It’s not too often that Rush Limbaugh delves into the depths of church and state that I regularly dwell in, but he did yesterday while discussing Sally Quinn’s absurd comments on Romney’s speech. While I am not supporting Romney’s candidacy, I agree with his statement here:
ROMNEY: In John Adams’ words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.’
RUSH: Now, that passage he’s quoting John Adams. Listen to Sally Quinn on the Charlie Rose Show last night when asked about this passage.
QUINN: I was absolutely stunned by how exclusive it was. I expected him to be much more inclusive. The line that I was just absolutely shocked by was when he said, “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” And then went on to say, “freedom and religion endure together or perish alone.” And that sounded to me like he was basically recommending a theocracy, and it sounded as though he was excluding anybody who might be a doubter, an agnostic, an atheist —
So, Sally, since you don’t know who John Adams is, I realize it’s too much to expect you know what a theocracy is. Here, let me help you:
Theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler.
All bias aside, which type of religion does that sound like to you? If you said Islam, you’d be correct! America has a document called the Constitution that governs us. Well, most of us. Liberals think they are exempt if they don’t like what it says. They think it’s a living, breathing document. And it’s becoming increasingly obvious that there isn’t much in there that liberals like because most of it is based on the ‘Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom,’ notion.
Liberalism cannot co-exist with faith. Liberals, in order to function, must have the people place their faith in them, not a Higher Power. This way, liberals can control them. Which is the ultimate goal of liberalism: power. Why do you think it’s liberals that are always devising new government programs to “help” people. From education to health care. They want to have an arm in every aspect of our lives. This translates to control which means power.
For liberals to accept Adams’ words, they would have to accept something higher than man, thus forfeiting control.
The founding of liberalism is based on moral relativism. The main threat to that view, is the originalist view of our nation and the Constitution. So the founding and the original intent of the Constitution are considered threats to liberalism, by liberals, and they have to be dealt with.
Which is why we liberals using the courts and educational institutions to advance their regime.
Barry Lynn is equally, but typically clueless:
“I was particularly outraged that Romney thinks that the Constitution is somehow based on faith and that judges should rule accordingly,” Lynn said. “That’s a gross misunderstanding of the framework of our constitutional system.”
“I think it is telling that Romney quoted John Adams instead of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison,” Lynn continued. “Jefferson and Madison are the towering figures who gave us religious liberty and church-state separation.”
Yeah, I mean, judges are supposed to create law, right? Breathingism 101, people.
He quoted Adams because he was a FOUNDER. There were more than two of them, Mr. Lynn. There were 56 signers and over 100 that are commonly called Founders. All you ever quote is Jefferson and Madison. And to do that, you have to take Jefferson out of context and make half of Madison’s life appear to represent his entire career. But, I’ll tie one hand behind my back to make it easy for you and give you the benefit of the doubt. At best, you have two dissenters vs 100+ others who saw religion as necessary for freedom and vice versa. They knew it had to play a central role without the government having the power to force it on people. Start here:
“Very little of Madison’s proposed religious wording made it into the final version of the First Amendment; and even a cursory examination of the Annals of Congress surrounding the formation of that Amendment quickly reveals the influence of Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and others on that Amendment.”
“By utilizing Jefferson and Madison as the principal spokesmen for the First Amendment, the contemporary courts have chosen one who was out of the country at the time of the formation of the First Amendment and another who felt it unnecessary.”
Now, I realize these Founders names aren’t Jefferson and Madison, but they were still Founders and context and timing is too critical to ignore, Mr Lynn.