Can a religion lose itself to a democracy when the wall does not exist and vice versa? And what happens when the sovereignty of either is dissolved?
Sovereignty as a Religious Concept (click here and page down for article - thank you)
Siegfried Van Duffel
The Monist
Vol. 90, No. 1, Sovereignty (January 2007), pp. 126-143
Published by: Oxford University Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27904018
Page Count: 18
...Contemporary scholars writing on sovereignty can be roughly divided between those that believe we should get rid of the concept (because it is inherently confusing, or essentially contested) and those who grant many of the criticisms of the first group, but add that we nevertheless cannot do without the concept, since much of the thinking about politics in general, and the state in particular, seems to be structured by this notion....
The Constitution of the United States of America sets up clear divisions between federal and state sovereignty. Religion is not addressed by the US Constitution except in the First Amendment (click here), however, the Supreme Court has played with it at times. That is still not direct words in the US Constitution.
Most often religion's sovereign is God. How can a country kneel to God? When considering that question one of the points the framers of the constitution demanded is that there would be no king to answer to because of the hardship imposed upon them by the King of England. In England, there is a national religion of the hierarchy. When the "Church of the State" didn't make Henry VIII happy, he instilled the "Church of England."
I sincerely believe the purpose of the founders of the USA Constitution was to separate the sovereignty of the country from that of all others. They also recognized that people can harbor their own faiths in other beliefs such as God, hence the first amendment.
So, in recognizing the separation of powers in the US Constitution of the federal government and states, one also has to recognize other sovereigns can exist IN PEACE as well. I think some decisions by the Supreme Court have crossed those barriers of each's sovereign state, especially the courts of the past two decades.
Otherwise, the sovereignty of the USA is under attack. There is an absolute violation of the USA's sovereignty when other countries either of their own accord (spying and intelligence operations) or invited as with Donald J. Trump seeking emails via Russia is exercised. There can be no mistake that the Special Counsel's report was vital to the sovereign authority of the USA. It is also completely wrong for the Republican Party to dismiss every such issue because NOW IT IS KNOWN. Knowing is not a reason to dismiss the threat.
end
The Constitution of the United States of America sets up clear divisions between federal and state sovereignty. Religion is not addressed by the US Constitution except in the First Amendment (click here), however, the Supreme Court has played with it at times. That is still not direct words in the US Constitution.
Most often religion's sovereign is God. How can a country kneel to God? When considering that question one of the points the framers of the constitution demanded is that there would be no king to answer to because of the hardship imposed upon them by the King of England. In England, there is a national religion of the hierarchy. When the "Church of the State" didn't make Henry VIII happy, he instilled the "Church of England."
I sincerely believe the purpose of the founders of the USA Constitution was to separate the sovereignty of the country from that of all others. They also recognized that people can harbor their own faiths in other beliefs such as God, hence the first amendment.
So, in recognizing the separation of powers in the US Constitution of the federal government and states, one also has to recognize other sovereigns can exist IN PEACE as well. I think some decisions by the Supreme Court have crossed those barriers of each's sovereign state, especially the courts of the past two decades.
Otherwise, the sovereignty of the USA is under attack. There is an absolute violation of the USA's sovereignty when other countries either of their own accord (spying and intelligence operations) or invited as with Donald J. Trump seeking emails via Russia is exercised. There can be no mistake that the Special Counsel's report was vital to the sovereign authority of the USA. It is also completely wrong for the Republican Party to dismiss every such issue because NOW IT IS KNOWN. Knowing is not a reason to dismiss the threat.
end
