THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAYS ABOUT RELIGION, AND HOW THE STATE HAS CREATED A S

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/13/texas-gov-rick-perry-americans-have-no-right-to-freedom-from-religion/WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAYS ABOUT RELIGION, AND HOW THE STATE HAS CREATED A STATE RELIGION IN SPITE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “

WHAT THAT MEANS

It means what it says. It doesn’t say freedom of religion, or freedom from religion. As a libertarian of course, I would prefer that it did say what we libertarians desire it said. Just like every other faction desires it to say one thing or another. But that’s what it says and all it says. It means only that the congress may not pass a law establishing an official single monopoly religion, or inhibiting the practice of religion by those who desire to.

WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED

1) The founders intended that the state not take control of the christian church as it had in France and England, because the state would abuse the church, which was the source of moral teaching, and use the church for immoral ends. However, in practice, the state has made the education system it’s ‘church’ and the source of moral teaching, thereby creating its own religion.

2) The founders intended that the church retain it’s position as the source of moral teaching. They stated repeatedly that the constitution was an inferior protector of our liberty – that the only material protection of liberty was the moral code of the citizenry itself. In practice, through public education, the state has created its own moral code against the wishes of the majority. We call this code socialism, or the more recent incarnation of socialism: “postmodernism”, or in colloquial terms “liberalism’, or in institutional and political terms ‘social democracy’. But whatever we call it, the state has adopted and sponsored a religion, and not agnosticism, and not atheism, and the state does not practice atheism or agnosticism, or even neutrality – it practices postmodernism, and an intentional attack on christianity, while supporting all other monotheistic religions.

BUT OUR CONSTITUTION DOESN’T CONSTRAIN THE STATE ANY LONGER

Political debates that rely upon some set of rights make no sense today. Thanks to the destruction of the constitution by liberals by abusing the 14th amendment as a ruse, and in particular under the threat of stacking the court imposed by FDR, the constitution no longer constrains the state, because other than by the untested principle of nullification, the federal government is now in practice a dictator to the states. WIthout state opposition to the federal government, groups of individuals have no institutional means of cooperating en masse to oppose expansion of the government.

RECOMMENDED READING (This is really all you need to know)

Nullification, by Thomas Woods. (The least expensive and least disruptive means of regaining our rights: move, and vote for nullification.)

How Liberals Rewrote the Constitution, by Richard Epstein. (A detailed history of the project to undermined the constitution so that socialism could be adopted.)

The Constitution Of Liberty, by Friedrich Hayek. (Freedom is synonymous with property rights and rule of law. That’s it.)