Secular Government

A secular government doesn't mean its a form of government that seeks to favor atheism upon free people. That country was called the Soviet Union.  It is critical to insure our freedom that our Government recognizes that only God gives men and women rights in which Government has no authority to redeem (unalienable rights). Once that concept collapses, then the State becomes God and can write changes or limit those freedoms. The State is then the giver, and taker, and not God.
A free people cannot exist without morality, or one willing to submit to the rule of law. The more immoral the population, the more laws and enforcement are required which gradually erodes these freedoms. The inner cities are so immoral (e.g. corruption, crime, and vice), it almost calls for Martial Law (or the suspension of Constitutional rights) to right the ship. A moral population is important to remain free.

The 1st Amendment was written to insure that no man is forced on his knees or forced off his knees. In matters of religion, the Congress has no authority or power. That prohibition applies to creating laws to favor or oppose religion. In no way does that imply individuals in that government cannot openly practice faith as free citizens.

On the other hand, local laws or ordinances that force Christian bakers, florists, or photographers to participate in ceremonies they dim forbidden in their faith practice violates the 1st Amendment rights of their citizens. It favors one religious point of view over another. This is not the "secular" government the founders had in mind.

Religious Liberty

If we are just one justice away from loosing religious liberty in the public space, then we have to figure out how to eliminate that risk. Carson said a President has no duty to enforce or carry out Court legislation. The Supreme Court has legislated on abortion, and they have legislated on the definition of marriage for State licensing. Neither of these issues are found within the context of the Constitution, yet the court ruled.

We need leaders willing to challenge the courts, and to remind them they are only one branch of the three. If the Supreme Court takes it upon themselves to decide what is or isn't Constitutional based on tortured logic and invented rights not literally found in the document, and their authority to do so must be challenged by the President and Congress. Once any kind of contract is signed, you can't add inferences or demand rights that were never explicitly cited. The Court can't, and shouldn't be permitted to do this either.

If the Court is the final arbiter (which I don't believe), then lets do away with Congress and let the unelected judges decide what the law should be? Due to activism, the Courts have become political bodies, and should be treated as such.

Thought of the Day

Why is it so much more 'holy" for secular humanists to impose their views on religious people? Why don't we do neither, and call this freedom?

Traditional Cristian Communities Have Rights Too, In Heaven and On Earth.

These straw man arguments of discrediting community standards by
associating them with church doctrine is getting tiresome.

A Mr. Richard Easton expressed my sentiments on this subject:

" The real problem is the US mythology that religion and government can be
separated. Three propositions prove the point.

(1) All nations must have laws.

(2) All laws try to restrain some "evil", or reinforce some "good" (so all
law, even administrative law, is enacted morality).

(3) All morality depends on beliefs that cannot be subjected to the
scientific method and are, thus, religious beliefs - even if they are
non-theistic.

So government is the process of legislating someone's religious beliefs. The
vital question is whose religious beliefs should underpin our law and
government?"

Community standards define the parameters of that particular communities
values. They are the 'center' of that community, which define an entire host
of limits, priorities, and values. The question is exactly the one Mr.
Easton poses above,."someone's" beliefs are always going to take precedence.

James Madison, a founding father, put it this way, "We have staked the whole
future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We
have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity
of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles
of the Ten Commandments." - James Madison.

The dangers of so-called Christian fundamentalism touted by modern day
secular humanists to American government is a contemptible lie at best, and
hysterical nonsense at worst. Over two hundred years of American Christian
majorities have created the most free and tolerant society in the world. All
law has , as its underpinning, a code of morality . The vast majority (98
percent and I can prove it) of founding fathers were Christians, and our
founding documents ciited the Bible more than any other source. Most
expressed George Washington's sentiments, when he said in an speech in 1796.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man
claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great
pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and
citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect
and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with
private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security
for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation
desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of
justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can
be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of
refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle." - George Washington, Sept. 17, 1796

Once again, to discredit any community standard based on Christian morality
is a pathetic straw man, as all standards and laws are based on "someone's"
morality. Christian morality is as valid as anyone elses. What prefers one
over the other is democracy in action.

All law is based on an underpinning of "someone's" morality. My point is that Judeo-Christian morality is as valid as atheistic, agnostic, pagans, or any other. I think Judeo Christian principles are the foundation of western civilization and far superior to any other. In any case, the Constitution does not prefer one over the other.

Community standards and ordinances that simply establish limits based on the preferences of that community that do not discriminate based on religion, race, gender are perfectly acceptable. I personally choose to accept the standards of the community as a matter of respect, as I have also choosen to live here. If I don't like the community standards, then I can leave. However, if you want the law to change, then campaign for it. Don't make fallacious arguments confusing rightful application of community standards as a 1st Amendment issue. No ones
Constitutional rights are violated for being inconvenienced due to a community standard.