Yup
Yup. Growing up in Massachusetts, it was that way. And there is a Supreme Court case that supports these Sunday Law Reforms.
Shocking confession. The 1st Amendment states religion is NOT the business of governemnt.
I don't know what these 1st and 2nd tables you are referring. However, you are ignoring the heart of the entire matter. I'll repeat it one more time.
QUOTE:
Regarding the constitution of the United States and in reference to those who lived by it and the religious freedoms of the first amendment, Malachi Martin said in his book, The Keys to this Blood...
"In their eyes every person must have the right not only to believe in Hell of the Damned and Heaven of the Saved. Every person must literally be assured the right to choose Hell over Heaven.
That obligation carried to that extreme not only sets the minimalists apart from John Paul II, it sets them against him as well.'
John Paul II denounced the separation of church and state June 17 1991.
The Catholic Church throughout history has had the attitude of doing whatever it takes to make people accept Christianity ( Catholicism and papal authority) so they can be saved.
It is completely antithetical to constitutional freedom. And now we have a majority of Catholic justices on the USSC.
Is the current holy war in America over religious rights and freedoms a deliberately organised conflict in order to induce a state of intolerance toward Christianity that an opposing swing the other way might induce an intolerance toward religious liberty as in the dark ages? Prophecy says yes. Prophecy declares that soon there will be in America a state of coerced and legislatively enforced religion, a state opposed to constitutional freedom and the separation of church and state.
In recent years the courts have removed God from the public sphere altogether. Today we are witnessing a push back. How far will that push back take us? Will Christians still believe that there ought to be a guaranteed right to choose Hell over Heaven?
In the, 1940s SCOTUS shaped religious freedom and freedom of conscience jurisprudence.
In one case the SCOTUS ruled that children of Jehovah’s Witnesses did not have to salute the American flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. To underscore the sacred regard for conscience, Justice Robert H. Jackson penned this famous quote:
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Christ servanthood’s “transvaluation of values” is what revolted Friedrich Nietzsche, the self-described antichrist, because, as he argued, “a higher culture can come into existence only where there are two different castes in society.” He derisively called the gospel “slave morality.” For by elevating the weak it destroyed the “master morality,” pagan aristocratic values, and culturally the consequence was—mediocrity and degeneration. “We must all agree to the truth, which sounds cruel,” wrote Nietzsche, “that slavery is essential to culture,” and a strong, healthy society. That’s why democracy and equality, “Christianity made natural,” as he called them, are a cultural catastrophe, an “abolition of society.”
White American Christianity, to be sure, was not influenced by Nietzsche, but judged by its justification of slavery, embrace of White supremacy, its cruelty and violence—it’s not Christian but Nietzschean. It “covers [its] infernal business with a garb of Christianity,” to cite Frederick Douglass. Indeed, below the garb is a “will to power,” Nietzsche’s counter-gospel of the Superman and the elite, which sacrifices the weak to the gods of culture and aristocratic way of life. It’s pagan, all too pagan. It reflects the dictum of Tacitus, the Roman historian that “the gods are on the side of the stronger.” Essentially, like Nietzsche,
White American Christianity is a revolt against the fundamental message of the Hebrew prophets and of Jesus, that God is on the side of the weak, the poor, the stranger, the widow, and the orphan.
“The God-given gift of religious liberty is best exercised when church and state are separate.” Since the first issue rolled off the presses, at a time when America’s Protestant Christian majority was calling for a national Sunday-keeping law,
Liberty (from which this error is derived) has argued for “secular governance.” This reflects biblical ideas of separate realms of authority for “God” and “Caesar” (Matthew 22:21) as well as classical liberal philosophy, such as that of John Locke’s strict separation of “magistrate” and “church.”
American founders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison echoed these ideals. They were anxious for their new republic to avoid the wars of religion that had devastated Europe for centuries. So through the First Amendment’s establishment clause, they hoped to preserve both a government free from sectarian influence and a society in which religious diversity flourished. America would be a place where different religious sects could put forward their best arguments, neither hindered nor advanced by government disapproval or favoritism.
Increasingly, those who push for robust church-state separation have lost sight of the “why” of separation.
Separation exists so that religion and religious expression—even of unpopular beliefs—can flourish. Separation exists to advance freedom for religion, not freedom from religion.