Resist Tyranny

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,891
Pacific Northwest
✟732,309.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
A paraphrase:

Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the era of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Thomas Jefferson on Medicine

Of course Jefferson isn't saying the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare, but that the government cannot dictate religious proscriptions upon the people,

Here is the relevant portion of Notes on the State of Virginia,

"The first settlers in this country were emigrants from England, of the English church, just at a point of time when it was flushed with complete victory over the religious of all other persuasions. Possessed, as they became, of the powers of making, administering, and executing the laws, they shewed equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian brethren, who had emigrated to the northern government. The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect. Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibited the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for their third; had inhibited all persons from suffering their meetings in or near their houses, entertaining them individually, or disposing of books which supported their tenets. If no capital execution took place here, as did in New-England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature, as may be inferred from the law itself; but to historical circumstances which have not been handed down to us. The Anglicans retained full possession of the country about a century. Other opinions began then to creep in, and the great care of the government to support their own church, having begotten an equal degree of indolence in its clergy, two-thirds of the people had become dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution. The laws indeed were still oppressive on them, but the spirit of the one party had subsided into moderation, and of the other had risen to a degree of determination which commanded respect.


The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free; but when they proceeded to form on that declaration the ordinance of government, instead of taking up every principle declared in the bill of rights, and guarding it by legislative sanction, they passed over that which asserted our religious rights, leaving them as they found them. The same convention, however, when they met as a member of the general assembly in October 1776, repealed all _acts of parliament_ which had rendered criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, the forbearing to repair to church, and the exercising any mode of worship; and suspended the laws giving salaries to the clergy, which suspension was made perpetual in October 1779. Statutory oppressions in religion being thus wiped away, we remain at present under those only imposed by the common law, or by our own acts of assembly. At the common law, _heresy_ was a capital offence, punishable by burning. Its definition was left to the ecclesiastical judges, before whom the conviction was, till the statute of the 1 El. c. 1. circumscribed it, by declaring, that nothing should be deemed heresy, but what had been so determined by authority of the canonical scriptures, or by one of the four first general councils, or by some other council having for the grounds of their declaration the express and plain words of the scriptures. Heresy, thus circumscribed, being an offence at the common law, our act of assembly of October 1777, c. 17. gives cognizance of it to the general court, by declaring, that the jurisdiction of that court shall be general in all matters at the common law. The execution is by the writ _De haeretico comburendo_. By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. (*) The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices.
" - Avalon Project - Notes on the State of Virginia

The state can no more tell us what to believe, or dictate religious practice then it can tell us what to eat, or what medicines to take.

All of this provides a pretty solid argument against religious-based discrimination laws, such as dictating who is allowed to marry whom; but it isn't an argument against public payer healthcare; since the purpose of public payer healthcare isn't to tell people what medicines to take, what foods to eat; but to protect the American people's right to life; to deny access to healthcare for those who need it, outside of prohibitively expensive and extensive medical costs and the incurring of debt, is a tyranny.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yarddog
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,284
3,556
Louisville, Ky
✟821,156.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
A paraphrase:

Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the era of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Thomas Jefferson on Medicine
Thanks for proving me right.
 
Upvote 0

more4less

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2016
488
98
58
Houston Tx
✟29,971.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Of course Jefferson isn't saying the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare, but that the government cannot dictate religious proscriptions upon the people,

Here is the relevant portion of Notes on the State of Virginia,

"The first settlers in this country were emigrants from England, of the English church, just at a point of time when it was flushed with complete victory over the religious of all other persuasions. Possessed, as they became, of the powers of making, administering, and executing the laws, they shewed equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian brethren, who had emigrated to the northern government. The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect. Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibited the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for their third; had inhibited all persons from suffering their meetings in or near their houses, entertaining them individually, or disposing of books which supported their tenets. If no capital execution took place here, as did in New-England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature, as may be inferred from the law itself; but to historical circumstances which have not been handed down to us. The Anglicans retained full possession of the country about a century. Other opinions began then to creep in, and the great care of the government to support their own church, having begotten an equal degree of indolence in its clergy, two-thirds of the people had become dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution. The laws indeed were still oppressive on them, but the spirit of the one party had subsided into moderation, and of the other had risen to a degree of determination which commanded respect.


The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free; but when they proceeded to form on that declaration the ordinance of government, instead of taking up every principle declared in the bill of rights, and guarding it by legislative sanction, they passed over that which asserted our religious rights, leaving them as they found them. The same convention, however, when they met as a member of the general assembly in October 1776, repealed all _acts of parliament_ which had rendered criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, the forbearing to repair to church, and the exercising any mode of worship; and suspended the laws giving salaries to the clergy, which suspension was made perpetual in October 1779. Statutory oppressions in religion being thus wiped away, we remain at present under those only imposed by the common law, or by our own acts of assembly. At the common law, _heresy_ was a capital offence, punishable by burning. Its definition was left to the ecclesiastical judges, before whom the conviction was, till the statute of the 1 El. c. 1. circumscribed it, by declaring, that nothing should be deemed heresy, but what had been so determined by authority of the canonical scriptures, or by one of the four first general councils, or by some other council having for the grounds of their declaration the express and plain words of the scriptures. Heresy, thus circumscribed, being an offence at the common law, our act of assembly of October 1777, c. 17. gives cognizance of it to the general court, by declaring, that the jurisdiction of that court shall be general in all matters at the common law. The execution is by the writ _De haeretico comburendo_. By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. (*) The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices.
" - Avalon Project - Notes on the State of Virginia

The state can no more tell us what to believe, or dictate religious practice then it can tell us what to eat, or what medicines to take.

All of this provides a pretty solid argument against religious-based discrimination laws, such as dictating who is allowed to marry whom; but it isn't an argument against public payer healthcare; since the purpose of public payer healthcare isn't to tell people what medicines to take, what foods to eat; but to protect the American people's right to life; to deny access to healthcare for those who need it, outside of prohibitively expensive and extensive medical costs and the incurring of debt, is a tyranny.

-CryptoLutheran
Well, to me that it seems as if you are over looking how it shows the way they have viewed what they has considered a religion in those days. Only religion in those days they had saw to be a religion is Christianity. The others were put in the category as witchcraft or heathen rituals. At the time that they were made to see the way of worshiping Christ by the way of the old Roman catholic religion. That you can purchase your way to heaven. Like Martin Luther had branched out and translated the Bible to let the people to decide for themselves. But the Roman Catholic Churches did not let them practiced Christianity independently. It was forbidden at the time. And so the Founding Fathers made it clear that anyone can choose to worship Christ in their own way that will make them feel happy. That there should not be any certain pattern of worshiping Christ. That was the meaning of Freedom of Religion, but not the freedom to worship things that they had consider as being heathenish. But I believe that the wicked politicians has founded that out and now spreading disinformation about the Founding Fathers as being Tyrants so that they can remove the constitution and replace it with child inappropriate contentography..
In these verses that it is saying that God works with each individual in His own way, and that there's no certain patterns that He will have them to follow.

John 3:8
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

Romans 8:14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

That is what the Founding Father were trying to express. But you can go back into your Man-cave and do what pleases you. As long as you doesn't come out twisting the words of God.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,891
Pacific Northwest
✟732,309.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Well, to me that it seems as if you are over looking how it shows the way they have viewed what they has considered a religion in those days.

The founding fathers were quite aware of the existence of Jews and Muslims, and were also very clear that freedom of religion included them.

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims),-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (Muslim) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the United States Congress on June 10, 1797

No, the Constitutional freedom of religion is not solely about Christians, that was not the intent of the founders, the intent of the amendment, nor has that at any time been the legal interpretation by the Supreme Court. Your argument is, on the whole of it, utterly false.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yarddog
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,284
3,556
Louisville, Ky
✟821,156.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Well, to me that it seems as if you are over looking how it shows the way they have viewed what they has considered a religion in those days. Only religion in those days they had saw to be a religion is Christianity. The others were put in the category as witchcraft or heathen rituals. At the time that they were made to see the way of worshiping Christ by the way of the old Roman catholic religion. That you can purchase your way to heaven. Like Martin Luther had branched out and translated the Bible to let the people to decide for themselves. But the Roman Catholic Churches did not let them practiced Christianity independently. It was forbidden at the time. And so the Founding Fathers made it clear that anyone can choose to worship Christ in their own way that will make them feel happy. That there should not be any certain pattern of worshiping Christ. That was the meaning of Freedom of Religion, but not the freedom to worship things that they had consider as being heathenish. But I believe that the wicked politicians has founded that out and now spreading disinformation about the Founding Fathers as being Tyrants so that they can remove the constitution and replace it with child inappropriate contentography..
In these verses that it is saying that God works with each individual in His own way, and that there's no certain patterns that He will have them to follow.

John 3:8
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

Romans 8:14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

That is what the Founding Father were trying to express. But you can go back into your Man-cave and do what pleases you. As long as you doesn't come out twisting the words of God.
Many of the Founding Father's were not even Christians. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist as we're several others. Others mixed it in with their Christian beliefs.

As far what some politicians of today are concerned, can you give us an example of any trying to claim the FFs were tyrants?
 
Upvote 0

more4less

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2016
488
98
58
Houston Tx
✟29,971.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The founding fathers were quite aware of the existence of Jews and Muslims, and were also very clear that freedom of religion included them.

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims),-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (Muslim) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the United States Congress on June 10, 1797

No, the Constitutional freedom of religion is not solely about Christians, that was not the intent of the founders, the intent of the amendment, nor has that at any time been the legal interpretation by the Supreme Court. Your argument is, on the whole of it, utterly false.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm kinda like some of the Muslims customs. I'm kinda like the ideal of going backwards as well..

On Sunday on Meet the Press, Ben Carson described Islam as inconsistent with the Constitution and said he “absolutely would not agree” with putting a Muslim in the White House. Obama Isn't The First U.S. President Accused Of Being Secretly Muslim | HuffPost

Toby Keith to Perform at Men-Only Concert in Saudi Arabia During Trump’s Visit Toby Keith to Perform at Men-Only Concert in Saudi Arabia


Wishful thinking....
pow.gif
 
Upvote 0