The Nazis Declared War On Christianity In Public Schools Just As The Radical Left Is Doing Today

  • Thread starter Thread starter Revelation1217
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of useful referenced information in this book:

Salvation is from the Jews

amazon.com/Salvation-Jews-Role-Judaism-History/dp/089870975X

Roy Schoeman grew up studying Judaism under the most prominent Rabbis in American Judaism. After receiving a B.S. from M.I.T. and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, he taught at Harvard. His conversion to Catholicism led to a dramatic refocus of his activities.

I first learned about this book when I saw an interview with the author on EWTN.
 
Caesar517 said:
I’ve taken Constitutional Law classes.

I never said that we could or should do that. There was a recent thread in which you posted entitled “Imposing our beliefs on others”. There is a link to an article that says laws are fundamentally about imposing someone’s beliefs on someone else (i.e. the thief doesn’t want to be punished for stealing and the rapist doesn’t like the laws against sexual asault.)

I certainly don’t think that we ought to take the CCC and replace our laws with it, but I do think that our laws should reflect basic Christian values (the Constitution does).

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are two very different things. We only have a right to one of them.

Whatr I said in my earlier post doesn’t just apply to lawmakes, though. I see these attitudes everywhere and it sickens me.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you studied Con Law, but it is not a Christian manifesto. The only explicit mention of religion is the article VI declaration that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Otherwise, the Constitution is wholly concerned with the secular issues of defining federal power, and distributing that power among the various branches of government. Quite against the practice of state constitutions, the federal Constitution does not quote or refer to the Bible, does not set up any religion above another, does not refer to God, and does not raise or rule upon religious questions. It is a remarkably secular document for its day and age.
 
Caesar517 said:
I’ve taken Constitutional Law classes.

I never said that we could or should do that. There was a recent thread in which you posted entitled “Imposing our beliefs on others”. There is a link to an article that says laws are fundamentally about imposing someone’s beliefs on someone else (i.e. the thief doesn’t want to be punished for stealing and the rapist doesn’t like the laws against sexual asault.)

I certainly don’t think that we ought to take the CCC and replace our laws with it, but I do think that our laws should reflect basic Christian values (the Constitution does).

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are two very different things. We only have a right to one of them.

Whatr I said in my earlier post doesn’t just apply to lawmakes, though. I see these attitudes everywhere and it sickens me.
Click to expand...
I do value freedom from religion.
 
Fitswimmer said:
I don’t know where you studied Con Law, but it is not a Christian manifesto. The only explicit mention of religion is the article VI declaration that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Otherwise, the Constitution is wholly concerned with the secular issues of defining federal power, and distributing that power among the various branches of government. Quite against the practice of state constitutions, the federal Constitution does not quote or refer to the Bible, does not set up any religion above another, does not refer to God, and does not raise or rule upon religious questions. It is a remarkably secular document for its day and age.
Click to expand...
The Constitution does not explicitly mention God or Christianity because those references are not required. It does, however, clearly reflect Christian values. The Declaration of Independence does mention God:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…
Click to expand...
The Declaration is not as important as the Constitution, but it shows the mindset at the time and what was being pursued: a government that would uphold certain unalienable rights given by God.
 
“The Nazis hated Christianity and tried to completely eliminate it from schools and public life. Check out what this Nazi tract from 1941 entitled “Gott und Volk” had to say about children:”

No truer words were ever spoken. You wouldn’t believe the number of man-hours I’ve spent arguing this point to anti-Catholics and atheists online, who believe Hitler was a Catholic, and that the Catholic Church collaborated with him.
 
Caesar517 said:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention God or Christianity because those references are not required. It does, however, clearly reflect Christian values. The Declaration of Independence does mention God:
The Declaration is not as important as the Constitution, but it shows the mindset at the time and what was being pursued: a government that would uphold certain unalienable rights given by God.
Click to expand...
The references are not required because this is NOT a Christian nation. This nation was designed from the beginning to have NO ties to any established religion. The government was designed from the beginning to be separate from religion. No endorsement, no religious requirements for office.

As for the idea that our rights came from God-rights are not only highly contradictory among the world’s religions, but within the same religions over time. This makes it impossible to use religion as a source of rights. In Judeo-Christian cultures, for example, our modern, post-Enlightenment concept of rights is seldom found in the Bible. The story of Abraham leading Israel out of slavery from Egypt has long been celebrated as a triumph of the right to freedom. But the Israelites did not celebrate their freedom by creating a Jeffersonian constitutional republic based on individual rights. Instead, they first created a theocracy, then a monarchy, both of which are dictatorships. And these dictatorships enacted laws that many would decry today as human rights abuses. For example, the Torah permitted parents to kill their children if they disrespected them. Slavery was allowed, if regulated to prevent the more egregious abuses. Even so, it was legal for a master to beat slaves so severely that they could not get up for two days. Male prisoners of war and non-virgin females were often killed, and virgin females taken into sexual slavery. The New Testament offered no improved philosophy of individual rights; indeed, the apostle Paul commanded, “Slaves, obey your masters.” The changing nature of religious-based rights precludes them from being used as a guide for rights today.

To acknowledge that we have a different concept of ideal rights today is to completely surrender the claim that our ideal rights come from God.

Rights are actually social constructs-they are the previaling views of the society that creates them.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (freedom from religion), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (freedom of religion)
 
KingAlfred said:
“The Nazis hated Christianity and tried to completely eliminate it from schools and public life. Check out what this Nazi tract from 1941 entitled “Gott und Volk” had to say about children:”

No truer words were ever spoken. You wouldn’t believe the number of man-hours I’ve spent arguing this point to anti-Catholics and atheists online, who believe Hitler was a Catholic, and that the Catholic Church collaborated with him.
Click to expand...
The scary thing is that Germany is still using the Nazi laws in forcing kids to state schools and jailing homeschoolers and kidnapping their kids. I guess Nazism is OK if it meets the state agenda.
 
peregrinus_WA said:
The scary thing is that Germany is still using the Nazi laws in forcing kids to state schools and jailing homeschoolers and kidnapping their kids. I guess Nazism is OK if it meets the state agenda.
Click to expand...
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
gmags2003 said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (freedom from religion), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (freedom of religion)
Click to expand...
This should read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (freedom of religion), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (freedom of religion).
Click to expand...
The first part (the Establishment Clause) prohibits the government from establishing a national religion. The second part (the Free Exercise Clause) says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religious beliefs.

Any law supporting freedom from religion would violate the Free Exercise Clause.
 
adrift said:
You have never heard of the Roman persecutions? Both Peter and Paul were martyred during it.
The Muslims have persecuted Christians for centuries and are still doing so.
Click to expand...
I assumed the poster was referring to the US. I of course know of the times you speak of. How could ANY christian not? ROFL
 
Caesar517 said:
I’m sorry, but you do not have that right in this country.
Click to expand...
Um…freedom of religion includes the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in or practice any religion of one’s choice.

To the State, what’s the difference if I am a Catholic or an Evangelical or a nothing as long as I pay my taxes and follow the laws? The State has no interest in my religious practices.
 
Caesar517 said:
This should read:

The first part (the Establishment Clause) prohibits the government from establishing a national religion. The second part (the Free Exercise Clause) says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religious beliefs.

Any law supporting freedom from religion would violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Click to expand...
Yes, freedom FROM a national religion.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
HUH?
Click to expand...
Can you ask a more specific question? I can’t really answer that one.
LCMS_No_More said:
Um…freedom of religion includes the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in or practice any religion of one’s choice.

To the State, what’s the difference if I am a Catholic or an Evangelical or a nothing as long as I pay my taxes and follow the laws? The State has no interest in my religious practices.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you said. I don’t think I contradicted that.

As a side note, the government does have power over your religious practices, but not your religious beliefs.
gmags2003 said:
Yes, freedom FROM a national religion.
Click to expand...
That’s not what is usually meant when someone says “freedom from religion”. To say “freedom from a national religion” implies that there could be a national religion as long as you could choose your own.
 
Caesar517 said:
Can you ask a more specific question? I can’t really answer that one.

I agree with what you said. I don’t think I contradicted that.

As a side note, the government does have power over your religious practices, but not your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Are you reading the same Establishment clause I am?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion of prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

The government has absolutely NO say whatsoever in my religious practices or beliefs.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
Are you reading the same Establishment clause I am?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion of prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

The government has absolutely NO say whatsoever in my religious practices or beliefs.
Click to expand...
There have been many Supreme Court cases regarding freedom of religion, as you can imagine. The Supreme Court has interpreted that freedom of religion is not an absolute right.

In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that “religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment.” “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.”

In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court interpreted that laws can trump religious practices as long as they are not directed to do so.

Whether their rulings are right or wrong is a very complicated issue, but they stand as it is.

If there was a law banning all alcohol, the government could also ban wine from the Catholic Mass as long as that was not the intention of the law, just a consequence (from the secular perspective, we consume wine during Mass). It’s scary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top