All Rights Reserved by James R Carlson
Various Sects (or Denominations) of the Christian Religion
Sectarian is a word whose etymology derives from the Latin Sectarius, which literally means to ‘cut’ as in castrate (that’s one type of gender bender behavior that people haven’t experimented with, yet). The word sect is meant to convey the idea that one section of the whole is represented by a smaller group of likeminded people. Sectarian does not mean ‘religious’ but it does often refer to ‘religious sects.’ When the Founders of our nation set about to provide a Bill for Religious Freedom they decided that no one sect would have domination of our nation by Federal Law. This then is the beginning of the Freedom of Religion denoted by No Preference for one sect over another by law.
Take a look at the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting:
The Establishment of Religion, or
Prohibiting the Free Exercise Thereof (an Establishment of Religion)
The No Establishment clause is meant to convey the idea that no one sect (religious denomination) can have domination of our country by an Act of Congress. Similarly, the Free Exercise clause is meant to convey the idea that people are free to participate in any religious sect they choose to. In essence, this provides to all the People the political rights of not being dominated by one sect or another but having the freedom to join one sect or another. These two clauses represent our religious rights.
What is a denomination but a part of a fraction where the denominator below a numerator results in a fraction. A fraction has a number on top (a numerator; say 1) and a number on the bottom (a denominator; say 5). As such, the fraction reads 1/5 or 1/5th. If there are five denominations in a religious group, each denominations represents only a part of the whole group. A religious denomination is just one sect within a larger group. Such is the case with the various religious groups characterized by the term – Theism.
Theism is a viewpoint that focuses attention on God. Atheism likewise focuses its attention on God. Atheism is a sect (one group within a larger group) of theism. As such, atheists represent one sect in the group of theism and, therefore, atheists are sectarian. However, God is the focus of all theistic groups including atheism. Therefore, God is non-sectarian. This plain reality of Theism, Atheism, and God is contrary to modern legal definitions, whose foundation is divorced from actual language origins (aka etymology).
The judicial system in our country has allowed words to change meaning in order to establish a counter culture movement of secularism. Although in the language of the Courts, ‘sectarian’ is viewed to mean ‘religious’ and ‘non-sectarian’ is used to denote ‘non-religious’, this is without foundation in the word origins of these terms. Atheists often view themselves as ‘non-sectarian’ according the modern definitions of the Court and anything related to God is likewise to be considered by them to mean ‘religious’ or ‘sectarian.’ This twisting of words has led to the religious political movement of secularism using the idea of the Separation of Church and State as a heretics hammer against the freedom of religion in society and the government. Clearly atheism is ‘sectarian’ and many are very religious.
Secularists are people who share an atheistic view of God and are truly ‘sectarian.’ God is front and center in all that atheists and non-atheists (theists) contend for; so, God in the general sense is not ‘sectarian’ but ‘non-sectarian.’ Ridding our nation of the confusion introduced so many decades ago is but one step in righting the wrongs that plague our country with the loss of religious freedom and the government enforcement of atheism/secularism.
The original application of the idea of the First Amendment was to provide No Preference to one mode of religious worship over another. This is the whole meaning of the No Establishment clause – No Preference. Participate with any sect you want but don’t expect that your sect will become the religion of our entire nation, required to be observed by everyone according to the dictates of Federal Law. Secularism, however, seeks this domination of our nation by the twisting of words in the Court and applying the abuses of the heretic’s hammer.
The idea of No Preference began as early as the ratifying conventions of our nation prior to 1787 when our Constitution was finally ratified. Each colony held ratifying conventions and required a Bill for Religious Freedom (not the right of anti-religious propaganda as in the Former Soviet Russia (FSR)) to be added to the Constitution before they would ratify it. They didn’t want one denomination or sect to dominate the entire country by Congressional Act. The idea of No Preference was debated in the First Congress to prevent one sect from getting preference over other sects. The No Establishment clause is a direct descendent of these conventions and debates.
Each state in the Union of States had their opportunity to put together their own Bills for Religious Freedom and many of them used the phrase ‘No Preference’ when doing so. Texas changed the words of the U.S. First Amendment’s religious clauses when as a nation, they provided for a bill for religious freedom in the national constitution (Declaration of Right, 3rd):
No preference shall be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship over another, but every person shall be permitted to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. (Declaration of Rights, 3rd; Texas’ national Constitution of 1836).
The No Establishment clause in the U.S. Bill of Rights became No Preference in the Texas Declaration of Rights. And Free Exercise in one became Free Conscience in the other. Texas later became a state in the Union of States in 1845 and included No Preference in their new state constitution. Today, a majority of all States have the phrase No Preference in their State’s Bills for Religious Freedom.
For 150 years, the No Preference rule of religious freedom was used as a measure of what could be allowed and what could not be allowed by the government. However, in 1947, the idea of No Preference become one of Strict Separation of Church and State. Whereas the State was separated from controlling the Church by Congressional Acts of Law, the Supreme Court ruling that year overturned a century and a half of precedent to establish a new rule.
No Preference can mean:
Either make state aid and finance available to all who have a religious character, or don’t make it available to anyone at all! [All or Nothing]
Strict Separation, however, can mean:
Don’t make state aid and finance available to all and don’t make it available to anyone at all! [No and Nothing]
Essentially, the All or Nothing rule of No Preference became the No and Nothing rule of Strict Separation. This is what is meant by the Myth of Separation. Even President Jefferson, during his administration, used the No Preference rule when dealing with issues of religion in his government. Jefferson is often misquoted in his use of the phrase “Wall of Separation of Church and State” but Jefferson did not get it wrong, the Supreme Court in Everson got it wrong.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist showed his willingness to return to the No Preference rule, in contradiction to the rule of Strict Separation, with his dissent in the 1984 Jaffrey case. He cited the article of Professor Emeritus Robert L. Cord in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy entitled No Preference and the 150 years of history of No Preference prior to the Everson Court decision. This opened the doors wide for a change. But sadly, the Christian Right was all too consumed with their hatred of the idea of Separation of Church and State to follow the lead of Rehnquist and solve the problem.
Dr. Cord later (1982) wrote a book on the Separation of Church and State; Separating Historical Fact from Current Fiction. Dr. Cord concluded with proper legal scholarship that the problem was with Everson and the solution was with No Preference. Later (1986), Daniel L. Dreisbach wrote a book called, Real Threat vs. a Mere Shadow, following the legal scholarship of Dr. Cord. And a few years later (1988), David Barton wrote his famous book, The Myth of Separation that set the Christian Right on edge. Cord and Dreisbach both said that Everson is the problem and No Preference is the solution to the problem. Barton, however, focused only on the problem stating that Everson was the problem and only noted the idea of No Preference in footnotes. This lack of leadership to focus on the solution has led to the continued problem of using the Separation of Church and State of the heretic’s hammer of secularism.
As noted elsewhere, the Separation of Church and State is a Christian Rationalist idea that has been highjacked by atheists to form a part of their Secular Rationalism. The idea of the separation between church and state was to keep the State out of the Church, not Christian ideas of God and morality out of the State. The Christian rationalist idea of the Separation of Church and State says that we have the right of religious freedom but not the right for immoral behavior. Secular rationalism, on the contrary, says we have the right to do what is wrong; believe what you want (right or wrong). Religious freedom is trampled underfoot by those who misapply the principle of Separation to take God out of everything. The heretics hammer of ‘Separation’ is used via the State to smash the Church and all inside it.
No Preference is the rule by which religious freedom is enjoyed by every American, theist and atheist. But as the Courts are giving preference to atheists and their misconception of the Separation of Church and State to use the state to trample on the church and religious people; giving atheists, as one sect, the preference to have legal domination of our nation when using their heretic’s hammer; giving them the pre-eminence of a religious order (sectarianism) established by the Rule of Law contrary to the No Establishment clause; the Courts are undermining the very notion of religious freedom that the First Amendment is supposed to protect. The entire meaning of the First Amendment’s No Establishment clause is this – No Preference for Religious Sects. We should only have a preference for Religious Freedom.
Comments