Separation of Church and State ~ Atheists View

The separation of Church and State was and was not the agenda in the beginning of this country. It was the agenda if we accept the idea that it was to keep the State from imposing a particular religion on the people in order that people can worship freely or not at all. It was not the agenda because it was not meant to eradicate religion from any American's public life. The 1st Amendment was written as such to control the State from having ultimate authority over and above any

one's public and private life. In this country, we have a right to have a voice 'freedom of speech' in public and in private.

We have many other civil liberties that grant us freedom of personhood as long as we are not breaking laws that prohibit others from their same right and not causing physical and or emotional harm. The later is much more difficult to manage since what my neighbor or boss might call just positive criticism could be for me derogatory and hurtful. Relativism is a slippery slope. The atheist would know this too. And, they would also agree that people have a right to believe what they want to, since that is what they want - not believing in God is the belief that man is all there is. Any believer in God then would have to tolerate the unbeliever and there are not enough incidents that show or prove a believer being intolerant of an unbeliever... it has always been the other way around.

Likely, the atheist would agree that it is better to know people publicly ...where someone stands on issues, laws, preferences and beliefs as declared publicly. One would and should feel and be safer in such a society knowing those things about you.

Atheists must also know that most of what modern man considers moral is what has come out of religion. Mosaic law is still the basis for 21st century law. If that is not true, there where has man taken his law and morality from? If man is the basis for all perfection and good in this world, then where did he get is ideas from? Many only knows what works for him in the place he is. That does not mean it is good for him or anyone... only a reasonable amount of giving and taking is what he accepts in his life and he wants the most in every instance. Rarely, do we see man giving what he has to another. If that were so popular among men, there would not be any poverty.

If you argue that man is inherently bad and that is why we need law then your atheist argument does not work -which is that we can all be good without God... we just have to be good and good laws make us good. Who makes good laws? Good people??? Atheists recognize that people are not good and thus they need good laws. So, who makes good laws? The State? Who is the State ... remember man is inherently bad.

If someone finds a way to keep man in check or create good men, then who will decide if they are good enough. It's a bottomless pit. Only an absolute perfect being like God could know what is good and good enough. You may ask, Man is not good then??? Did not God create man in his image? Yes, then man disobeyed and fell into corruption and out from paradise. Is man still the image of God? Now, that is a good question? To be sure, the atheist is glad to have no answer for it, though not better for it.


~ John 14:9 Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."

The State and the Evils of the Social Imagination

The Holocaust of WWII should be a reminder that the State and its ambitions have few good intentions for society, though they promise it. It is when the state usurps the natural role of the human being: mother, father and family and attempts to build its own by means of what it deems science that the State destroys that which it wishes to be perfectly. The argument held by Nazi Germany was that the State is superior and is the best means for 'pure' and good society.  

According to the ideology of Nazi nationalism, the central entity or unit governing political and cultural life is the nation. Each individual 'belongs to' a particular nation and attains identity by virtue of his or her relationship to the nation and its 'national life.'~ Richard Koenigsberg


The means to attain this kind of 'national life/good society' was seen through the implementation of Eugenics which is the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The popular theory supporting this was that life for humans in society can and should be ruled the fittest. By WWI, many scientific authorities and political leaders supported eugenics. Though some say it failed as a science, in the 1930s and ’40s, there were eugenicists practicing this as a science. The Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races.

Are there scientists/doctors since the 30s and 40s that still study or practice eugenics? In 1954, Britain’s Annals of Eugenics was renamed Annals of Human Genetics. In 1972, the American Eugenics Society adopted the less-offensive name Society for the Study of Social Biology. Its publication, once popularly known as the Eugenics Quarterly, had already been renamed Social Biology in 1969.

U.S. Senate hearings in 1973, chaired by Edward Kennedy, revealed that thousands of U.S. citizens had been sterilized under federally supported programs. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare proposed guidelines encouraging each state to repeal their respective sterilization laws. Other countries, most notably China, continue to support eugenics-directed programs openly in order to ensure the genetic makeup of their future.

Despite the dropping of the term eugenics, eugenic ideas remain prevalent in many issues surrounding human reproduction. Because certain diseases are now known to be genetically transmitted, many couples choose to undergo genetic screening, in which they learn the chances that their offspring have of being affected by some combination of their hereditary backgrounds. Couples at risk of passing on genetic defects may opt to remain childless or to adopt children. 

Many couples choose to terminate a pregnancy that involves a genetically disabled offspring. These developments have reinforced the eugenic aim of identifying and eliminating undesirable genetic material. Counterbalancing this trend, however, has been medical progress that enables victims of many genetic diseases to live fairly normal lives. Direct manipulation of harmful genes is also being studied. If perfected, it could obviate eugenic arguments for restricting reproduction among those who carry harmful genes. 

Such conflicting innovations have complicated the controversy surrounding what many call the “new eugenics.” Moreover, suggestions for expanding eugenics programs, which range from the creation of sperm banks for the genetically superior to the potential cloning of human beings, have met with vigorous resistance from the public, which often views such programs as unwarranted interference with nature or as opportunities for abuse by authoritarian regimes.

Applications of the Human Genome Project are often referred to as “Brave New World” genetics or the “new eugenics”; however, the ethical, legal, and social implications of this international project are monitored much more closely than were early 20th-century eugenics programs. Still, with or without the use of the term, many eugenics-related concerns are reemerging as a new group of individuals decide how to regulate the application of genetics science and technology. 

*http://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics

Though eugenics then and now under new names, may sound as a reasonable option, it allows the State and its experts in their scientific institutions to make decisions which no longer considers the human being as superior ...this is the main agenda of the State and evils of the social imagination. 

Living a true Social Imagination

Mother is the beginning of the social reality. Socialization of the individual begins in the womb. Until we start cloning or growing fetus to full term in a facility, mother in our 'human' condition is the first encounter with social reality- social imagination. Role expectations are necessary in order to live a 'true' and complete social imagination. She introduces us to the basic program using basic information and builds or imparts more information when needed. Others in her immediate social reality also have a role regarding imparting information; father, grandparents and other children if the child is not the first born.

Who is it then that wishes to separate this connection, this life of information transmission? Is it the state? What is the state? Isn't it a collective of the social imagination? Emile Durkheim thought so and consider it the 'society' which came over and above the individual as in ruling /controlling the person. Was he right? Is that necessary in our social imagination? Is it a good thing and necessary for 'good' society?

What is good for 'society', living a true and complete social imagination? Durkheim missed what mother's do. It is the basic code which they pass on 'the will to live life' and it must be passed on in order for good society to exist. In order to live a true and complete social imagination mother must pass on this information and she is the one, not a top down structure that has eliminated mother's worth, presence and role in society.

Of course, not every mother in every society in every place has the same information. Cultures, histories, geographies with their economics as well as politics govern that, or at least seem to. But, what mothers every where do know and impart is life and the social imagination through shared intimate connectedness and contentedness and that equals security, peace and love.

 Let us pray that all mothers everywhere can fulfill their role in the social imagination.

Philosophic ism (s) in the Social Imagination

Rationalism - this ism argues that reason (man's) is the chief source of absolute knowledge; as if 'reason' exists outside the human mind and once exercised knowledge can be 'known' absolutely.

Subjectivism - this ism argues that every man 's reasoning is the ultimate source of his/her reality; as if every man/woman subjective view is all the truth he/she will ever know.

Perceptivism- this ism argues that if a man/woman sees it; it exists and thus a truth is created by different vantage points.

Idealism - this ism argue that ideas are the only means to truth, supposing that ideas exist in ideal types/forms and present themselves as such.



Empiricism - this ism argues that through our sense experiences we can know what it real and true. It is in this ism that we arrive at positivism as it takes senses a bit further interpreting them using rational or logical mathematics.



Pragmatism - this ism argues that thought is a practical function and its successes are repeated providing reality. If man considered something to be true its only because it worked in the past, present and is presumed to work in the future. In this sense, thinking is just the outcome of an operational program that thinks it has free will.

So what then is the social imagination? Is imagination thought, does it produce truth and reality? That's a good question. The social imagination is a collective entity of social encounters as - information encountering information. Whose information is right? Another good question especially considering the vast amounts of diversity in information in the world.

Can anyone then have true as in real information that is good for all people everywhere? Are we suggesting that out of the isms presented there is only subjectivism?  Cannot be because the social imagination says that there is no subjective information only shared information that is passed on because it works and now it sounds like pragmatism. But which information is passed on because it works, does it depend on the point of view as in vantage point and if certain individuals share the same vantage point and information works for them in that place they exchange it and do so because it was exchanged before, thus making it learned.

This why many scientists think that empiricism is the best ism because they test their senses and what appears to be working successfully by using logical mathematics. However, they seem to forget that the choices for what is logical math and what is not is based on the one or ones who perceive (s) and then others in and around that 'mathematical event' jump on board with that logic as it appears to be successful.

Is there any truth whatsoever? Perhaps Aristotle would have said that the only truth is the pursuit of the prime mover, which is the only absolute thing we can begin to imagine and grow in its imagination.

~ God is the ultimate source of our social imagination.

Leftist Fantasy in their Fact Checker Social Imagination...

The Constitution is the most successful social contract ever written. It has opened up the eyes of many countries around the world in that they have embraced and begun to practice such libertarian ideals. Does it the Constitution have some flaws?... only a lack of foresight regarding of the coming of the reprobate leftist.

The reprobate leftist now occupies the ruling class which is on a mission to eliminate this successful social contract and they have been at it for a long time. Why?  Because, they do not like the fact that it shackles government (essentially it does in order to protect average people from such corruption). They - the ruling class dislikes the notion that average people have a voice. The dislike a doctrine that gives such people a voice and the fact that they cannot control such a voice.


This in fact controls them and forbids them to rule as authoritarians. They don't like the idea that average and even below average people know what is best for themselves. They certainly don't like that such people have a right to rule and have a voice which the Constitution guarantees.

Marxism and Communism have infected our ruling class and hence they are now reprobates. They hold an authoritarian world view that the average Joe should serve the state and the state is now them - ruling class. They don't like the idea that our Constitution puts the little man in the drivers seat hence the ruling class holds that libertarian doctrine in contempt.

Looking at the misnomer of the separation of church and state as being written in the Constitution will help us illiterate the reprobate. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. No was it ever. People have been led to think it is in the Constitution through propaganda to uneducated masses. What does the Constitution say? It says that government shall not make any laws regarding religious beliefs and practice. The government cannot start a religion or make any laws affecting people's religious practice and world view. The government must stay out of religion entirely even if they don't like what is being said.

It does not say that religion should stay out of government or influence public policy or not influence the people. This was done by the founders because in Europe at the time and all times past, the government was the arbiter of religion and could punish people for practicing in others ways that the government did not see fit or like. Our founders created a system to protect religious faith in the public and in the private.

And, now our reprobate ruling class has convinced a generation of people that religion should not influence the government and that is not true. Too many ignorant people have let this happen. A lot of secularists have been able to have more and more influence due to this and sadly it is also due to a falling away from the church and faith in a creator - God. Which is actually due to media propaganda spewed out and paid for by the leftist reprobate ruling class and their social ills (indulging in the flesh and greed) that plague our social imagination.

So, it is highly likely that without an actual disinfecting of this ruling class, the Constitution will become an obsolete document and we will enter a dark totalitarian world where freedom is extinguished.

If you have to relabel something then there is something fundamentally wrong with what you are selling. 

~ anonymous

Toleration and Being Tolerant in the Social Imagination

Toleration and being tolerant in the social imagination can only go so far. Why? Because, tolerating anything means putting up with. Yes, that phrasal verb is used in the Webster dictionary to define the verb - to tolerate. Hard to believe. I suppose for anyone who never knew what the word meant. Do people think to tolerate means to love, to like very much, to like something or someone a lot or even enough to stand them. Or perhaps people think it means to prefer someone else's views over your own and or your group's view on life... and yes we all belong to a group. That is how we identify who we are and are not. We are after all, social creatures. We are not isolated islands of individualism though some people like to think that we are.

Sorry, but no one prefers someone else's likes over their own likes and or preferences. I told that to my students and they were so surprised. Really? Yes, really. They made lists of their likes and preferences and to their surprise, they were not the same likes and preferences that others had in the classroom. Of course, there were some that had either similar likes/preferences and or the same but this was not the case 100%.

Why? Because, we are socialized by our mothers who have their likes and preferences based on those that were passed onto them or some they formed through other social interactions. Its all information. We are given information and we choose which we like and don't like. We choose not to like some based on the encounter we had while given the information. Our mother's may have told us to eat green vegetables which is most people consider to be good information but because we did not like the encounter with that information or have a positive encounter with that information, we do not like green veggies. Yet, because it was told to us by our mother a person with authority that it was good information, we choose to tolerate some green veggies... to an extent.

Yes, as elementary an illustration as that seems, it applies to larger and even more complex information which includes other people, places and things.

This is what I consider normal acquisition of information and normal process of choosing to like or dislike information. The abnormal acquisition of information is when information is methodically programmed in by an authority outside of mother (mother= the person who gave birth and loves us as no other could and who seeks to provide for you) who have an agenda - to control you for their purposes.

Who is that 'other' authority? The State! Now, of course one can make the argument that the State must look out for others' interests who are different from yours as their mother was different. That I could agree as long as the means for and reason to provide you information other than mother's is not to control you but to open your eyes to alternatives that would be good for you and everyone. Well, in saying that, I suppose that could be the State's defense no matter what their agenda.

How to tell if they are actually looking out for you and just suggesting alternatives and not enforcing them? The means is the key. And, whatever the means, it should not decrease the amount of freedom you have should to choose or not to choose. Yes, the State can even make that promise... your freedom is not being taken away. You still have the right to choose or not to. However, can we see propaganda that is singling out your likes and preferences as bad and even intolerant of others' likes and preferences? Today, yes.

Should people be punished for their likes and dislikes, their preferred information? That is a good question. There has to be agreement on what is bad information and good information. Bad information is when the majority people are continually hurt by a particular information. Because, if the majority are being hurt... then it is really bad information.

If a minority are hurt by bad information, it is more likely that they are outside the sphere of receiving better information rather being targets of bad information. Because, bad information is never good information and never circulated unless there is an agenda.

Yet, we are being told today that bad information is now good information. Why? Because when a certain authority has an agenda, this is the strategy.

Why? Because, really good information is good for everybody and if everyone had really good information certain authorities would not be necessary.



When authority sees itself being limited or made non existent because obstacles no longer exist or threats no longer exist, it defends itself. It does so by targeting people's likes and dislikes and then claims that certain likes and dislikes and even preferences are wrong as in bad information.

This group of people 'with their bad likes and dislikes, are being labeled intolerant toward certain or even all information.



Thus, the group is targeted as being intolerant and 'by new and just law' has to conform to the authority which has set the new just standard of toleration. How? Well if they claim to know good information from bad then they must certainly claim by ultimate and absolute authority even if it is electorally instated. Otherwise, they could not know or distinguish good from bad information and certainly not know good information for everyone unless they had such authority. You see, we forget that even such electoral authority over and above us seeks to remain there and they can remain in power and authority by making them appear to be necessary givers of good information.

And, you see, if everyone had access to good information, then we would not need any such authority. You see, in a free and open society there is no need for any such power/authority to dictate what they think is good information or bad, we the people can decide for ourselves.Yes, we can make mistakes but mistakes come from bad information and only bad information gets served when someone wants to be served. This we should not tolerate.

Should we tolerate other's information? As long as they can tolerate ours/yours/mine. Is that even possible? Only when they/we agree on the source of good information. Is that possible? Only if there is God and not a State.

those who claim to be tolerant are the most intolerant...