Church and State

by Robert L. Gisel


As Freedom of Religion can never be divorced from the umbrella of human rights a Church/State can never be included in that arena, which is to say a theology goes against the grain of human rights and politics does not mix with religion. This point was aptly made by BellaOnline for the Independent Parties Site here: http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art50722.asp/zzz.

The essential issue needs to be taken a step further lest the deepest truth be missed.

Cynthia Phillips argues that a Church/State inevitably falls into bias of it's own and therefore the intolerance of others. These are my own words but should catch the essence of what Cynthia says. Historically this proves out and goes without saying.

Huckabee's statement of the intention of "taking this nation back for Christ" indeed seems a departure from our First Amendment. If in giving the benefit of the doubt of possible misunderstanding that this was intended figuratively by Mr. Huckabee, meaning that we need to revive spirituality in our nation and restore humanity to man, I totally concur. Huckabee's statement however smacks of separatism from and intolerance for others' beliefs, starting presumably with the Islamic Muslims.

Religion and human rights go hand in hand as both require at their pinnacle omniscience and omnipotence, the allness of all. Rarely ever, or never, have we seen a sovereign government exhibit such magnificence.

To put this all in contrastive perspective one need only trace the deviate train of thought back to it's ominous and unseen source: psychiatry. Lest one think this non-sequitur to the issue of Church and State realize we are talking about basic values intrinsic to humankind and on the other hand a dastardly group that has vowed to destroy those values.

In 1945 psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm to the assembly of psychiatrists emulated J.R Rees' 1940 master plan as the guiding principle for psychiatry, their paramount aim as "reinterpretation and eventually [the] eradication of right and wrong". This arrogant agenda laid out in detail includes the dissolution of family values and religious belief as essential to accomplishment of their goals. That's the downside of this issue.

Psychiatric mainline activities, addictive narcotic psychiatric drugs, prefrontal lobotomy, insulin shock and electroshock therapy each one inflicts pain and unconsciousness. These are highly destructive activities to the body, mind and spirit of the patient. It is not healthy - mentally or physically. Besides that, these violate human rights, considering that the practices are fraudulent and have never cured anyone by psychiatry's own admission. Without rehashing the volumes of documentation behind the above statements make a note of this: where there is a keenly unfavorable activity to advance militant ethnicity, separatism and otherness particularly in religious intolerance there is, if one looks deeply enough, a psychiatrist in the woodpile.

Ethnic cleansing, that heinous fabrication of psychiatry, also could said to be, by association, religious cleansing. Advancement of humanity to humankind does not admit to another religious crusade so let's don't go there.

That the Roman Catholic Church's heavy involvement in psychiatric therapy is found in parallel with its group's moral difficulties of sexual abuse among it's priests as a present crisis issue is no wonder. I trust the Pope will work it out, if he recognizes that the undermining of values is coming from the psychiatric false data rampant in our society and the reliance of the Catholic Church on psychiatry.

Following through on Rees's master plan psychiatry has no good will towards religions. Even to this day as we witness the Child Protection racket in Texas under psychiatric rule engage in human rights violations in mass against the families of that Mormon sect.

That said my main point can be made. Central to human concourse is the recognition of human rights inclusive of the inalienable right to one's own religious practices and their performance. Our country's First Amendment groups the freedom of religion with other specific rights such as the freedom of speech while the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists these each separately in the 30 specifically stated rights. Unstated here but a necessary corollary is that the souls of men have the rights of men.

You can't get more basic than embracing life as that of spiritual beings, that each and every one of us is basically good and is a spiritual being, a soul or spirit, call it what you will. Psychiatrists notwithstanding (joke). Spiritual being to spiritual being it matters naught to me whether the individuals before me prefer Mohammad or Christ or Buddha or L. Ron Hubbard. I see these groupings of man pursuing the same goals: desires to advance spirituality, basic truth and the study of knowledge. This would naturally embrace the highest point from which one could view, the omniscience and omnipotence associated with God and pan determinism in the allness of all. This is the quintessential what goes around comes around.

The State, in the activities of any of its agencies, is a sovereignty that must hold its own by its might and symbology with some agreement of principles. We don't however need an army of a particular color to tell us how we can worship.

Thus anyone should be free to pursue their religious beliefs. The delineation of the inalienable human rights defines the boundaries against which the the path is directed for the furtherance of humanity to mankind.