear to prove it the most real, as the most DIABOLICALLY EVIL of all! In still another sense, it’s “as if” these “Liberal Progressives” are being DIVINELY DISCIPLINED, in their “altruistic” hedonism,” their “quid pro quo” BASTARDIZATION of the INTRINSICALLY-ROOTED SACREDNESS of the Moral Law, which they only wish to selfishly, instrumentally, and "Epicureanly" EXPLOIT; even despite the fact that their characteristic interpretation of its actual content is otherwise so much more conveniently accurate, in many vital ways, as well as so much more ABOMINABLY PERVERTED, in various other ways, than that of the “Christianly Republican Stoics” who are being permitted to so overwhelmingly oppress them with a classically, demonically Roman Catholic counterfeit of God! But, just as President Bush, the “Born Again” Gadfly, serves as a “Thorn in the Flesh” of these “Liberal Progressives,” for reasons they are nevertheless and consequently refusing even more vehemently to acknowledge; President Bush, as well as those who are no less stubbornly refusing to learn from his mistakes, likewise have by now an alarmingly imminent “day in court” coming, from the very Papal Throne which is the principal Seat of Satan, the ruler of this earthly dispensation. The tragically, Divinely unintended irony is that Protestant Fundamentalism makes EVEN Roman Catholicism--LOOK GOOD!!!
It would truly be quite slapstically comical, in its outright absurdity, if not blasphemously irreverent, in the process, as well as incalculably painful, in its effects, to behold; that is, while "transcendentally" observing the carnally symbiotic extent to which today’s Bourgeois Capitalist “Liberals” and “Conservatives” no less grudgingly and bitterly deserve than desperately but ungratefully need one-another’s own mutually “balancing” support! But, then, like unto the very one who shall again be “healing” this cleavage, via a Union of Church and State, even Kant had no more for which to hope, in this world, than a humanly, rationally, universally, Deistically attainable “Kingdom of Ends,” as opposed to a Divinely, Biblically, Prophetically Predetermined Unfolding, which is actually quite historically and teleologically the case. Many will view these systematically, comprehensively clarifying observations as being “extremely presumptuous” at best, while making the question one of “my” authority, or rather the lack of it. But real authority is not in any person, lest the person himself faithfully and accurately reflect the kinds of PRINCIPLES which can and must, here, be rationally, thus verifiably formulated, with the kind of built-in analytical precision to which Spinoza once aspired. Those who typically search for only a human authority figure, rather than the rationally and internally self-verifying foundations of scripture itself, are falling into the Classically Papal Fallacy here, just as those who opt for NO OBJECTIVELY BINDING AUTHORITY are about equally delightful to the very Devil for whose “invisibly” devastating tyranny they so “inadvertently” bargain!
As Alan Watts at least once so lamentingly put it, “Poor Jesus!” Look at Who He had to tell them that He was, just as His Heavenly Father had a purpose, in moving Him to try telling them right at the beginning of His ministry!—Luke 4:16-30! Most "Christians" today would be among the first to NAIL HIM UP AGAIN, alongside “just about” anybody but the Pope who dared make such a claim about himself! They’ve certainly SNEERED it at ME, until it’s unbearably RINGING IN MY EARS: "Who do you think you are, Jesus?" Well, in a very real sense, according to Him, I CERTAINLY AM!—Matthew 25:31-46!—If, that is, I really am indwelt and empowered by His Holy Spirit—Romans 8:9-11—as well as Rightfully Dividing His Word of Truth—II Timothy 2:15! Is the United States a Christian country? Well, above and beyond the fact that its tradition is primarily called by that name (along with the insufficiency of any such basis to alone formally, legally, let-alone Divinely establish such a claim); this question is inherently tied to still another question: Was Jesus actually the Only Begotten Son of God, who died, and rose again, thereafter to ascend, just as He shall return in like fashion—Acts 1:9-11—I Corinthians 15—to rule—quite “undemocratically” (thank God!), with a Rod of Iron—Revelation 2:27? Is the bible the Infallibly Inspired Word of God—II Timothy 3:16—II Peter 1:20-21?
If these things be objectively true, then any nation which claims TRUTH as the BASIS of its authority is AUTOMATICALLY declaring itself to be Christian, whether it realizes as much or not; and, for that matter, as surely as the physical water of life one drinks is chemically composed of H2O, regardless of what anybody thinks (Romans 3:1-4). The only way to avoid even quite “inadvertently” making the claim, is by formally denying the Lordship of Christ as a nation (if not knowingly spurning Him as Lord in the process); or else by formally declaring, but not only ignorantly, rather than also quite insincerely, while perhaps willfully deceiving even and especially itself, that its ULTIMATE VALUE is THE TRUTH! But the Razor’s Edge (Revelation 3:15-17; 20:4), of any alleged “neutrality,” which MOST, on BOTH sides, at least quite grudgingly accept, as the originally, officially intended interpretation of the State’s Constitutional position in this respect, is, "at least" IN SPIRIT, extremely SHARP indeed (Matthew 6:24); and particularly so, not only when it comes to being INHERENTLY INCAPABLE of taking “Neither Side,” that is, “BOTH,” on various MORALLY CRUCIAL issues; but, also, to the extent that ATHEISM has the structurally, fallaciously, unscrupulously MONOPOLIZING “EDGE” of NOT being considered a “religion,” or, that is, a FUNDAMENTAL WORLD-VIEW, by EITHER side, thus no less mischievously increasing its capacity to inhibit the free exercise of religion in the very name of government. In reality, the OPPOSITE of the Sacred is, NOT the so-called “Secularly Neutral,” but, rather, the PROFANE!—Ezekiel 22:26!
In the Spirit of Elijah,
P.S. Here's a SHORT though SYMBOLICALLY, INSTRUCTIVELY COGENT "RIDDLE," to ponder, in conjunction with the above: Is the United States Supreme Court as "RIGHT" as it is BECAUSE IT'S the "Supreme Court," or, is it, MUCH LESS GUARANTEEABLY, the Supreme Court, BECAUSE it is RIGHT? And, again, for a most dramatically moving breakdown of how all this logic fits together, it can be very clearly distilled from a careful study of the "trial" of Tribune Marcellus Gallio (Richard Burton), presided over by Caligula (Jay Robinson), during the last fifteen minutes of The Robe. Of course, where Caligula, along with virtually all professing "Christians," let-alone the rest, had scornfully spurned the advice of Tribune Marcellus Gallio; Satan had taken over, through the Roman Catholic Church, with a craftily-counterfeited appearance of having heeded that very advice, to the long-term detriment of Christianity's very image, and many who are consequently at least understandably though unwittingly confused enough to be holding their noses--at Christ Himself!--Romans 2:24!--II Peter 2:1-2! It's not so decisively that the Explicitly Pagan Roman Empire had finally become Christian, under the Emperor Constantine, as it is that "Christ" had decided to become a Roman! Even more, I would have, ironically and tragically enough, even and especially those such as Caligula, or Nero, to thank; for at least the "inadvertent" favor, to me, on their part, of sparing my conscience all-the-more; by permitting, and even insisting, that I be martyred--as the Christian!--Rather than as the kind of "heretic" which had been so very brutally tortured and burned alive by the Roman Catholic Church! The Real Biblical New Testament Church of God has always been small, and vigorously persecuted, systematically suppressed! The most notorious Satanic deception in the world (Revelation 12:9) (II Thessalonians 2:1-12) is that this condition had systematically begun to cease, with the "conversion" of the Roman Emperor Constantine, and thus exists, to this very day; even if only due to the Protestant Reformation, or, rather, for the most part, the Counter-Delusion Itself; which also shares, with Roman Catholicism, the equally complicating fact that it teaches, not everything wrong, by any means--although just enough, and no less tenaciously, seductively, fatally!--I'm almost tempted to say perhaps even decisively enough to give contemporarily insolent rabble, such as the first responder below, any kind of excuse at all! But I can't really go nearly that far! False "Christianity" serves the more decisively, craftily overshadowing objective of deceiving professing believers, and, of course, if possible, even the Very Elect!--Matthew 24:24!--With an "authority" to "bolster" even the Protestants, as well, or, at least for now, almost as much, to be found in Revelation 13:4!