Texas Drifter Myths About Freedom Of Religion
Marshall’s Law Townhall Dateline – Really inexpensive research study reveals that some conservatives are politically incorrect fools by supporting some myths about First Amendment. Conservatives who suggest that Constitution guarantees any religion right to build any “house of worship” anywhere they want are what Lenin used to call “useful idiots”.
Freedom of religious protections does not extend to any ideology which engages in murdering innocent American civilians to replace America’s Constitution with Islamic Fascist Sharia Law. A trait some might say is displayed by those wishing to build “stick in the eye” mosque next to hallowed ground for those honoring memory of 911 casualties.
Reader can follow “money trail” of those funding what some have called rude insensitive conduct by some Muslims to build mosque which shadow will cover part of America’s hallowed ground. Americans need to quit without thinking talking like fools; people wishing to murder you and your family are not beyond lying to you about their real world motives.
Side note about Texas Drifter, one my very few cheap thrills in life is being professionally right when everyone else is wrong. Your author was involved in a murder of a child decades and decades ago. Two senior investigators reported to case supervisor they felt child’s death was an accident as “distraught” father “could not wait to confess” his negligence was responsible for his step son’s death.
The supervisor turned to me and asked “you agree rookie”? My response, no both investigators are wrong, they stopped their investigation with “distraught” father’s confession. If they had kept doing their job; they would have discovered facts: one, two, three, four, five, and probably many more facts waiting to be discovered which will show the negligent accident was pre-meditated. (As reader can guess, Texas Drifter has never had any trouble making new friends among incompetent or lazy associates.)
It certainly would be nice if so called Conservative politicians, radio talk show hosts, and others would stop saying: "terrorists at war with America have a right to have their collaborators and sympathizers build religious centers next to places they murder innocent Americans, but it is rude or insensitive for terrorists to do so." Grow up pilgrims do you really think people who murder your family and friends are concerned about hurting your feelings?
Many also make argument that not all Muslims support Islamic Fascists strategies and objectives. How can anyone know which side Muslims not publicly denouncing Islamic Fascist terrorist activities support?
Back to myths about First Amendment, Constitution does not specify “separation of church and state”; so purge that concept from your mind. First Amendment prohibits respect for specific religious beliefs which would establish political theocracy in America.
Times have evolved where there is a thin line between theology and ideology; both are belief systems, one is based on spiritual beliefs and the other on atheist human beliefs. Due process consistency demands that rule by ideology elite is no more constitutional than rule by theocracy elite.
One of inalienable principles in Declaration of Independence which was is included in First Amendment is free will pursuit of happiness can not be achieved in either religious theocracy or ideological fascist tyranny.
First myth buster, religious sects engaged in murdering Americans and attempting to replace Constitution with Sharia law are not guaranteed First amendment protections. Same applies to collaborators and sympathizers who either fund or receive money from bad guys for propaganda like building mosque near 911.
Moving on to next myth buster, atheist ideologies Marxism, socialism, Leninist-Obama Policies, Liberal Democrats, and Moderate Republicans are included in First Amendment prohibitions against establishing preferential treatment for political ideologies which restricts pursuit of free will happiness as defined in Declaration of Independence. Translation: a non-religion with same unconstitutional results as unconstitutional theocracy is still unconstitutional.
Consider, are following socialist moral beliefs which violate one of Commandments, “thou shall not steal”, unconstitutional?
Some Americans owe all other Americans free: health care; free housing; free utilities; free food; free living expenses; free transportation and related expenses; free spending money; free access to other citizens property; free career advancements not based on qualifications or skills; free tax payer services for illegal immigrants; free education for the world excluding American private schools and home schooling systems.
Respecting establishment prohibitions against religious theocracy by all due process standards must also apply to those trying to force godless man made religion on American citizens.
Perhaps some reference material should be included before continuing this writing exercise.
(Excerpts) America’s First Tradition
Posted by Marshall's Law on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:52:56 PM
Entry 003
America's first tradition will be identified after citizens understand threats to America's first tradition. Types of threats to America’s first tradition include:
I. Types American Counterfeit Conservatives:
The reason patriotic America conservatives need to be able to identify counterfeit conservatives is simple, the enemy from within can easier destroy organization or constitutional republic than outside enemies.
II. Types “Liberal” Threats: morally and ethically depraved, liberal Democrat socialist Marxists like Obama , most members U.S. House of Representatives, public subsidy addicts and their supporters, public subsidy addicts products and services dispersers, most public sector educators, most major news networks, and Greenists.
III Foreign Threats: imperialist nations threatening with economics and or force like China, Mexico, Venezuela, Russia, and Middle East, and international terrorists like Islamic Fascists, and narcotic terrorists. Some imperialist nations like Mexico seek to export poverty to reduce societal tensions to protect brutal corrupt aristocracy. Originally called barbarians now called illegal immigrants, smugglers, and ideological terrorists.
Americans who do not have the courage to defend their republic and or constitution against enemies, tyrants, and hypocrites do not deserve to be free. The destruction of America will result not from its enemies’ strengths rather from it patriots character weaknesses.
Greatest threats to America’s domestic and national security results from middle class citizens ignoring the Marshall adage, those who ignore security spend too much time at cemeteries.
Moving on to writing exercise theme reviewing America's first tradition; America's first tradition was not freedom from religion, rather freedom from government religion. Your simple reference is first words of First Amendment to Bill of Rights.
Those posing greatest threats to America's first tradition include but are not limited too Islamic fascists, socialist liberal Democrats, moderate Republicans collaborating with Democrats, and Science is God crowd better known as global warming true believers.
Understanding historical relationships of words independent, Independents, and independence will help conservatives better understand America's first tradition. The word independent first appeared in late 1500's and was defined as "in (not) dependent". Independent then suggested a word describing a person not acting as part of a political party.
Independents as a word appeared in the early 1600's to describe a religious organization that supported "a voluntary association of like minded believers who renounced the support of civil authorities either in reforming itself or extending its practices to persons of a different mind." Independents according to George H. Sabine, also "took the advanced ground that any should be tolerated which did not adversely affect social order."
The first record of the word independence follows, Young Nathan entered Yale College at fourteen, having, ultimately the ministry in view. Just after the battle of Lexington, at a town meeting, with the audacity of boyhood, he cried out, “Let us never lay down our arms till we have achieved independence!”
Where had he learned that new word, not to be found in Shakespeare, or in Spencer, and in Bacon, only as applied to the Independents of England? Is there on record any earlier demand for independence than this bold utterance of the boy in April 1775? One later sentence made the young Nathan’s name immortal: I only regret that I have but one life to give to my country (country not government or political party).
First words of First Amendment are not about freedom from religion rather freedom from government religion which is America's first tradition. Islamic fascists, socialist liberal Democrats, moderate Republicans, and Science is God crowd are all fanatically trying to abolish intent of America's first tradition.
First partial solution, "public employee civil liability legislation" needs to be enacted to offer private citizens civil justice for behavior by public servants who fail to deliver promised services, violate constitutionally protected rights, or engage in incompetent, negligent or criminal conduct. Sovereign immunity is another concept which has been prostituted by pop culture ethics. Sovereign immunity extends only to elected, or appointed officials (including national security institutions engage in national security) not hired domestic employed civil servants.
Child protective service agencies by basing conduct on "good intentions" not due process standards are good examples of civil servants needing to be held accountable by public employee liability legislation. Other examples include: public educators not providing educations, amnesty cities for crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and government employees interfering Southern border national security fence.
Government employees can provide their own public employee civil liability insurance by using their retirement programs trusts as insurance pools.
Since I am in a listing mind state, "America's First Tradition" summarizing points are:
1. The First Amendment is not about separation of church and state by not allowing religious citizens to serve in government. First Amendment is about not letting government become a false God with establishment of state theocracy.
2. The First Amendment is not about carte blanche religious freedoms. The First Amendment is about voluntary beliefs that do not affect social civil order in name of any religion or ideology (including Islamic Fascism, Marxism and Science is God.)
3. Sovereign immunity traditionally only applied to king and his appointees not peasants or serfs. In modern times, sovereign immunity only applies to the constitutional elected and appointments not public sector employees.
Closing thoughts, it is not the original intent of the Bill of Rights that is controversial; it is "living document" interpretations by individuals pursuing personal selfish more equal and better than you privileges that are by definition controversial.
In closing, Texas Drifter is not a religious scholar so reader might know following answers better than me: Heaven probably judges Judeo-Christians by their actions not their words. Second, terrorists slapping Judeo-Christians admonishing Judeo-Christians to turn the other cheek, probably do not have best interests of Judeo-Christians in their evil hearts. What say you reader?
