Official Declaration Concerning Freedom of Religion
Official Declaration Concerning Freedom of Religion
MISHNA:
We as Nazarenes claim the right of worshiping Elohim according to the dictates of our own conscience. No secular government ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference should ever be given by secular law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it should be the duty of secular governments to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect the free exercise of religion and should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
GEMARA:
How are we to understand “the right of worshiping Elohim according to the dictates of our own conscience? Perhaps one were to say this loose Nazarenes to observe Sunday worship or keep Christmas and Easter? Absolutely not! For the resolution says “We as Nazarenes” and presupposes those that it speaks of as “we” uphold the teachings Nazarene Judaism.
How are we to understand “right”? Thomas Jefferson said "Freedom of religion is the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights.” He also stated famously in the U.S. Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The rights we claim here-in are inalienable rights. These rights were not granted by secular governments nor are they gifts from them, they were endowed upon us by our Creator and secular Governments may only respect them, or infringe upon them. And if these rights are in fact authored by the Creator, then the proper interpreter of them is a body authorized to interpret and implement that which is authored by the Creator. In fact any secular government claiming to be the true interpreter of these rights which were authored by the Creator will have immediately violated these rights by setting up its own establishment of religion. For any interpreter of that which is authored by the Creator must by definition be an establishment of religion. Secular Governments should therefore seek to respect these rights and avoid infringing upon them by simply respecting the widest possible interpretation of them.
How are we to understand the phrase “according to the dictates of our own conscience.”? It refers to that which is written in our heart, for Paul writes:
13 For the hearers of the Torah are not righteous before Eloah, but the doers of the Torah are justified.
14 For if the Goyim (whom the Torah is not to), from their nature do
[acts] of the Torah, (while the Torah is not to them), to their
nefeshot [there] is a Torah.
15 And they show the work of the Torah, as it is written upon their
heart, and their conscience bears witness concerning them, as their own
reasoning [will] rebuke or defend one another,
16 In the day that Eloah judges the secret things of the sons of men,
according to my Good News, by the hand of Yeshua the Messiah.
17 But if you who are called a Jew, and take rest concerning the Torah, and boast in Eloah--
18 That you know His will, and you distinguish the proper things that you learned from the Torah,
(Romans 2:13-18)
The redeemed man has the Torah written in his heart, but the apostates have their conscience seared with a hot iron (1 Tim. 4: 2).
How are we to understand “make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?
These words are similar to those above “no preference should ever be given by secular law to any religious society or mode of worship”. The U.S. Bill of Rights says “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” this is because only Congress was envisioned as making laws. However since this is an inalienable right from our Creator, it is equally true that no branch of secular government should set forth any policy, ruling or precedence that violates these inalienable rights. Not only should secular governments abstain from establishing religions, they must also not indirectly establish religions by giving any preference to any establishment of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has rightly understood this to mean that property disputes between religious institutions cannot be settled by secular courts where doing so requires the court to engage in the forbidden practices of considering doctrine, weighing doctrine, interpreting doctrine or resolving doctrinal issues. In fact this would be true of any dispute between establishments of religion, not just property disputes.
How are we to understand the phrase “make no law”?
The phrase “make no law” means as also stated above “in any case whatsoever”. It has been argued that laws of “general applicability” and “neutral principles of law” are not intended by this phrase. The phrase is clear “no law” meaning “in any case whatsoever”. Laws of general applicability and laws of neutral principles can violate the establishment clause and the free exercise clause as easily as any other laws. It is not the intent of a law that is at issue, but the result of the law that infringes on rights.
How are we to understand “respecting an establishment of religion”?
Some have interpreted this as a “Separation of Church and State” but these words are not found in the First U.S. Bill of Rights. The First Amendment (and in fact the Bill of Rights as a whole) in each clause, restrains the Government and not the people. The U.S. Bill of Rights itself states that its purpose is “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Government’s] powers”. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses restrain the Government as well and not the people or religion. This means that these clauses in no way restrict religion. Religions have every right to take a stand on Government (political) issues, it is simply it is only the Government that is restricted from taking a stand on religious issues! Religious bodies are free to speak out against abortion, against homosexuality, against gay “marriage” and in support of Israel. In fact Religious Groups can even endorse political parties, candidates or ballot propositions. Some have tried to use the IRS and 501c3 status to regulate the Church and what it can say, in direct conflict with the intent of the founders. The First Amendment ONLY restrains the Government and does NOT restrain Religious bodies in any way whatsoever. In fact the First Amendment prohibits the Government from favoring Religions that do not take political positions over those who do, or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion by those whose free exercise thereof results in taking stands on political issues.
Many Religious bodies in the U.S.A. have been compelled to become “corporations”. This is a serious problem because Black’s Law dictionary defines a “Corporation” as “an artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state. An association of persons created by statute as a legal entity”
The word “Corporation” comes from the Latin “Corpus” (“body”). To “incorporate” is to “make a body” and a “corporation” is a “body”. Some have asked if the Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim is “incorporated”. In fact the Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim is the Body of Messiah and is therefore a “Corporation”. This “corporation” was incorporated by YHWH at Mount Sinai around 1450 B.C.E.. Neither the State, nor ourselves can “incorporate” Elohim’s Assembly, because He already incorporated it in a foreign jurisdiction over 3,000 years ago! We cannot incorporate this Body with the state, because our “Corporation” is the very Body of Messiah who is a very REAL person. We cannot accept any attempt by the State to classify the Messiah as an “artificial person” when our very faith is rooted in the fact that He is a REAL person. In fact every time a “church” or religious body incorporates with the State, the State by definition creates a “church” or religious body in direct violation of the First Amendment.
A religious group need not incorporate with the state or file 501c3 with the IRS in order for its donations to be tax deductible so long as the religious group made meets “the statutory requirements for a beneficiary of deductible contributions” (Morey vs. Riddell, 205, Federal Supplement 918)
How are we to understand the phrase “the free exercise thereof”?
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that this clause “embraces two concepts, -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of such things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04 (1940)) However this interpretation if is flawed in its very basis. The phrase “remains subject to regulations” implies that regulations came first and that rights came later, and that some regulations “remain” after the rights were given. The problem is that this very reasoning implies that rights are granted by the secular government in the first place and that the governments power to regulate came first and may therefore “remain” after the right is granted. But the right is inalienable and was given by the Creator (YHWH) and the “regulation” of secular government came later. A regulation does not “remain” it can either be made or it cannot, and it either infringes on the right of free exercise or it does not. Society is not protected by secular “regulation” but by other “inalienable rights”! Religious freedom that embraces the right to believe but allows “regulation” to limit the right to act, is no real religious freedom at all. For example the secular government that says that one can believe in their own mind whatever religion of doctrine they want, but the government claims the right to regulate what they actually do, can effectively infringe on the free exercise of religion. Exercise by nature is the right to act, not just the right to believe. We therefore maintain the right not only to believe, but to act, a right limited not by secular regulations or laws, but only be the inalienable rights of others.
MISHNA:
We as Nazarenes claim the right of worshiping Elohim according to the dictates of our own conscience. No secular government ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference should ever be given by secular law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it should be the duty of secular governments to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect the free exercise of religion and should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
GEMARA:
How are we to understand “the right of worshiping Elohim according to the dictates of our own conscience? Perhaps one were to say this loose Nazarenes to observe Sunday worship or keep Christmas and Easter? Absolutely not! For the resolution says “We as Nazarenes” and presupposes those that it speaks of as “we” uphold the teachings Nazarene Judaism.
How are we to understand “right”? Thomas Jefferson said "Freedom of religion is the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights.” He also stated famously in the U.S. Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The rights we claim here-in are inalienable rights. These rights were not granted by secular governments nor are they gifts from them, they were endowed upon us by our Creator and secular Governments may only respect them, or infringe upon them. And if these rights are in fact authored by the Creator, then the proper interpreter of them is a body authorized to interpret and implement that which is authored by the Creator. In fact any secular government claiming to be the true interpreter of these rights which were authored by the Creator will have immediately violated these rights by setting up its own establishment of religion. For any interpreter of that which is authored by the Creator must by definition be an establishment of religion. Secular Governments should therefore seek to respect these rights and avoid infringing upon them by simply respecting the widest possible interpretation of them.
How are we to understand the phrase “according to the dictates of our own conscience.”? It refers to that which is written in our heart, for Paul writes:
13 For the hearers of the Torah are not righteous before Eloah, but the doers of the Torah are justified.
14 For if the Goyim (whom the Torah is not to), from their nature do
[acts] of the Torah, (while the Torah is not to them), to their
nefeshot [there] is a Torah.
15 And they show the work of the Torah, as it is written upon their
heart, and their conscience bears witness concerning them, as their own
reasoning [will] rebuke or defend one another,
16 In the day that Eloah judges the secret things of the sons of men,
according to my Good News, by the hand of Yeshua the Messiah.
17 But if you who are called a Jew, and take rest concerning the Torah, and boast in Eloah--
18 That you know His will, and you distinguish the proper things that you learned from the Torah,
(Romans 2:13-18)
The redeemed man has the Torah written in his heart, but the apostates have their conscience seared with a hot iron (1 Tim. 4: 2).
How are we to understand “make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?
These words are similar to those above “no preference should ever be given by secular law to any religious society or mode of worship”. The U.S. Bill of Rights says “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” this is because only Congress was envisioned as making laws. However since this is an inalienable right from our Creator, it is equally true that no branch of secular government should set forth any policy, ruling or precedence that violates these inalienable rights. Not only should secular governments abstain from establishing religions, they must also not indirectly establish religions by giving any preference to any establishment of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has rightly understood this to mean that property disputes between religious institutions cannot be settled by secular courts where doing so requires the court to engage in the forbidden practices of considering doctrine, weighing doctrine, interpreting doctrine or resolving doctrinal issues. In fact this would be true of any dispute between establishments of religion, not just property disputes.
How are we to understand the phrase “make no law”?
The phrase “make no law” means as also stated above “in any case whatsoever”. It has been argued that laws of “general applicability” and “neutral principles of law” are not intended by this phrase. The phrase is clear “no law” meaning “in any case whatsoever”. Laws of general applicability and laws of neutral principles can violate the establishment clause and the free exercise clause as easily as any other laws. It is not the intent of a law that is at issue, but the result of the law that infringes on rights.
How are we to understand “respecting an establishment of religion”?
Some have interpreted this as a “Separation of Church and State” but these words are not found in the First U.S. Bill of Rights. The First Amendment (and in fact the Bill of Rights as a whole) in each clause, restrains the Government and not the people. The U.S. Bill of Rights itself states that its purpose is “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Government’s] powers”. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses restrain the Government as well and not the people or religion. This means that these clauses in no way restrict religion. Religions have every right to take a stand on Government (political) issues, it is simply it is only the Government that is restricted from taking a stand on religious issues! Religious bodies are free to speak out against abortion, against homosexuality, against gay “marriage” and in support of Israel. In fact Religious Groups can even endorse political parties, candidates or ballot propositions. Some have tried to use the IRS and 501c3 status to regulate the Church and what it can say, in direct conflict with the intent of the founders. The First Amendment ONLY restrains the Government and does NOT restrain Religious bodies in any way whatsoever. In fact the First Amendment prohibits the Government from favoring Religions that do not take political positions over those who do, or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion by those whose free exercise thereof results in taking stands on political issues.
Many Religious bodies in the U.S.A. have been compelled to become “corporations”. This is a serious problem because Black’s Law dictionary defines a “Corporation” as “an artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state. An association of persons created by statute as a legal entity”
The word “Corporation” comes from the Latin “Corpus” (“body”). To “incorporate” is to “make a body” and a “corporation” is a “body”. Some have asked if the Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim is “incorporated”. In fact the Worldwide Nazarene Assembly of Elohim is the Body of Messiah and is therefore a “Corporation”. This “corporation” was incorporated by YHWH at Mount Sinai around 1450 B.C.E.. Neither the State, nor ourselves can “incorporate” Elohim’s Assembly, because He already incorporated it in a foreign jurisdiction over 3,000 years ago! We cannot incorporate this Body with the state, because our “Corporation” is the very Body of Messiah who is a very REAL person. We cannot accept any attempt by the State to classify the Messiah as an “artificial person” when our very faith is rooted in the fact that He is a REAL person. In fact every time a “church” or religious body incorporates with the State, the State by definition creates a “church” or religious body in direct violation of the First Amendment.
A religious group need not incorporate with the state or file 501c3 with the IRS in order for its donations to be tax deductible so long as the religious group made meets “the statutory requirements for a beneficiary of deductible contributions” (Morey vs. Riddell, 205, Federal Supplement 918)
How are we to understand the phrase “the free exercise thereof”?
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that this clause “embraces two concepts, -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of such things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04 (1940)) However this interpretation if is flawed in its very basis. The phrase “remains subject to regulations” implies that regulations came first and that rights came later, and that some regulations “remain” after the rights were given. The problem is that this very reasoning implies that rights are granted by the secular government in the first place and that the governments power to regulate came first and may therefore “remain” after the right is granted. But the right is inalienable and was given by the Creator (YHWH) and the “regulation” of secular government came later. A regulation does not “remain” it can either be made or it cannot, and it either infringes on the right of free exercise or it does not. Society is not protected by secular “regulation” but by other “inalienable rights”! Religious freedom that embraces the right to believe but allows “regulation” to limit the right to act, is no real religious freedom at all. For example the secular government that says that one can believe in their own mind whatever religion of doctrine they want, but the government claims the right to regulate what they actually do, can effectively infringe on the free exercise of religion. Exercise by nature is the right to act, not just the right to believe. We therefore maintain the right not only to believe, but to act, a right limited not by secular regulations or laws, but only be the inalienable rights of others.
Comments
Post a Comment