FR “ It’s easy to see why Jefferson included the Declaration, which gave birth to a new nation, and the University of Virginia, which was—and is—a monument to his genius. But why include a state statute for religious freedom?
Because Jefferson understood what Walz, Newsom, Murphy and others have forgotten or rejected: that “our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to God.”
“ 1. Lockdown, largely done in good faith at first, but on insufficient cause.
- Church does not vigorously defend her rights, but meekly submits, sending the following signals, intentionally or unintentionally:
- Physical health more important than spiritual health.
- Mass isn’t that important.
- Government (even tyrannical government) has nothing to fear from Church.
- My pope and bishops won’t stand up for Christ, let alone me.
- The faithful are completely on their own.
- People realize, in light of the length of the lockdown and relative numbers, that their way of life and their Churches were taken away from them based on nothing.
- Collusion between Church and state in their oppression confirmed by Church’s actions and inactions in the face of riot, mayhem and murder.
This situation cannot be excoriated strongly enough.”
“ Kavanaugh is second-guessing the unconstitutional mandate. It came to the court precisely for that reason. The justices had to look at it again through the lens of the Constitution. Kavanaugh simply found that the order did violate the church’s rights, and Roberts didn’t think it was his business to step in. A compelling case can be made for both arguments, but there’s no compelling case for the chief to talk down to his fellow justices and label them meddlers and activists.
The decision appears especially unfortunate in light of what now appears to …..”
“ First, Griswold v. Connecticut redefined privacy. Then, Roe v. Wade redefined life. Next, Planned Parenthood v. Casey redefined liberty. In 2015, Obergefell v. Hodgesredefined marriage. And now, Bostock v. Clayton has redefined sex.”
“ Many of those most profoundly touched by their spiritual encounters will hesitate to talk about them because, as the late novelist Saul Bellow once said of such events, “there is nothing we can prove, our language is inadequate” — not to mention how modern secularism often makes people too embarrassed “to risk talking about it.”
Add to this reluctance the fact that the blessings of our current confinement are occurring simultaneously with great suffering and even premature death for some of the infected. No matter how much history tries to assure us that spiritual enlightenment and pain are often mysteriously linked, our natural discomfort with this paradox will make reporting one’s “lockdown enlightenment” that much more difficult.”
You must log in to post a comment.