We American Peasants Have No Betters

 

Here in 2024 we're still getting threats from the Progressive State that if we don't get vaccinations and boosters and lay off the Ivermecting and Hydrochloroquin we're going to lose our jobs and fined and God knows what else. I don't know what else they'll threaten us with us next, but cancel culture has supplied the progressive forces within federal government an exciting (for them) tool for bringing the proletariat into line. Next it will be digital currency, something the Biden administration has already proposed. 

 

Really? Threatening to end people's jobs and businesses the feds believe is "forcing" Americans to do something they don't want to do. Suppose I threatened to throw you off Facebook for getting the vaccination. I don't know where you did your research. If it was off NBC, CNN or The New York times, you might want to check out some actual scientific journals and talk to actual physicians out there in the field treating this disease. I work for myself, so the president can't fire me. I'm lucky in that respect. My wife and I get out very seldom and we do so with medical grade masks and practice social distancing. We both have experienced bad reactions to flu-type vaccines AND we're in the kill zone for this particular virus. 

 

We have carefully chosen our response to this based on risk factors (and there are risk factors with these vaccines). Were I younger and didn't have an underlying health condition, and I were out in public a lot, I might get the vaccine. As it is, my wife and I chose another approach. Others my age and physical health have faced CoVid and taken Ivermectin, Hydrochloroquine and Z-Pack treatments and now with the monoclonal antibody treatments, CoVid has been rendered a rather minor ailment. So on the outside chance I do get the disease, there are treatments available to get you through.

There are "solid" reasons for my choice in this matter not to mention my constitutional right to do what I want when it's my body. Isn't that the pro-abortion argument? How come it's no longer my body. Besides, with the feds telling you that if you've had the vaccine you can still get it, and still transmit it to others, and that it may make it a lighter case if you do get it, it's hard to trust the advice we're being given by so-called scientists who seem dead set on enforcing their own will in the form of what seems more of a political than a medical solution.

 

Then there is the organization of teams of public health officials and Homeland Security Officers up here in Oregon and Washington to go door to door asking whether people are vaccinated, recording it in a database along with information about whether you were flying Revolutionary War flags, had Trump signs, wore "certain" T-shirts or hats described by organizers as evidence that you are a white supremacist and potential terrorist. And don't start with that being a conspiracy theory. I sat in on the County Commissioner's meetings where they discussed the CDC/Homeland Security plans to do just that. When the County Judge was asked if Klickitat County was planning to do that, he turned to his public health director and asked, "Do we have any plans to do that?" 

The Public Health lady went pale and said, "Oh, hell no! You think I want to get shot?"  Southern Washington State's natives celebrate a culture, that I discovered would give East Texas a run for the money for being redneck. They have bears running around loose. Those folks are armed! They might get away with that over in Oregon, but they do NOT want to bring that stuff across the Columbia River. Mt. St. Helens blew up in the middle of south Washington.

That bullying is the reason people are resisting the mandates and quitting their jobs rather than comply. It doesn't help that the same people telling us we must get vaccinated, were the same ones telling us the vaccines were dangerous and not to get them back in December and January before Biden was sworn in. Afterwards, through some sort of magical incantation, I suppose, after Biden became president, the vaccines became miraculously perfect and wonderful and essential to the survival of mankind.

So forgive me if I think that belittling and berating people who choose not to take the vaccine is a small-minded, anti-American thing to do. As Americans we are not averse to giving up some liberties in an emergency or to taking risks where risk-taking is needed. Were my circumstances different my choices might be different. But my choices are my choices and I live in a nation where individual rights are sacred. We don't live in a collective thank God, where people serve the state. The state, in the American Constitutional Republic, serves at the behest of the people.

This high-handed imposition of mandates based on the will of our dear leaders is foreign to American beliefs. Americans don't believe in complying, obeying or submitting to the will and authority of our betters. That's because we don't think we have any betters.

Sorry for the long post, but my leftist Facebook friend's original post had a snarky tone to it and I'm kind of angry about that. He ridiculed those of us who have carefully chosen through research in medical studies, journal reports, our own observations and consultation with our physicians (each one of whom holds a doctorate and is a scientist in his or her own right). I find that more than a little condescending. 

 

And as I said, we don't much care for rule of our betters over us masses, peons, proletariat or whatever you want to call us regular ordinary schlubs! A whole lot of us would take umbrage if you came to our house, banged on my door and presumed to classify me a terrorist because I wouldn't mindlessly fall in line quietly and knuckle under to the latest attempt by Marxist progressive government bureaucrats to test to see just how much we'll tolerate and how quickly we can be bullied into submission to blatantly illegal and unconstitutional executive orders.

Not smart, Joe. We will not kneel to Moloch and his ilk.

Just sayin'.

© 2021 by Tom King

What the Government Really Has to Say About the Church

To put it simply, "Nothing."  The First Amendment says this.

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, any law the government may make which limits the right of churches or individuals who may belong to a church to meet together, speak freely or print their opinion or even to complain to the government, is unconstitutional.

In other words.  The government may not meddle with the church and the church can do or say what it likes without interference.  This is highly troubling to many, given that the churches of the United States are given by the Constitution, great freedom and latitude to do their work, while the poor government may only stand by and wring its hands if the pastors of the nation say mean things about it.

This was a revolutionary idea in the world of the late 1700s/early 1800s given that most of the nations of the world had a government-sponsored church. The key feature of such a system was that only the approved church was encouraged and all others, if tolerated at all, were repressed. Because the state church depended on the state largess for it's continued existence, most state churches were well-behaved towards their political masters. The First Amendment was a revolutionary idea because most nations were governed by the nobility. Churches, as any king worth his salt knew, could be quite troublesome if allowed to call out the princes for their bad behavior. After all, the princes believed that because of all the hard work they did governing the ignorant masses, a little moral leeway should be allowed them. That's probably why the bit of my family tree that strays into the noble classes has so many branches that grow together at the top or were lopped off by less-deserving branches. The noble classes were naughty boys and girls.

At any rate, the churches, because of those pesky commandments, often felt compelled to speak out against the behavior of their liege lords. This problem with mouthy churchmen has a long history, going all the way back to Nero's problems with the Christians, Herod's dust up with John the Baptist, Ahab's troubles with Elijah and Saul's problems with Samuel. Churches are troublesome anyway a despot looks at it. They have a bad habit of pointing out sins. The Founding Fathers wanted to hamstring any potential American despot who might wish to silence the conscience of the nation. Religion had, after all, played a key role in the success of the American Revolution.

So the Constitution, after it's fashion, limits government's power to restrict the rights and privileges of the people. Our founding documents tell the government what it cannot do and tells the churches their rights are protected along with the rights of other peaceful assemblies of the people. It also took the time to create a second protected moral voice by protecting the freedom of the press which also was supposed to act as a curb on power-mongering.

The First Amendment says that the government, therefore, cannot set up its own exclusive church, nor can it compel people to worship in that church. Nothing else is implied and any attempt to project any sort of government power over the exercise of faith by Americans is therefore, unconstitutional. Nowhere does it say the churches may not speak out on issues which concern it's moral imperatives or religious practices. And for 240 years, the churches have been pretty good about not using government to establish religious practice with occasional lapses, of course. A lengthy experiment with Sunday Blue Laws was finally brought to an end within my lifetime, brought on, in part, by the lobbying efforts of churches concerned that such laws did, in fact, violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Churches have recently spoken out against efforts by government to legislate the acceptance of gay marriage, in particular by churches which find the practice in violation of their principles. Churches have also spoken out against abortion, which most find to be nothing less than murder of a human being. Because the issue of when a fetus becomes human is something of a philosophical or theological argument, the government has rightly left the decision with regard to abortion in the hands of the individual mother. Other aspects such as father's rights or the establishment of some sort of mutually agreed upon limit to how late an abortion can be performed might find some wiggle room for government legislation, but, again, this is something we as a nation can debate and churches have every right to put their oars into that debate.

Recently, laws regarding public restrooms have been challenged by churches on the grounds that such laws violate the establishment law by imposing secular standards upon the practice of faith by church members. More blatantly, laws which gag pastors from speaking out about political issues against the threat of IRS stripping them of the nonprofit status granted all religious organizations. If you're a strict constitutionalist, IRS sanctions would definitely fall under the establishment clause.

Remember, the Constitution tells the government it cannot meddle with churches. The right of churches to state their opinion or to advise their members on public issues, on the other hand, is protected by the Constitution along with the rights of individuals as well (under the right to petition for redress of grievances clause).

Secular priesthoods are never kindly or benevolent. They are a tyranny
because they have no moral compass, nor any fear of God.

My own church has long fought for the principle of separation of church and state. How? By preaching about public issues like Blue Laws and religious discrimination, by lobbying, by printing a magazine on the subject and by raising funds to support lobbying efforts to protect religious liberty. At no time have we believed that separation meant that churches should be silent. You can call it "education" all you want, but what the religious liberty, pro-separation coalition is doing really is lobbying by the old definition. We just don't call it that anymore because the IRS gets all up in your business if a nonprofit lobbies the legislature. Apparently the IRS thinks lobbying has something to do with bribing politicians (and sadly, they may be right). 

There is a concerted effort going on right now to establish a new government-sponsored religion. This religion is being established by silencing and banning all other religions from any influence it might have with government. Therefore, by denying all other religions the right to petition for redress of grievances with the government, militant secularism establishes itself as the only government-approved belief system. No matter that secularism has every earmark of a religion. It has codes of conduct, fundamental beliefs and websites. It holds evangelistic meetings, sells books, and pamphlets. It has prophets and preachers. It proclaims loudly that God is dead and therefore must have no influence upon the government which must only recognize the tenets of secularism. Most of these tenets are rules of behavior and belief as ironclad as the ten commandments. And, it seems, the secularists are making up their tenets as they go, largely in the form of cultural laws and rules which gag preachers and hobble religious institutions from doing their work of influencing the culture for what they see as "good".

For an amendment with just 45 words total, the forces of secularism have certainly managed to wring a lot of meaning out of the establishment clause that doesn't appear to be present. Dylan Thomas once wrote, "Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light." I agree with the fiery Welshman as I watch the Christian church face enemies that would have its light extinguished. I do not believe we should go gently. As another great philosopher once said, "I'm tired of runnin'. I aim to misbehave."  I even bought the tee shirt.

I'm just saying,

© 2017 by Tom King

"Merry Christmas Bill" the Right Road to Take

Perry Signs the Merry Christmas Bill
Standing second from the left is one of
my favorite Texas Senators - Robert Nichols (R)
who helped sponsor the bill

In Texas, Governor Perry recently signed a bill that prohibits schools from banning holiday recognition by schools, especially Christmas and Easter, but encompassing most traditional holidays.  I agree with the Governor on this one.

We are guaranteed freedom of religion in the Constitution, not freedom FROM religion. The government has no power either to establish a state church or forbid a private one.  Forbidding the expression of one's religious beliefs in the public square does not protect the free exercise of religion.  Such prohibitions, rather, establish a state religion - atheism and demands obedience to its precepts by all.

Atheism is based on faith as surely as Christianity.  In the case of atheism it is faith in a theory supported by science which changes its "facts" every half century or so in response to the latest theory.  Faith is protected whatever it is.  When we start enforcing faith by law, whether it's faith in a deity or faith in the absence of one, we start down a dangerous road.

And I do not care if Muslim kids pray to Mecca three times a day.  Give them a place to perform their religious duties.  There's nothing wrong with that so long as you allow Christian kids a place to pray or even Buddhist kids a place to meditate so long as it doesn't interfere with the school day. Expressing one's faith in prayer or meditation or even a moment of silence should not be a problem, so long as you aren't dancing naked in the lunch room, singing hymns out loud while people are studying or sacrificing a goat in gym class.

If the football team wants to pray, why not?  Nobody is required to join the huddle.  If a child feels intimidated by this, let him or her learn to buck up and serve their God with courage. Our teachers ought to encourage their students in that instead of trying to make schools a place where only atheism is encouraged and courage is, well, discouraged.  It's just wrong!

(c) 2013 by Tom King