What, if anything, should the state do about heresy?

[Bill The Baptist]

The Bill of Rights originally existed to chain down the federal govt, not the state. The prohibitions could not have applied to the states. Of course, that is illegal today, given the 14th amendment.

Now, the Federal Govt protects the people from the state governments.

Agreed, but still, it seems that the sentiment to apply the first amendment to the states was present almost from the time when the ink was still drying on the constitution. Here are two more letters, one from Washington and one from Patrick Henry, both addresssed to concerned Baptist associations.

http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/GWashingtonLetter.pdf
http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PatrickHenryLetter.pdf

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Tolerationism: It is a sin for the state to uphold the first commandment.

If that position does not jar with you, there has to be something wrong.

 

[RamistThomist]

Agreed, but still, it seems that the sentiment to apply the first amendment to the states was present almost from the time when the ink was still drying on the constitution. Here are two more letters, one from Washington and one from Patrick Henry, both addresssed to concerned Baptist associations.

http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/GWashingtonLetter.pdf
http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PatrickHenryLetter.pdf

I agree that Worshipful Master Washington wanted to see the undoing of the Establishmentarian system.

Henry saw the difficulty with prosecuting Baptists in a new land. That being said, even Brother Senior Warden Washington, noting the Satanic similarities between his cult and Lavey's, would have forbidden Lavey from practicing. Henry probably would have had him (justly) executed.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I agree that Worshipful Master Washington wanted to see the undoing of the Establishmentarian system.

Henry saw the difficulty with prosecuting Baptists in a new land. That being said, even Brother Senior Warden Washington, noting the Satanic similarities between his cult and Lavey's, would have forbidden Lavey from practicing. Henry probably would have had him (justly) executed.

I agree, but it is not easy to conceive of how governmental prosecution of heretics could be administered fairly in a society like that of the United States, which is by its very nature is pluralistic. This of course has no impact on what should be, but does have quite an impact on what could be.

 

[RamistThomist]

I agree, but it is not easy to conceive of how governmental prosecution of heretics could be administered fairly in a society like that of the United States, which is by its very nature is pluralistic. This of course has no impact on what should be, but does have quite an impact on what could be.

That's true today. The original America was a practically Trinitarian pluralistic society. It didn't imagine the chaos today.

But the ultimate question is what ought to be the case, not what it is today

 

[Haeralis]

America until basically 1900 was not a pluralistic society and its political mechanisms didn't have any qualms with enforcing Protestant homogeneity in public schools. All of this, of course, changed with the liberalization of immigration policies which brought in tons of other religious affiliations into the country, such as Roman Catholics and adherents to East Asian religions. This coincided with a Protestantism which found itself greatly weakened by liberal theology.

All of this is simply to point out that pluralism was not the inevitable result of the First Amendment.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Whether the original intent of the First Amendment was only to protect freedom of conscience among those who adhered to generic Christianity is an interesting question. I have my own opinion on the subject, but it is largely beside the point. As a result of immigration policies, the First Amendment is now understood as justifying pluralism.

Please don't misunderstand me as saying that the First Amendment is all bad. While I am no free speech fundamentalist, the First Amendment is preferable to the hate speech laws that we have in the United Kingdom (i.e. criticise leftist sacred cows or make a joke that offends someone and you end up in jail).

 

[Dachaser]

The Law of god should be obeyed by all persons, buty only Christians actually are under the mandate from God to do that, as sinners who are still in their lost state would fall more under the jurisdiction of the government itself, and God has not commanded any nation to be set up under His law as israel used to be under the old Covenant Economy.

 

[Dachaser]

That's what it means today, after its many reinterpretations by enemies of the cross (and America, for what it's worth). That's not what it originally meant.

Its means that the general Government shall not dictate to any citizen what religion they must have, or even if they have any religion.
The government steps in only when the practice of a religions involves breaking the law, such as child sacrifices for example.

 

[Dachaser]

I am curious as to what you believe was originally intended by this clause if it was not intended to protect religious liberty? Have you ever read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/jefferson-to-danbury.pdf

Jefferson was reacting to a Christian church that wanted to make sure that the Federal Government would not step in and try to force them to do what was required by the state! He was assuring them that they would have freedom to worship and teach as they saw fit.

 

[RamistThomist]

Its means that the general Government

Does "general" mean federal or state?

The government steps in only when the practice of a religions involves breaking the law, such as child sacrifices for example.

But what if my religious belief demands such a sacrifice? At that point the government is telling me what I can and can't do with my religion.

But let's take it a step further: if my religion demands sacrificing puppies and kittens, is that okay?

 

[Dachaser]

Tolerationism: It is a sin for the state to uphold the first commandment.

If that position does not jar with you, there has to be something wrong.

There is no direct mandate from God in the scriptures to have the government enforce that, but there is a mandate on each individual to obey the Lord.

 

[Dachaser]

Does "general" mean federal or state?


But what if my religious belief demands such a sacrifice? At that point the government is telling me what I can and can't do with my religion.

But let's take it a step further: if my religion demands sacrificing puppies and kittens, is that okay?

Yes, as the Supreme Court has allowed for chickan sacrifices I believe.

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes, as the Supreme Court has allowed for chickan sacrifices I believe.

I said little kittens, not chickens. Most people are comfortable with the idea of killing chickens.

 

[RamistThomist]

There is no direct mandate from God in the scriptures to have the government enforce that, but there is a mandate on each individual to obey the Lord.

Is there a mandate for the civil magistrate--an individual--to obey the Lord?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

That's true today. The original America was a practically Trinitarian pluralistic society. It didn't imagine the chaos today.

But the ultimate question is what ought to be the case, not what it is today

Yes, and I would argue that the framers of the constitution did not have non-Christian religion in mind at all. The original 13 colonies were partially founded by people from various branches of Christianity who had been persecuted to one degree or another by the state church in England. Their intention was to prevent the federal government from establishing an official branch of Christianity and thus allowing the others to risk being persecuted as in England.

 

[TylerRay]

On the point about Laveyan Satanism: Some folks may remember a controversy from last year about erecting monuments with Satanic imagery on public land, alongside monuments with Christian imagery. The matter was discussed on a Christian radio program that I sometimes listen to on my way home from work. They were maintaining that the Satanists had no right to have their monument (which was dedicated to fallen veterans, if I remember correctly). I called in to play Devil's Advocate (hehe). I asked why they did not think that Satanists were protected under the First Amendment, and could have their monument on public land along with the Jews, Christians, etc. They basically said that the First Amendment intends to protect sincerely held monotheistic belief. Frankly, their interpretation seemed to be extremely arbitrary. It was as though they pulled it out of thin air. And the main guest on the show is a pretty high-profile lawyer and writer. It seemed like he was grasping at straws.

My point, of course, was to show that religious pluralism is an untenable position. It is ridiculous to allow the Laveyan Satanists to erect monuments on public land (or private land, for that matter), but to forbid it in our legal context is arbitrary.

 

[Dachaser]

I said little kittens, not chickens. Most people are comfortable with the idea of killing chickens.

The same legal justification would apply though I think.

 

[Dachaser]

Is there a mandate for the civil magistrate--an individual--to obey the Lord?

Who would be one in our government?

 

[Dachaser]

They extended that religious freedom though to Protestants, jews, and Catholics, so would they have only applied freedom towards people who help to the Bible, or to others, such as Muslims?

 

[Dachaser]

On the point about Laveyan Satanism: Some folks may remember a controversy from last year about erecting monuments with Satanic imagery on public land, alongside monuments with Christian imagery. The matter was discussed on a Christian radio program that I sometimes listen to on the way home. They were maintaining that the Satanists had no right to have their monument (which was dedicated to fallen veterans, if I remember correctly). I called in to play Devil's Advocate (hehe). I asked why they did not think that Satanists were protected under the First Amendment, and could have their monument on public land along with the Jews, Christians, etc. They basically said that the First Amendment intends to protect sincerely held monotheistic belief. Frankly, their interpretation seemed to be extremely arbitrary. It was as though they pulled it out of thin air. And the main guest on the show is a pretty high-profile lawyer and writer. It seemed like he was grasping at straws.

My point, of course, was to show that religious pluralism is an untenable position. It is ridiculous to allow the Laveyan Satanists to erect monuments on public land (or private land, for that matter), but to forbid it in our legal context is arbitrary.

Either religious freedoms would apply towards all, or to none, for satanists and Christians alike can have their clubs in schools after hours. the framers/Founders were well aware of what happens when the nation itself, through its government, officially declares and define just what makes for a true religion.

 

[RamistThomist]

Who would be one in our government?

Whoever the magistrate is, though that raises other questions about covenant and federalism.

 

[RamistThomist]

The same legal justification would apply though I think.

You are okay with letting a group that sacrifices kittens have the same legal protection as Christians?

 

[TylerRay]

Either religious freedoms would apply towards all, or to none, for satanists and Christians alike can have their clubs in schools after hours. the framers/Founders were well aware of what happens when the nation itself, through its government, officially declares and define just what makes for a true religion.

So, you believe that God is pleased when the US government defends and protects Satanism?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

There is no direct mandate from God in the scriptures to have the government enforce that, but there is a mandate on each individual to obey the Lord.

God has not forbidden the state from obeying the first commandment. To assume that he has is an obvious absurdity. Did you not get the memo that natural/moral law, which includes the first commandment, binds all men everywhere? Prove to me that the civil magistrate is exempt from the dictates of natural law.

 

[Dachaser]

You are okay with letting a group that sacrifices kittens have the same legal protection as Christians?

Yes, if that was part of their religious beliefs.

 

[Dachaser]

So, you believe that God is pleased when the US government defends and protects Satanism?

No, but as Hs really not pleased either with Gay marriages and Abortion, as He permits those sinful activities to continue in this present age .
I am discussing this from not the position of God likes what will get done, but from the position what does He permit and allow for under our form of government, and religious liberties would extend to all or to none.

 

[Dachaser]

God has not forbidden the state from obeying the first commandment. To assume that he has is an obvious absurdity. Did you not get the memo that natural/moral law, which includes the first commandment, binds all men everywhere? Prove to me that the civil magistrate is exempt from the dictates of natural law.

He is not requiring any government choose to do that though either.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

So, you are saying that the state is bound by a regulative principle and is thus founded in positive law?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

According to tolerationist reasoning, God must be fine with a civil magistrate worshipping himself, which is the logical conclusion of denying that the state is bound by the first table of the law. If the magistrate is forbidden from proscribing idolatry, then he must also be forbidden from proscribing self-idolatry. Someone should share that bit of wisdom with Herod.