Posted on 07/11/2005 9:37:16 AM PDT by Warhammer
"The Handmaid's Tale"
Fiction perhaps, but not so unrealistic.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"Who said endorse?"
You said the government should be able to show favoritism towards a specific religion. That's not right.
Sure it is. If a majority of the people are a certain faith, Government should accomodate their customs and beliefs. Today government is down right hostile towards display of religious beliefs of the majority. If 90% of the community holds Christian beliefs, than it is appropriate for allow a prayer that reflects those beliefs.
And that's the wonderful thing about America. You can believe and openly profess that, and those of other faiths and beliefs can do the same without any penalty.
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.
Two quick points. First, one cannot acknowledge the impact to history of Christianity. Christianity has offered much to the world, but its history has not been without its infamies as I have pointed out earlier. Second, there are many who fully support civil rights for all, and who oppose abortion who are not Christians. Respect for life does not require a specific religious philosophy.
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.
And I know that if we confirm a justice with respect for the Constitution as it was written, not as it one would like it to be, then I know my freedoms are protected.
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."
You see that's my point. You say Christianity is personal, yet you lay the foundation for its infusion into the secular government.
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.
Once again, you state the problem succinctly. Christianity is not what most Christians believe it is, only the "born again" Christians. And what of Catholics, the largest Christian religion? You believe that the problems we face today are the result of a sharp decrease in Christianity. Yet the Christianity you profess has never been significant in a country that is almost entirely Christian. I'm confused!
I don't take that sort of thing too terribly seriously.
I take anyone who wants to bring his religion into my government seriously, no matter how radical.
I would respectfully suggest that the moral decay of our country (and the western world) is a result of the moral decay and decline of our churches. How many believe a homosexual priest or minister is going to argue against relaxing sodomy laws or a feminist woman minister is going to argue against Planned Parenthood? Do we really think all the Church/churches will rally around one or two judicial candidate-even within our own denominations? It may be there are more tares in the church than we would care to admit.
I certainly do. Again, Christianity is personal, not private, to coin a phrase. The decision to become a Christian is personal, yet God's jurisdiction is not limited to the inner life of the individual. God's claims to this world are universal.
I do not believe our Founders intended to forbid our government from favoring one religious ethic over another.
As I said before, I want our elected officals (through the democratic process) to favor the Christian ethic over all others. Certainly over the Muslim ethic, the Buddhist ethic or the humanist ethic. I do not want them to give preferntial tax breaks to Christians, make anyone believe, fund evangelism, bring the institutional church into the legislative process, etc.
Christianity is not what most Christians believe it is, only the "born again" Christians. And what of Catholics, the largest Christian religion? You believe that the problems we face today are the result of a sharp decrease in Christianity. Yet the Christianity you profess has never been significant in a country that is almost entirely Christian. I'm confused!
Let me try to explain myself a little better. All Christians are born again, regardless of what denomination they happen to belong to. Being "born again" is not simply getting up on the right side of the bed. Christ himself spoke of it in the Gospel of John 3. A Christian is "born again" when he submits himself to Christ, asking for forgiveness for his sins, and recognizes Jesus as Lord. Christ then sends the Holy Spirit to indwell that person, who is changed or "reborn" from the inside out.
So it has nothing to do with whether your particular religious denomination uses the term or not. I know many Catholics who are born again whether they use the term or not.
And on the contrary, American colonial history is absolutely replete with calls by clergy to repent and be born again. The First Great Awakening, which impacted the colonies profoundly, was based entirely on this doctrine.
The sticky wicket so to speak is in the term "favoring". It is not something so easily done without placing other faiths below that which is "favored". Other than requiring a religious "test" which the founders decried in the Federalist Papers, is there anything specific you would require?
And on the contrary, American colonial history is absolutely replete with calls by clergy to repent and be born again. The First Great Awakening, which impacted the colonies profoundly, was based entirely on this doctrine.
I'm perfectly content with keeping such calls in the arena of the clergy. And those who do not heed such calls should not in any respect be treated any differently by our government. That is my only concern. Otherwise, I have no problems with what you say.
The Constitution is about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That includes faiths. A faith cannot be promoted by the government just because it's the majority faith.
Perhaps you'd have no problem with a predominantly Muslim municipality promoting Islam as the "true faith" over Christianity?
You are an extremist by that definition because of your chicken little crying wolf about the "Christian Taliban" wants to establish theocracy in the USA. You will fail in your secular extremist quest to turn the war on terror into a bolshevik war on religion.
The founders understood that Americans have a right to prefer Christians for our leaders.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
As long as no law is made that leads to the government taking a position on whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired, then the First Amendment isn't being violated.
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.