Is There Freedom Of Religion?

A good question. There is a great and important question raised on whether churches incorporated as institutions have somewhat sold their inheritance as God’s assembly of faith for a simple “bowl of red pottage” (cf. Gen 25:34) as instruments of the state, policed by the state and regulated by the by-laws under which their charters or articles of incorporation leave them as responsible to keep.

Now, “freedom” is a little hard to find these days, as per a truly liberal example; for which I assume “marriage” as an example is currently “free” as it is possible to be married if one so wishes as long as one is free to act as if they are married (i.e. as common-law spouses) without that recognition of government. This excludes any already married or that act outside of the laws of marriage such as the under-age or those under duress.

So, are religions also free to operate without any such recognition by the state?

If the state can legally define a religion and offer a registered status, whether for tax deductible status or for legal protection to operate as a religion, then possibly no.

However, God, in His wisdom has placed government on this Earth in part to be the instruments of wrath against the wrong-doer (as per Rom 13:4). Can God have put the government here to persecute the faithful? (Heaven forbid.)

Now, if government defined “church” or “ministry” to provide for the free exercise of religion, is freedom granted religion outside of those definitions? There may be a separation of church and state or that no law may be made in respect of any religion: yet such registered bodies are treated all alike and none is raised up above any other.

Yet, there is an argument that this is nonsense if the state no longer permits ministry or church to exist outside of those definitions; the ministry or “church” not operating as such cannot be legally exempt without a new law made in respect of their particular religion and the protection(s) of the law (as if on the unmarried couple) is or are turned against them.

Then to claim oneself “not a religion” under the law is to perjure oneself for operating as one. A simply dreadful outcome: for no religion is then free, there is nothing left to register for or to protect as for that simple freedom’s sake.

Now, the situation is worse than that: for if it is possible for someone to register their religion as a ministry in that they genuinely choose to worship the incorporating government as their God, there is, under those very same laws (to incorporate a “church”) found that same “freedom of religion” and a case to permit such worship. This is then a religion whole in itself.

Also, every other religion so incorporated may possibly share nothing else in common overall but for their acceptance of the protection of government in their religion(s). (There are no common beliefs, premises, assets etc. between all rather than churches taken merely in pairs etc.) This, then leaves but one commonality between every possible religion: that every religion agrees with the one religion (as before) that the Government is their own (or at the very least is a) God.

Now, it should be argued that this is certainly not intended by the law, so as God is merely “above” government I would state that there is a chain placed on Earth in God’s wisdom with Government His instrument to exercise all freedom of religion by which I will find a contradiction that this is not so (and for good reason).

Now, every God would have such government as His instrument, but Government cannot be that one sole object of all religion but is surely that which is distinct from the “church” as registered. So, God must act through the Government to the “church” instead; yet no distinct religions agree on God, whereas they agree on the incorporated status as valid. Were there any such body between state and God, it must also be a necessity; for that religion in common is both “a religion” and “not a religion” between “church” and “church” or from “God” to “God”, and by that contradicting nullity (which is always a falsehood: Government must act without any contradiction) every possible predicate may be forced, as no God exists in Government; thus the necessary “Government is not God” will entail the inference of “Government is God” entails “all will worship government”.

Is this actually true? What is certain is that this applies to every “God” above all Government because “God is God” entails “all will worship God”, whether the religion has a God or an empty set as God; the law as framed is supposedly satisfied with this token.

Then Government, if mistaken for God may be worshiped in error as above, but that which is common to all registered religion then also states to all religions “Government is God” in that error; in order to ensure that very same right to all. No act of that Government can add any new law in respect of the religion that will not agree with Government on all such religion as defined as they would not accept any such protection and/or register for it.

Now the statement N¬(A&¬B) is “A implies B” and for any necessarily false statement A, any conjunct may be added and logically, A implies B will logically hold for all B. This, is “forcing a predicate”.

The kicker, then, is that any one religion without government as (a) God is defined as “not a religion” and that Government must accept that it itself is not God also. Then these two may be conjoined to form the inference (by forcing a predicate) of: Every correct religion entails Government is God; a logically acceptable statement. (I.e. both N¬(X is a religion) and N¬(Government is God) are then logically permissive of “X is a religion entails Government is God” or “Government is God entails X is a religion”.) Then either every religion is valid only if it accepts Government may have equal status as God (or if it accepts Government may be as such), and there is no distinct body between Government and God. (A contradiction, Government is then at the top of said chain and there is no such logical and universal necessity ever placed between Government and God.)

Then there is some authority that a judgement of that same equivalence (Government is "God") can be attained logically.

Then there is no freedom of religion; there is only the one religion of government and every law is made in respect of that one religion most wrongfully, the law respects only the religion of government as God and is made for all to worship it as equally as their own God in any form. There must be freedom of religion outside of this incorporated worship, as, for example, the declaration of independence made of the colonies stated “we hold these truths self-evident” and they ascertained theirs were “inalienable rights” that were granted by the creator-God of all nature, which government is certainly not and could not be; as those inalienable rights preceded the constitution for the United States of America guaranteeing them all their rights.

So, is there freedom in religion? If there is religion permitted to worship government then there is no freedom to worship nature’s God as all such laws are made in respect of the religion with Government as a God. Those laws if enforced unjustly to restrict freedom of religion are unconstitutional in premise but are currently not so in their application or in their use whilst that freedom remains justifiable.

This may end in harsher sentences if it is stated that no such free religion perjures itself by resisting incorporated status; it may only be stated that Government perjures itself claiming not to be a "God" whilst it operates as one (thereby leaving no freedom of religion on that discovery, a result upon which all are purportedly able to redress their grievance with Government in any free state).

Then there is one sure result; Government is not God and such laws as enforced are also able to be claimed unconstitutional if Government denies all freedom of unincorporated religion.

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page