If the Supreme Court of the United States of America decides to uphold the belief of Religious people on the grounds that they are right, then they establish themselves as the givers of the Natural Laws themselves, establishing for all time their unique and high office of Chief Potentate of all things lawful.  They do, however, have a very important role of decisive governmental leadership.  Are not the Laws of Nature’s God His laws, and not ours?  Let us find ourselves on His side in deciding whether or not His laws are His or not.  And, when establishing laws that are under the direction of Religious beliefs, let us know that we tread on the very ground of the human conscience with respect to what is perceivably right or wrong.  When we do that as a people are we not placing on the souls of the people the requirement to follow us who are telling them what is right and wrong, instead of the God of their consciences?  When and if a people, collectively or individually, decide what is right or wrong in their conscience, do they have the right to impose those beliefs on their fellow mankind?  We know it is wrong to follow a group to do what is wrong, no matter how many are in that group.  If we examine the case of the right of the wrong belief of one against the many outcries of the righteous belief of many, do we not make ourselves the object of ridicule from future critics who believe us to be wrong?  For the sake of argument, when we pick and choose the Laws to which Nature’s God gives us individual fundamental freedoms, and leave other parts of the obvious Laws of that same God out of our governing processes, we need to re-think our positions religiously again, don’t we?  If we, with one religion, depose the religious laws of another, under the classification of what is a “religious” or Natural Law of Nature’s God, do we not confuse ourselves to undo good and natural fundamental base-line structure of reason and thinking, if our religious position is therefore changing on an issue as a culture or people?  Therefore, we are actually challenging God Himself as a people, are we not, by deciding to “decide” on the issue.  If the fundamental inalienable rights of God are so easily known by all men, as pointed out in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, why then do we dote upon the changing of the simple rules, with respect to the absurd, when it is acknowledged by so many the world over by collective Prudence that, given our religious nature, even the very Bible which spells out as immoral acts as in the ten commandments, etc., we conclude that “man lying with man” is unnatural and evil in nature (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27), unless our goal is to confuse to the point of bringing down our institutions of our very National Conscience?  We do not even consider the understanding of why prostitution is the obvious defilement of the wholesome marriage union in the first place?  Why do we have to go any further in the defense of the obvious destruction of the institution of moral marriages in this country?  This exposes the very act for what it is in actuality.  Would not the prophet Elijah pour out water again on the altar to show up the prophets of Baal, when God would show the people who is God?  And if that fire consumed the very water when it fell, will not the people of this time capture all those who fundamentally seek to lead a whole nation away from worshiping what is right and true, when the right from wrong is exposed?  Islam teaches to hate it’s enemies in it’s writings.  Christianity teaches in it’s writings to love your enemies. Are those concepts differing?  Yes.  Is God for or against an issue?  Should we be for or against what “Nature’s God” calls evil and unwholesome?  Do we not now choose a religion, and what to follow?  Are not “religious” forces at work to obtain our souls?  Do we want to be burnt up with the water that will be licked up in the trench around the very altar of Elijah’s on the Mount of Decision?  When we come as close to God’s fire as we have, we certainly will at least lose some of our hairs on our head that are all numbered by Him.  Note this part of the epitaph of Thomas Jefferson:

“An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he, being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgement and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with, or differ from, his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And, finally, that Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.  And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” ~Galatians 6:7

Dave ©2013