Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The United States Supereme Court's War on the Sovereignty of God
Vision Forum ^ | July 8, 2005 | Douglas W. Phillips, Esq

Posted on 07/11/2005 9:37:16 AM PDT by Warhammer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
Offered for comment.
1 posted on 07/11/2005 9:37:18 AM PDT by Warhammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Warhammer
The defining legal issue of our generation is not the right to life or even the definition of the family, but whether the United States of America — through its laws, its charters, its magistrates, and its public institutions — can and will meaningfully acknowledge the God of the Bible.[1] The acknowledgment of God is the first principle of liberty, a fact which was recognized by the Founding Fathers who declared that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”[2]
The short answer is that leaders may, acting as individuals, freely profess any and all religious beliefs, or none at all. This is protected in Article VI of the Constitution, which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Additionally, the First Amendment forbids Establishment of a state religion. Clearly this forbids the government from taking a position on whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired.

Note that despite the Declaration's references to a Creator, the Constitution is silent on the issue. Save the ambiguous matter of the date, there is no reference to the Bible or to any Deity or other divine figure.

-Eric

2 posted on 07/11/2005 9:49:30 AM PDT by E Rocc (Anyone who thinks Bush-bashing is banned on FR has never read a Middle East thread >:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer
I'm not sure where to start, so I will keep it short. This clearly shows the dangers of the extreme right to the future of the Republican Party. The author of this piece would most definitely support a theocracy in this Country. He takes us from a recognition of certain rights endowed by our creator in the Declaration of Independence all the way to subjegating the Constitution to the Bible. Along the way, he sets a course for outlawing not only homosexual acts but homosexuality itself in the US. He seems completely unaware of the First Amendment in a number of respects, and would without a doubt establish Christianity (of some sort) as the official religion of the country. He doesn't say what the status of the other faiths or non-faiths would be, but it should not be difficult to guess.

This is not a pretty picture, but many of the far right will support his position, and will be demoralized when they find out the Roy Moore is not on Bush's short list for the USSC.

3 posted on 07/11/2005 10:08:57 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer
As soon as I find a democrat who is more:

Pro-life

Pro-US Sovereignty

Pro-God (walking the walk, not just talking the talk)

Pro-family

than the republican he's running against I'll be happy to vote for him. I haven't seen one so far. I'd even happily pay higher taxes, well maybe not happily, to a democrat who will uphold these values. Sorry to say, the republicans haven't impressed me with their committment to the above values.

4 posted on 07/11/2005 10:16:20 AM PDT by Roos_Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer
It is important to note, however, that though the constitution indicates that denominational religious tests shall not be required, it does presuppose that office-holders will take oaths to God and enforce a document which acknowledges Him and is based largely on principles derived from His revealed law.

It is important to note that this is complete balderdash. There is only one oath of office spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, and that is the oath of office taken by the President. And guess what? That oath doesn't mention God at all! There are plenty of other examples of bullhooey in this piece, but this one kinda jumped out.
5 posted on 07/11/2005 10:23:23 AM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Additionally, the First Amendment forbids Establishment of a state religion. Clearly this forbids the government from taking a position on whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired.

You are absiolutely correct. Men may have opinions on the divinity of the Bible or the truth of any of its tenets, but the government must remain apart from such concerns. Its concern is the worldly sphere, rhetorical flourishes aside.

Men may have any faith they chose, the government may not prefer any one.

6 posted on 07/11/2005 10:32:40 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
"Additionally, the First Amendment forbids Establishment of a state religion. Clearly this forbids the government from taking a position on whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired."

The Constitutional forbidding of CONGRESS (AND ONLY CONGRESS) to make any law (i.e. pass legislation) regarding the establishment of a religion was written so clearly and concisely that to glean from it that it would be illegal for a Court to display the Ten Commandments, or for a President to simply make reference to his fiath from the bully pulpit, or for a Supreme Court Justice to make legal decisions based primarily on his knowledge of law, but filtered through the same Christian morals and principles of the men who wrote those laws, is a vile and slanderous assertion.

The Founding Fathers were men, by-and-large, who beleived human laws originated from the Ten Commandments, (that is what was taught in law schools and universities of the times...and is still taught today). Though some of the Fathers adhered to no specific Christian denomination, virtually all of these men's hearts were steeped in Christian morals and principles, as their writings so often reveal. They were men whose minds were educated in Christian Universities such as Harvard, Princeton, and men whose faith was tested in the crucible of religious oppression in their country of origin. To assert these men would cringe at seeing the Ten Commandments in a Courtroom or City Hall, or would wince at seeing a Bible in a public classroom, or would rail over testing the legitimacy of abortion by applying it against Christian morals and values, is not only a vile stretch of the imagination, but a brazen slander of these men, and a dispicable revison of history.

All any honest man has to know about religion and the Constitution is that its authors and their successors in government office for the next 200 years frequently made public statements combining religion and government principles, they PROUDLY hung the Ten Commandment is Courts, City Halls, Public libraries and other government buildings from coast to coast.

The 1st Contintental Congress declared a "national day of prayer", and government gave SPECIAL STATUS to Churches by granting them immunity from taxes. President Truman, on a national radio address declared America to be "a Christian nation".

You tried to separate the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution, but you can't succeed in this treacherous endeavor. The good folks who constructed and signed both documents were one and the same men. Naturally, since they understood they were constructing a government, not a Church, they framed the Constitution in legal/secular terms. But their faith and the principles that guided and inspired them in their construction of the Constitution were forever imortalized on that great document, the Declaration of Independence. It tells us who they were, what they believed, what they fought for, what they wanted for their children and the country they founded.

That Christianity and the Christian God were often spoken about and written about by elected government officials, and public buildings were commonly adorned with Christian icons and references for about 200 straight years (before the atheists, anti-Christians and secularists began to revolt against our traditional way of life), is all the evidence any (honest) American really needs.

But alas, since government has been steadily abolishing Christianity from the eyes and ears of the public, honesty and personal integrity have been steadily burried along with God. ("but fear not, for He has risen", ---- and He will rise again).

(1). "To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches." - Harvard
""Dei sub numine viget" (Under God's light she flourishes)"-Princeton

7 posted on 07/11/2005 11:28:42 AM PDT by TheCrusader (("the frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" Pope Urban II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
You tried to separate the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution, but you can't succeed in this treacherous endeavor. The good folks who constructed and signed both documents were one and the same men.

Not true. Neither Hamilton and Madison, the two men most responsible for constructing the Constitution and getting it ratified, were in Congress for the signing of the Declaration.

The two documents bear the mark of very different hands.

8 posted on 07/11/2005 11:33:48 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer
We must be God’s people in this nation, a holy remnant who insist that men and nations must acknowledge Him and no other God.

This is pathetic. Obviously this guy couldn't care less about the Constitution, so why would anyone care about his opinions regarding who should or shouldn't be on the Court? Why did you even post this?

9 posted on 07/11/2005 11:39:31 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

Wow, Sandy. You were able to read much farther than I was.

I agree. It's pathetic. It's also antithetical to what the Founders of this great nation wanted, which makes it un-American.


10 posted on 07/11/2005 12:01:57 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
You tried to separate the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution, but you can't succeed in this treacherous endeavor. The good folks who constructed and signed both documents were one and the same men.

Actually there were only 6 men who signed both documents.

11 posted on 07/11/2005 12:07:45 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: highball
Actually, I read this article (well, parts of it) more sympathetically. And I'm a "god damned atheist." Really.

While I am as certain that there is no God, just as certain as I presume the Pope is that there is a God, still I am certain that there is a moral truth, that we should all seek out and follow. And I recognize that some of the world's great religions (I do not count Islam among such) have led more people to seek that truth than any other way has. I live in a nation founded by Christians and like minded souls. I am proud and delighted that this is so. No one asks or mandates that I hold the same religion. But my fellow citizens do (or should, or once did) expect that I act in a responsible and moral fashion. As well they should.

When I see the word "God" I tend, rather unconsciously, to read it as "the Moral Truth", and see what sense I can make of a writing that way.

I will grant that the author of this piece probably didn't intend that meaning. But so read, it makes decent sense to me. It hits on the basic issue that divides us, whether the ultimate source of the best truth available is each man's own thoughs and feelings, or whether the truth exists a priori, for us to discover as best we can.

The hallmark of "Political Correctness" is the claim that one man's viewpoint is worth as much as the next. In other words, that there is no Truth which can distinguish between a terrorist and an innocent, between tyranny and freedom.

Janice Rogers Brown described it a whole lot better than I can. See her speech Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom,” Speech to the Institute for Justice, Washington, D.C. (August 12, 2000).

I suspect that she too believes in God. I sure hope so, and I hope Bush appoints her to the Supreme Court. She gets it -- good. I tend to only support and vote for public officers who follow a Christian or similar religion. Us atheists have made almost a big a botch of things as have the muslims. We are both an embarrassment to humanity, and a danger to civilization.

12 posted on 07/11/2005 1:21:12 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
The short answer is that leaders may, acting as individuals, freely profess any and all religious beliefs, or none at all. This is protected in Article VI of the Constitution, which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Huh? What is protected? Just because there can be no religious test, does not mean they have to check their religion at the door. You have a very extreme and misguided interpretation of that.

13 posted on 07/11/2005 1:26:32 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

It is funny how our founding fathers always said prayers before meeting and made numerous reference to God and even Christ in official speeches, but the intellectuals of today seem to think the Founders really did not know what they were doing since what they were doing was unConstitutional by the very same Constitution the Founders wrote.


14 posted on 07/11/2005 1:29:24 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Politicians today can still make reference to Christ in official speeches. Even Clinton did that.

But when it came to the document that actually created this nation - the Constitution - they kept God and Christ out of it. Why do you suppose that was?


15 posted on 07/11/2005 1:36:57 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer

Later read/pingout?


16 posted on 07/11/2005 1:37:18 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highball

It is nothing short of lunacy. Not very rare, though.


17 posted on 07/11/2005 1:39:23 PM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: highball
But when it came to the document that actually created this nation - the Constitution - they kept God and Christ out of it. Why do you suppose that was?

They kind of gave it away in the First Amendment, they did not want the Federal Government establishing a religion. But that has been twisted to the point where a student goes to jail if they say the word Jesus in a Graduation Speech. How twisted is that since the very same Constitution grants freedom of religious expression. Current case law on this subject is preverted beyond repair.

18 posted on 07/11/2005 1:41:28 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
At the bottom of another FR post today I see a nice statement of what I was trying to say. In the post Ten Conservative Principles (Russell Kirk), the last paragraph is:
19 posted on 07/11/2005 1:42:03 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

"a student goes to jail if they say the word Jesus in a Graduation Speech"

I'm not familiar with that case. Which one was that?

I don't think it's twisted to recognize that men may have religious beliefs but a government cannot favor one belief over another. That's the very foundation of religious freedom.


20 posted on 07/11/2005 1:50:16 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: highball
Here is one case, she did not go to jail but only because she followed the court order:

Guidry v. Broussard (1990) A high school valedictorian planned to devote a portion of her graduation speech to the importance of Jesus Christ in her life. The principal ordered her to remove the offending portion; she refused and was eliminated from the graduation program. The district court and the court of appeals upheld the principal’s action.

21 posted on 07/11/2005 1:58:32 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
"a student goes to jail if they say the word Jesus in a Graduation Speech"

I'm not gonna be as generous as highball. I'm calling this one what it is - an outright lie.

22 posted on 07/11/2005 1:58:59 PM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
The author of this piece would most definitely support a theocracy in this Country.

Did the author actually call for church and state to be combined into one institution, making it illegal for anyone to profess another religion other than Christianity? I haven't finished reading it yet, but I doubt it.

23 posted on 07/11/2005 2:02:18 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I'm not gonna be as generous as highball. I'm calling this one what it is - an outright lie.

You ought to cut people who disagree with you a little bit of slack. It isn't right to question people's motives that way. Maybe next time it will be you with slightly inaccurate information. You wouldn't want to be called a liar. In any case, Always Right's comment was uncomfortably close to reality:

"In the May 1995 case of Jane Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District, Federal District Judge Samuel Kent placed severe restrictions on voluntary, student-initiated prayer. Additionally, Judge Kent ruled voluntary, student-initiated prayer at graduation ceremonies and athletic events was permissible only with court-ordered restrictions on the content of prayer.

In his oral opinion, Judge Kent stated: "And make no mistake, the Court is going to have a U.S. Marshall in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this Court, that student will be summarily arrested and face up to 6 months incarceration in the Galveston County jail..." Judge Kent went on to say: "Anybody who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with them."

http://txgop.org/newsroom/newsDisplay.php?id=103

24 posted on 07/11/2005 2:45:22 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
Did the author actually call for church and state to be combined into one institution, making it illegal for anyone to profess another religion other than Christianity? I haven't finished reading it yet, but I doubt it.

No, he called for the secular institution of government to be subservient to the Christian Bible, and specifically to the Ten Commandments. That alone makes it a theocracy. But he added a few tidbits to ensure its meaning:

Finally, those justices who will not acknowledge God as the “Supreme Judge of the World,” or who would inhibit the acknowledgement of God from public office, are inherently disqualified from serving as judicial nominees for the United States Supreme Court

Will the nominee publicly acknowledge and fear the God of Scripture as the lawgiver from whose revelation all valid laws of man are derived? It is important to note that Scripture, which communicates the transcendent law of God to all men at all times, reveals that all judges (regardless of their national background or preexisting law system) are bound to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ (the “Son”) and rule by his righteous commands.

Simply put, those who would divorce the Lawgiver from the law are not merely disqualified from holding the highest judicial office in the land by Scripture, they are disqualified by virtue of the constitutional requirement that they uphold their oath to enforce the Constitution which presupposes this same Lawgiver.

It is time for Christians to once again assert objective and transcendent standards for the selection of our highest office holders. We are not at liberty to improvise on those standards when they do not fit our political objectives and short term vision for “success.” Our goal must be obedience. We must be God’s people in this nation, a holy remnant who insist that men and nations must acknowledge Him and no other God.

You may not see the point of this, but most would see this as the clear desire for the establishment of a theocracy, with the Bible as final law over the land, just as those Muslim countries that do have secular government still ensure that it is in compliance with the Koran. Neither of these was contemplated by the founding fathers, and the vast majority of this Country will not accept anything like that here.

25 posted on 07/11/2005 3:03:54 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

The [first] test is this: Will the nominee publicly acknowledge and fear the God of Scripture as the lawgiver from whose revelation all valid laws of man are derived?
This is not necessary. The position of Supreme Court justice is of one to interpret the Constitution, not the Bible or Christian theology. There is sufficient documentation from the period that, when coupled with one's intuition, to come to a reasonable approximation of what the Founders had in mind when they drafted and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think one may recognize the influence of the Bible on the Constitution, but it is not necessary for a justice to be born again to properly interpret the document.
26 posted on 07/11/2005 3:04:03 PM PDT by jayhorn (when i hit the drum, you shake the booty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
"Actually there were only 6 men who signed both documents."

Thanks, that's good enough to make my point.

27 posted on 07/11/2005 4:00:01 PM PDT by TheCrusader (("the frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" Pope Urban II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer
"Offered for comment."

Frightening!

28 posted on 07/11/2005 4:11:17 PM PDT by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer

'The United States Supereme(sic)Court's War on the Sovereignty of God'

Prediction: God wins.


29 posted on 07/11/2005 4:19:38 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highball
"Neither Hamilton and Madison, the two men most responsible for constructing the Constitution and getting it ratified, were in Congress for the signing of the Declaration."

Do I take this to mean they wouldn't have signed it, and that they weren't like-minded with the Declaration signers? Does this mean that the Founding Fathers would not have framed our Constitutional laws strictly on the basis of the freedoms and values that the Delcaration of Independence espouses?

I hope you don't mean this, because nothing could be further from the truth.

The original reason for my post was to prove that the Framers would not have wanted to separate religion from government in the manner being perpetrated on us by government today: The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote the First Amendment. He also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms.


"Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled". Samual Adams
The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first.

The Founders dated all their government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.

In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration.


The U.S. Supreme Court declared on at least several occassions, (below) that it's unsafe to separate the Declaration from the Constitution:

, "the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence" U.S. Supreme Court, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "----it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence". SCOTUS, Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)


"It is to be remembered, that the government of the United States is based on the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, by the congress of 1776; "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted." 1841, The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841)


"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Benjamin Franklin



30 posted on 07/11/2005 4:53:37 PM PDT by TheCrusader (("the frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" Pope Urban II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

You are free to twist it all you want. The fact that you must tie yourself into such knots illustrates the folly of your argument. The Founders wanted to keep faith and state separate, Hamilton perhaps more so than any other. And since Hamilton is largely the one responsible for our Constitution, I defer to his judgment.


31 posted on 07/11/2005 8:40:46 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I'm not gonna be as generous as highball. I'm calling this one what it is - an outright lie.

Oh blow it out your butt. You think it is far fetched that someone goes to jail for saying a prayer? The ACLU recently filed a motion to do just that. We haven't got there yet, but we within a few years it will happen:

Christians Could be Sent to Jail for Praying in School
6/10/2005
By Mario Diaz

In their latest attack on Christianity, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a motion to hold Tangipahoa school board officials in Louisiana in contempt of court, asking they be jailed for praying in schools.

The Tangipahoa school board and the ACLU of Louisiana entered into an agreement, made public in an August 27, 2004, District Court Consent Judgment, which required school officials to prohibit “invocations given prior to athletic events,” “participation and/or encouragement by school officials in pre-game and post-game prayers involving student athletes,” and “invocations by students to the student body over the school’s public address system during assemblies or at any school sponsored event.” The ACLU claims school officials have violated the agreement on multiple occasions. This motion is the fourth complaint they’ve filed against the school board.

Even though this is considered a civil matter, the ACLU has asked the court to hold school officials in criminal contempt, asking for jail time. “Their refusal to comply with the Consent Decree should and must result in their removal from society—removal for a period of time sufficient to impress upon them, and like imitators, the seriousness of the Court’s order,” reads the complaint. “Anything short of actual imprisonment would be ineffective to sending that message to these individuals.”

32 posted on 07/11/2005 9:56:14 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

Thanks for quoting that portion to make your point. Were I voting for Supreme Court justices, I would definitely favor those who acknowledge God as sovereign over those that do not. I think our freedoms are much safer that way. Elected officials that believe they are ultimately accountable to God will respect our freedoms and liberties, and also respect the law, much better.

But keep in mind that true Christian teaching (that is, what is consistent with the Bible) understands Christian belief is an individual thing. It is personal. It is anathema to the Christian to think that any government should force anyone to believe something. Everyone must come to Christ, seeking forgiveness of their sins and a new life, on his own.

That is one of the many differences between Christianity and Islam. Even in Islamic states that are not radically jihadist, Christians often are persecuted. There is no inner rebirth in Islam, no personal conversion. It is a religion of works, of physical acts of obedience. Therefore there is no real reason why they shouldn't use government to force this obedience. That is why democracy has such a hard time over there.


33 posted on 07/12/2005 6:47:19 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Ugh - that is awful.


34 posted on 07/12/2005 6:50:08 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
But keep in mind that true Christian teaching (that is, what is consistent with the Bible) understands Christian belief is an individual thing. It is personal. It is anathema to the Christian to think that any government should force anyone to believe something.

That is as it should be. But it is far from many in this nation who favor Christianity as an official religious philosophy. There are quite a few here on this forum who favor a theocracy here. I am referring both to Catholics as well as other Christians.

That is one of the many differences between Christianity and Islam. Even in Islamic states that are not radically jihadist, Christians often are persecuted. There is no inner rebirth in Islam, no personal conversion. It is a religion of works, of physical acts of obedience. Therefore there is no real reason why they shouldn't use government to force this obedience. That is why democracy has such a hard time over there.

I understand the differences you are painting between the two, and right now they are as you have said, but history shows how any religious ideology can move into the political spectrum if permitted. Just look at the Church of Rome in the Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, France, Spain, the Inquisitions. Christianity is now and should be as you say a very personal thing. But the separation of Church and State philosophy was created to prevent the kinds of things that can happen when religious ideologues get in control.

The first step in that slippery slope is for religious tests of any kind for our justices or any other government official. Once you permit that, you are placing Christianity (or some other religion) in a policy-making position.

35 posted on 07/12/2005 7:04:36 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

I've been on this fourm awhile, and I don't see the calls for theocracy as you do. I'll tell you what I think. I would like to see Christianity, through the democratic process of the grassroots voting their preferences, be the predominant ethic in our culture including our government.

This will take a lot of evangelism, and a lot of work. But our nation was overwhelmingly Christian when it was founded, and it was more free that anywhere on earth. Today it is less Christian that in has ever been, and is now less free and more socialistic. I believe there is a causal relationship here.

But politics aside, Christianity starts with a person acknowledging their sinful nature before God. Christ came to forgive and to heal. Government has no part in that other than to get out of the way.


36 posted on 07/12/2005 7:19:38 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen

Thanks for a post. I knew there was a case where the court threatend to jail students.


37 posted on 07/12/2005 7:30:16 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: highball
I'm not familiar with that case. Which one was that?

See posts 24 and 32.

38 posted on 07/12/2005 7:35:07 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Thank you. I saw those. As I said, I wasn't familiar with it.

While that is indeed disturbing, it doesn't change my central point: It isn't twisted to recognize that men may have religious beliefs but a government cannot favor one belief over another. That's the very foundation of religious freedom.

39 posted on 07/12/2005 7:55:25 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
I've been on this fourm awhile, and I don't see the calls for theocracy as you do.

I have been on a thread recently here relating to "Is Europe Dying?" The Freeper I have been in lengthy discussions with openly prefers theocracy to democracy. A year or two ago, I was on several threads relating to the religious movement to secede and establish a Christian nation. At that time I ran into a number of posters who were clearly pro-theocracy (at least to the point where the Bible was the principal and supreme law). As for now, anyone who subscribes to a Christian test for any justice or other official in effect subscribes to a theocracy.

I'll tell you what I think. I would like to see Christianity, through the democratic process of the grassroots voting their preferences, be the predominant ethic in our culture including our government.

This is the slippery slope I refer to. It will ultimately not end until there is an official religion in this Country, Christianity. And then of course, the battle begins for which Christian religion takes precedence. And what of Islam, or any of the other non-Christian religions. If religion is a religion of and for the individual as you say, why does it have to permeate our government and its policies?

But our nation was overwhelmingly Christian when it was founded, and it was more free that anywhere on earth.

True, and before the First Amendment, it was moving precipitously towards theocracy. Almost every nation-state within the Confederation between 1776 and 1789 had Christian only tests for government officials. When you exclude members of society from the government for religious reasons, you create artificial classes within the nation. Forcing Christianity on folks is not the way to salvation for either the people or the nation.

Today it is less Christian that in has ever been, and is now less free and more socialistic. I believe there is a causal relationship here.

History would not agree with you. First Christianity is by far the most populous religion in the US and the world. It outnumbers the next by almost a 2 to 1 margin. You are correct in that Christianity in the US has dropped from 97% in 1900 to about 85% now. But the population of the US is still by far Christian! Yes, it's more socialistic, but that's pretty easily explained by a USSC that was stacked by FDR for that very purpose. As for a freer nation, you may want to provide some examples.

Finally, like the other poster I have been discussing Europe with, he tends to correlate a drop in the population rate with a drop in Christianity. That is a fallacy of logic. The two may or may not be correlated, but simply showing two facts occurring at the same time does not create a cause and effect relationship. Both the changes in America and those in Europe are far too complex for that.

But politics aside, Christianity starts with a person acknowledging their sinful nature before God. Christ came to forgive and to heal. Government has no part in that other than to get out of the way.

We agree completely.

40 posted on 07/12/2005 8:40:50 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

"The Handmaid's Tale"


41 posted on 07/12/2005 9:07:44 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
"The Handmaid's Tale"

Fiction perhaps, but not so unrealistic.

42 posted on 07/12/2005 9:39:06 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: highball
It isn't twisted to recognize that men may have religious beliefs but a government cannot favor one belief over another. That's the very foundation of religious freedom.

That is a very extreme interpretation of our Constitution that has only been adapted recently. It is being used ban public display of religious expression that has any connection with Government. And now that government consumes about 40% of the GDP, that adds up to a huge ban. Not establishing a religion and not showing any favoritism are two different things in my book.

43 posted on 07/12/2005 10:01:22 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

If the Founding Fathers wanted the government to be able to show favoritism, they could well have done so.

The Constitution enumerates and limits the powers of the government. Nowhere does it give the the government the power to prefer one faith over another. You can say my interpretation is "modern," but you can't change that fact.

Why do you suppose the Founders didn't give any indication that the government has the power to endorse a religion, as you claim?


44 posted on 07/12/2005 10:15:21 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
he called for the secular institution of government to be subservient to the Christian Bible, and specifically to the Ten Commandments. That alone makes it a theocracy.

No it doesn't. We are still a Nation Under God, despite your wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The Founders understood that no laws should be suffered that violate the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. They also understood that man's duty to God is pre-eminent.

45 posted on 07/12/2005 10:23:40 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

"They also understood that man's duty to God is pre-eminent."

Man's duty, not the duty of governments. They were wise enough to recognize the distinction.


46 posted on 07/12/2005 10:47:07 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
A couple of quick points - it is Christian theology to hold that God is the ultimate, supreme judge. At the end of time, you and I and every person that has ever lived will be judged. We will be judged by God's standard, the only true and legitimate one.

That's why the Civil Rights movement pointed to the God of the Bible in making their case for equality. That's why we point today to the God of the Bible when making our case for the unborn or religious freedom. So God is the ultimate judge, and we know what God's values are through His Bible. So as I said before I would certainly favor judges that recognize God's sovereignty, because I think my freedoms are much safer that way.

If religion is a religion of and for the individual as you say, why does it have to permeate our government and its policies?

That's a great question, and goes to the heart of where you and I disagree. Receiving Christ must be done individually. Acceptance or rejection of Christ's forgiveness is a personal decision. Yet God's jurisdiction does not end in the human heart. His jurisdiction is the whole world which He created. Once they believe, Christ orders his followers to bring their Christianity to bear into every aspect of their lives. Thus Christians are, as Christ said, "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world." Christians are everywhere, and are doing everything. When we are following Christ, everything we do should be for His glory. Thus Christianity is personal, but not private. That is why I am involved in politics explicitly as a Christian. I could not do otherwise and remain true to my Lord.

But the population of the US is still by far Christian!

I very much disagree. The statistics you site prove only that a sizable number of people attend church or claim to "be a Christian." It does not prove that even a majority of Christians have explicitly asked for forgiveness through Jesus Christ and been born again. That is what a Christian is, regardless of what people say. The United States is more secular humanist now than at any time in its history. That it still remains the most Christian-influenced society on earth really isn't saying much. The fundamental premise from which we as a culture reason is humanistic and Darwinist to the core. Our loss of freedoms to socialism can be tied directly to this as well, I believe.

A year or two ago, I was on several threads relating to the religious movement to secede and establish a Christian nation.

I don't take that sort of thing too terribly seriously.

47 posted on 07/12/2005 10:47:24 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

"They also understood that man's duty to God is pre-eminent."

Man's duty, not the duty of governments. They were wise enough to recognize the distinction.


48 posted on 07/12/2005 10:47:25 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: highball
Why do you suppose the Founders didn't give any indication that the government has the power to endorse a religion, as you claim?

Who said endorse? It is wrong for the government to ban individuals from expressing their religious views, and that is what is being done today. The majority is being silence under the guise of offending some minority. That is not what our country was founded on.

49 posted on 07/12/2005 11:12:42 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
No it doesn't. We are still a Nation Under God, despite your wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Well, my teeth are all intact and I don't recall any wailing, but one thing I notice about the extremists anywhere is the degree that they resort to overstatement.

As for whether or not requiring specific Christian litmus tests pertaining to the Bible or the Ten Commandments leads to theocracy, I wonder what you would say if a USSC justice were required to proclaim the Koran as supreme and that Allah is the God to whom they commit his fealty.

The Founders understood that no laws should be suffered that violate the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. They also understood that man's duty to God is pre-eminent.

And they also knew from personal experience the dangers inherent in such things as "tests" for higher office. And thank God they were wise enough to keep the government out of it and let man maintain his duty to God. The two are not in conflict, but only when a person wants to infuse the government with particular religious principles and requirements for its officials.

50 posted on 07/12/2005 11:13:08 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson