What does this feature image conjecture about the red lines needed to resolve the government and religion wall controversy in current news?
In Post One, I stated government has ventured down the wrong path by engaging in services using tax payer funds that are not steadfast to the Constitution, and absolute to the wall of separation of church and state.
The Purpose of This Post
Is to conjecture upon a red line being drawn to relate two issues, school choice, and abortion, to solve the current political conflicts taking place in our Nation on the First Amendment. What needs to be solved is which entity is off the path and jumping over the wall between, government or religion separation and to propose what is needed to end the controversy to control and hopefully end the conflicts.
Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act. (Proverb 3:27)
The Vulgate Latin version is, “do not forbid him to do well that can”; which sense is favored by Jar chi: and as we should not abstain from doing good ourselves, so neither should we forbid, hinder, or discourage others; but the former sense is best; (Gils Bible Commentary)
What’s My Point?
When I saw this picture, I conjectured about who taught this boy to pray at bedtime. The dog emulates or follows the boy’s actions, which is a reminder that parents’ responsibilities according to the Bible are to teach religion and to be an example of Bible teachings to their children.
Also, important, the picture does not show anyone forcing the boy or dog to pray. So which entity is forcing the other to abide by their political views of the first amendment? What we need is a red line to determine which entity that eliminates one entity forcing its views upon another entity.
Before I propose the red line, I believe it best if we review the two conflicts.
In a previous post I explained the history of how government originally became involved in controlling public schools as General Welfare. Over time religion became excluded from public school teachings based on Supreme Court interpretations of separation of government and religion.
Government does allow private schools to teach religion if a parent chooses to do so but requires parents to pay taxes to support public schooling in addition to private school tuition. Over time, this excluded many families from choosing private schools because they could not afford to pay both taxes for public schools and tuition for private schools unless they were wealthy
In the meantime, public schools became more and more expensive because teacher salaries and buildings became more expensive to build and maintain.
My point is, taxation to pay for public schools is now the highest item on every real estate tax bill in every community and most poor or middle-class families cannot afford to pay two tuition fees.
The feature image also brings to mind the current political division of abortion. When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion, they never determined when life began. In another previous post I explained how modern medical techniques not available in 1973 can detect heart beats around six weeks.
Currently abortion pro-abortion activists want the Hyde Amendment overturned which prevents Federal Tax Funds be used to pay for abortions. While at the same time, pro-life wants the Supreme Court to overturn abortion laws.
Which side is withholding good on this issue is debatable based on whether a person is pro-abortion or prolife?
Should government use tax funds be used to pay for abortions over the objections of religious pro-life taxpayers? If so, is the government path jumping over the wall that separates government from religion because abortion was not included in the Constitution?
In My Opinion
The Red Line should be drawn for these two specific issues that no one should be forced to pay to support any political or religious entity that subsidizes using tax funds to subsidize schools they do not attend or to pay for an abortion they did not partake in or believe to be killing an unborn child.
Government has strayed from the path of governing and jumped over the walls of separation of government on these two issues when they force one entity to abide by another entity political or religious beliefs.
By doing so, government is in effect withhold good from those to whom it is due.
To remedy, government needs to act by passing Bills to allow school vouchers to return choice of schooling to parents instead of forced government control by economics.
As for abortion, the Supreme Court needs to remedy the Roe Wade decision to determine when life begins. To leave this question unanswered is to allow killing a baby, which regardless of prochoice or pro-abortion is not good. And it is made worse by making religious followers pay for the free will choices made by others.
In cases of rape or incest, or medical reason, there was no free will choice, perhaps these two conditions may be made as exceptions for women to make personal decisions with their God.
Another exemption fop parents to abort is when a medical diagnosis indicates a baby or mother will die soon after birth.
Religious beliefs are never to be overruled by any government. Requiring religious believers to pay two tuitions or forbidden religious believers to pay for abortion is simply not good, especially if it is forced by government which represents freedom of choice and separation of government from religion.
At the same time, religious beliefs should not be forced on non-religious believers in a Republic government.
Religious believers should never stop voicing their objections according to their beliefs about abortion is killing, a sin against the fifth Commandment and National Laws.
The First Amendment also guarantees free speech but there are also red lines about yelling out fire when there is none and resulting in innocent people being harmed.
What is also needed is for the Supreme Court to provide a legal definition of what constitutes a bonafide religion. In a previous post, I explained a simple way to do so that does not require reading milllons of religious verses.
Do we need a red line to end both entities from straying from steadfast paths and jumping over the walls of separation of government from religion..
Do we need to stop forcing religious families from choosing to send their children to religious schools by making them unaffordable because they must pay for private school?
Would school vouchers allow parents instead of government to decide what is good for their children to be taught about religious beliefs.
Is now the right time for government to act on these two issues which are creating divisiveness in our nation between government and religion.
Which entity jumped over the wall of separation of church and state when these laws were enacted on these two issues?
Is it really good that tax payer funds are being used support or subsidize abortion?
What is a legal definition of a religion?
Read the Source Links Below
Regards and good will blogging.
Legal Definition of a Religion
Help Protect Me from Religion
Gils Bible Commentary