THE FIRST CHURCH OF DRUWAYU
We embrace Logic, Humor and Absurdity!
WE SUPPORT KEEPING THEM SEPARATED
FIRST, YES, THIS IS REAL
Just because something is NEW does not automatically mean it is FAKE or INVALID. We are also not scamming anyone. Consider this as well as you have the right to believe or disbelieve what you want as you choose.
Our Rights for Religious Freedom ARE PROTECTED in the United States. There are two areas of law here in the United States that protect your rights regarding religious freedom the first would be the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and the second would be a court ruling regarding Ordinations by Mail (which a form will be developed later to do remote hallowing/ordinations).
Remember, you do not need to be Hallowed (ordained) to be recognized as a Druan and joining makes you a member of the church. Most of your general questions will be answered in our FAQs that have been compiled over time based on many of the common questions we have received from a diverse range of people.
One also does not need to be hallowed to embrace Druwayu as part of the tradition or cultural identity and to be counted as a Druan as long as said Druan understand this Druish culture and tradition. Those who say otherwise are not spokespersons or recognized representatives of the church or the religion, much less the culture so be cautious of those who make claims contrary to what is posted and published on our website.
FURTHERMORE
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
COMMENT: This This is the part of the Constitution which gives legality to all free expression of religion, including Ordination by Mail.
Amendment 14
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
COMMENT: This provision basically reinforced that States may not interfere with our Constitutionally protected freedoms, including our free expression of religion.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
COMMENT: Congress most recently used this authority and passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
We must strive to keep Church and State Separated and preserve the constitution, even by defending the freedom of religion for those with whom we do not agree with which already preserves the freedom from religion by those who are non-religious, contrary to what is often being proclaimed by various anti-religious networks as one of many attacks on our US Constitution that preserve and protects our basic civil rights and liberties.
-
Preserves religious freedom. One of the primary reasons for the separation of church and state is to safeguard religious freedom for all citizens. This also includes freedom from religion in that one religion cannot be imposed upon anyone. By ensuring government institutions do not promote or favor any particular religion and prevents a theocracy, citizens are free to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution or discrimination. This protects the rights of minorities and prevents the dominance of any one religious group. This by no means demands or requires any religions to agree with one another but prevents such from being state or federally weaponized against anyone else or used as a justification for acts of suppression and denial of their constitutional rights and freedoms.
-
Prevents religious coercion. When church and state are entwined, there is a risk of religious coercion and even imprisonment among other such actions, where the government may impose religious beliefs or practices on its citizens (theocracy). This undermines personal autonomy and can lead to the marginalization of those who hold different beliefs. By keeping religion separate from government, individuals can make their own choices free from the influence or dictations of the state or federal government.
-
Promotes respect and diversity. Separation of church and state allows for and embraces pluralism and diversity already and given the same equality of opportunities. By preventing the establishment of a state religion, it allows for the coexistence of different faith traditions, beliefs and practices as well and protects the freedom and rights of individuals to have no association or affiliation with any religion. This creates an environment where individuals can engage in or not engage in interfaith and or religious dialogue, and choose to learn or not learn from one another and celebrate the richness of diverse religious and non-religious expressions.
-
Protects religious communities. Separation of church and state also safeguards the autonomy and integrity of religious organizations and spiritual communities and even new religious movements (NRM). By keeping government interference at bay, religious communities can freely carry out their religious developments, projects, duties, practices, and teachings without external influences or imposition, nor are they required for forced by the state or federal governments from accepting persons or practices contrary to their beliefs. They are better equipped to fulfill their spiritual and religious missions and address the needs of their respective communities without being subject to political pressures or other socially imposed manipulation.
-
Provides a path for rational decision-making. State and Federal Government decisions should be based on logic, reason, rationality, evidence and the common good of all citizens, not on the religious dogma of a specific group nor imposed upon a religious group. Separation of church and state provides a path for policies and legislation to be formulated through the will of the majority than the dictates of a specialized few, driven by the needs and objectives of the entire population, not one specific or preferential group identity. This strengthens the foundation of good governance and encourages leaders to make informed choices that benefit our nation and remain compliant to the will of the people, for the people and by the people within our democratic republic and as the elected representatives of the people, not directive dictators of it.
In past and modern history we have repeatedly seen the negative and destructive consequences of world governments that have imposed theocracies and anti-religious policies or laws that both deny the autonomy of the people to choose their religious or nonreligious dispositions in life. That is precisely why these separations and freedoms must be preserved and maintained so one does not get imposed over the other which would inevitably be detrimental to everyone. Only the willfully ignorant and militant choose to disregard these historical facts and necessities for such civil rights and civil liberties.
DON'T FALL FOR EITHER RELIGIOUS OR ANTI-RELIGIOUS JARGON
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution because of the Freedom of Religion states that the country shall have no official religion. This is maintained as necessary even with the fact that the Majority of Americans identify as being some expression of Christianity contrary to what is usually presented and most Christians are also against any extremism regardless the identity.
This makes the whole continuous "debate" on role of religion in the 'founders’ vision and of Christianity in the nation’s identity frankly irrelevant especially when one have the honesty to note that some of the 'founders' of the United States of America were openly Atheists, Agnostics, Deists and Christians. Some also identified as Quakers, Lutherans, Protestants, and Dutch Reformed to name but a few so in this there were already a diverse range of Christian sects with some basic fundamental contradictions and some were new religious movements of their time.
Depending on the extent to which Americans of Christian background were influenced by Deism, their religious beliefs would fall into three categories: non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and non-Deist Christianity. The same also applied to many of the more open atheists and agnostics.
Its only the interest of those seeking to intentionally undermine our country and society with intents to impose and promote needless and often ridiculous culture wars.
Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time and it really serves no value to bitch and bark about it.
Some Americans clearly long for a more avowedly religious and explicitly Christian country, as do some who long for a more avowedly non-religious and explicitly atheist country and have made many moves to try and force such things upon everyone. Neither can be allowed for the reasons already given. If the religious wish to be more religious they are free to do so within their own communities. If the non-religious wish to be less religious they are also free to do so within their own communities. Neither is free to impose themselves on other communities or even one another and it is that simple and it does not matter what the "preferential views" are of any political party whatsoever.
It is not surprising that the above 2021 survey finds that Christians are much more likely than Jewish, other religious or religiously unaffiliated Americans to express support for the integration of church and state. Its ridiculous for such to constantly "slip in" racial identity as having any barring on such things. In addition, Christians who are highly religious are especially likely to say, for example, that the Constitution was inspired by God. However, these are very few and far between and most Christians recognize such as extremists and use the term "religious nuts rather than spiritual fruit" to describe these types which is often under reported.
Even among highly religious and Christian dominate regions, fewer than half say the U.S. should abandon its adherence to the separation of church and state. That's why one must be more cautious with relying purely on "statistics, politicians, or mainstream media" that often promotes counter claims mostly to get ratings and to manipulate the public.
Many religious leaders and anti-religion leaders are a huge part of this which is why more need to evoke and invoke the ability to think for themselves as individuals rather than the decrees, demands and dictations of any particular leader and regardless of their ethnicity or identity because none of these things can nor does effect whether or not they are reliable or unreliable sources of information. Blind devotion to any leadership is just willful stupidity.
-
The principle of separation of church and state is not an attack on religion nor on non-religious but rather is the protection of religious and non-religious freedom and individual rights. By maintaining this distinction, we uphold the values of democratic republic based in true equality and preserve the rights of the individual to maintain their autonomous self determination.
The claim religious thinkers and clergymen, especially from out of the Christian sphere of things as being extreme and against anyone with different views is modern bullshit to be blunt and nothing more than anti-religious rhetoric twisting facts and imposing fictions. Again, for sake of argument, let us consider some of these and why the constitution must never be allowed to be undermined and protected for all citizens.
The idea of separation had been broached by reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation, but the idea was not taken seriously or successfully practiced at that time. This revolutionary idea, though, was later realized in America beginning with a man named Roger Williams before America was officially America and still predominately made up of British colonies.
(North America wasn't truly the United States North America till after 1776, and prior to British colonies it was predominately Spain that "discovered" and named the "New World." Annoying when people cannot even get that basic part of history clear). Roger Williams was a Puritan pastor in Massachusetts, and and outspoken early proponent of religious tolerance in the mid-1600s.
He was the first to really advocate for practical separation between church and civil state which many of the Puritans of his time did not adequately engage in and still tended to follow older European models where the lines were blurred. He is quoted to have, in religious speak of his time stated:
The church of the Jews under the Old Testament…and the church of the Christians under the New Testament…were both separate from the world. When they opened a gap in the hedge, or wall of separation, between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God always broke down the wall, removed the candlestick, and made His garden a wilderness, as at this day. If God is ever pleased to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be peculiarly walled in from the world unto Himself.
To clarify the meaning, Williams asserts that to protect the church from the world, including from the civil government, and general corruption. Civil government, he believed, should regulate only civil offenses, not religious or spiritual matters. Williams thus argued that churches and congregations should separate from what were thought to be impure state churches (theocracies). This new arrangement would, ultimately, allow for more religious freedom. But don't think he was praised for that view.
In fact, Williams was banished from the colony of Massachusetts in 1635 for his dissident views. The views only took root after he chose to establish the tolerant colony of Rhode Island in 1643 as its own movement. We already know what went down in Salem Massachusetts some 30+ years later with the whole Witch Trials which furthered the demand for separation of Church and state after the smoke cleared.
Other Notable Mentions:
-
Early American Baptist clergyman Isaac Backus argued: Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state, not because they are beneath the interests of the state, but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state.
-
George Washington, 1st US President stated: Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
-
John Adams, 2nd US President stated: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. He also warned: There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.
-
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President insisted: Erecting a wall of separation between church and state is absolutely essential in a free society.
-
James Madison, 4th US president stated: The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries. He also warned: Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.... During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
Now, many will assume Madison was an atheist. That isn't actually the case. He was instead a Presbyterian that also embraced logic. When he returned from Princeton, Madison observed religious tensions between Anglicans and practitioners of other faiths. In particular, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists suffered as a result of religious persecution as well as in fighting.
Some religious leaders were even jailed for their beliefs, which infuriated Madison. It is actually to his credit that as a delegate of the Virginia Convention of 1776, Madison convinced the Legislature to adopt the mandate that "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion" in the colony's constitution.
The following year, Thomas Jefferson authored the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, of which Madison became an ardent supporter. He wrote and distributed (anonymously) "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" to introduce others to the argument for the separation of church and state. Eleven years later, Jefferson's bill finally passed.
Madison's influence in the battle over church and state would grow when he was chosen to be the "architect of the Constitution" during the meeting of the founding fathers in Philadelphia in 1787. Like the Virginia Constitution, the U.S. Constitution called for the separation of church and state.