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 previous 1-5051-76 last
To: Always Right

"Who said endorse?"

You said the government should be able to show favoritism towards a specific religion. That's not right.


51 posted on 07/12/2005 11:21:17 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 49 | View Replies]

To: highball
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.

52 posted on 07/12/2005 11:31:11 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; Wrigley; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; jboot; AZhardliner; Alex Murphy; ...
*ping*


53 posted on 07/12/2005 11:36:19 AM PDT by sheltonmac ("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." -Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
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.

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.

54 posted on 07/12/2005 11:41:26 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
"But why do so many well-intentioned professing Christian leaders succumb to endless political manipulation, low standards, and fundamental compromises, especially when it comes to the judicial nomination process?"

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.

55 posted on 07/12/2005 12:36:30 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
You see that's my point. You say Christianity is personal, yet you lay the foundation for its infusion into the secular government.

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.

56 posted on 07/12/2005 12:46:32 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
I do not believe our Founders intended to forbid our government from favoring one religious ethic over another.

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.

57 posted on 07/12/2005 1:27:42 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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?


58 posted on 07/12/2005 1:31:06 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 52 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
one thing I notice about the extremists anywhere is the degree that they resort to overstatement.

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.

59 posted on 07/12/2005 1:37:33 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | 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.

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.

60 posted on 07/12/2005 1:57:28 PM PDT by judgeandjury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

"The founders understood that Americans have a right to prefer Christians for our leaders."

The Founders also understood that Americans do not have a right to *require* leaders to be Christians. They didn't want any one faith promoted over or in the absence of any other.


61 posted on 07/12/2005 1:59:55 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 59 | View Replies]

To: judgeandjury

Does officially swearing "So Help Me God" with your hand on the Bible violate the First Amendment? The Founders sure didn't think so!


62 posted on 07/12/2005 2:00:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
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

Hey, you were almost perfect. You only missed Nazi. But still that's pretty good for you.

The founders understood that Americans have a right to prefer Christians for our leaders.

And that's in the Constitution....where?

63 posted on 07/12/2005 2:10:13 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Keep preaching doom and gloom about how the right wing want to take away our civil rights. While you're trying to undermine the conservative movement, Christian conservatives will be fighting the real terror threat. They'll keep you safe enough to spout your anti-Christian opinions.
64 posted on 07/12/2005 2:15:17 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I would repeat my question to you, but I guess your silence on it is your answer.

Keep preaching doom and gloom about how the right wing want to take away our civil rights.

Didn't realize I was doing any preaching. You are quite sensitive about anyone who feels the Constitution has some meaning other than Sunday church services. As for our civil rights, I do consider that the 14th Amendment is one of the rights that the radical right would either ignore or repeal. Because to require a Christianity test for justices, that particular amendment to our Constitution would be violated.

While you're trying to undermine the conservative movement,

I seriously doubt you have any concept of conservatism.

Christian conservatives will be fighting the real terror threat.

How so?

They'll keep you safe enough to spout your anti-Christian opinions.

I'm not sure if you are confused or what. I do not recall "spouting" any anti-Christian opinions. The only spouting I recall is someone referring to me as a Bolshevik because I believe in the First Amendment.

65 posted on 07/12/2005 2:42:32 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Yep, you are preaching like the most self-righteous bible-thumper, except you are a self-righteous liberal preaching about the evils of Christianity.

This nation's was founded upon Christian principles. Christianity is the basis of morality and law. You and the ACLU can do all you can to try to change that and purge religious influence from our government, but you will fail. He who spits against the wind, spits in his own face.

66 posted on 07/12/2005 3:01:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Look Joe, perhaps you need to drop back down and debate with those at your level. I have enjoyed discussing these issues with a number of well read Christians who can appreciate an in-depth two-way exchange of ideas. Religious discussions should not devolve into the sort of silly insults you have injected into this one.

I'm not questioning anyone's faith, and if have read any of my posts, you will know I have accorded Christianity its due in the formation of this nation. But quite frankly, your particular faith appears a tad fragile, and you see attacks where none exist. Your immediate reaction to anyone questioning the theme of this thread is to attack, insult and otherwise hurl baseless charges and epithets.

When you start throwing around words like conservative and liberal, you might want to go to a dictionary and find out what they really mean. You might just be surprised.

67 posted on 07/12/2005 3:30:10 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
One thing I know about liberals, they love to bash Christianity and go on about how terrible the Crusades were and how those rotten flag-waving Christian are just like the Taliban. Just like you.
68 posted on 07/12/2005 3:44:26 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: highball
The Constitution is about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That includes faiths.

No that is not what the Constitution is about. It is about establishing legitimate roles for the government, and the first ten Amendments were about protecting the rights of people and states from the power of the government. Whether someone says a prayer at a graduation ceremony should be of no concern to the government.

A faith cannot be promoted by the government just because it's the majority faith.

Promoting faith? I just want the government to respect the will of the people as long as it does not actually infringe on rights of individuals. No where in the Constitution does it say people can not be exposed to other people religion. Quite to the contrary, it says the opposite, people have freedom to express their religion.

Perhaps you'd have no problem with a predominantly Muslim municipality promoting Islam as the "true faith" over Christianity?

I have no problem with them expressing their religion. Attacking someone else's religion is not appropriate.

69 posted on 07/12/2005 3:46:50 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Does officially swearing "So Help Me God" with your hand on the Bible violate the First Amendment? The Founders sure didn't think so!

I agree with the Founders.

70 posted on 07/12/2005 3:59:35 PM PDT by judgeandjury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Just like you.

Just like me what?

71 posted on 07/12/2005 4:24:42 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
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

How are you certain that there is no God? Have you searched throughout the entire universe? Do you possess omniscience? If not, then you cannot be certain of such a universal negative, and therefor your assertion of certainty is groundless and false.

You cannot account for morality apart from God. You cannot derive an "ought" merely from what is, which in your view, is nothing but matter in motion. There are no "good" and "bad" atoms.

Cordially,

72 posted on 07/13/2005 8:40:09 AM PDT by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Don't worry - I do not have scientific evidence and reproducible experiments that will convince all competent listeners, or even just yourself, that there is not a God.

And don't worry - you evidence sufficient cluelessness of what I believe that there is no chance I can explain it to you in a way that you find plausible, much less persuasive.

I have searched far and wide for authors that might reflect my beliefs, and describe them better than can I. The closest I've found is Daniel Dennett.

73 posted on 07/13/2005 10:45:02 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: judgeandjury
Everyone makes a big deal about the first half of that Amendment, and glosses over the second half. The first half states, in essence, that Congress shall make no law which either establishes OR DIS-ESTABLISHES religion. The second half expands on that by stating that no law can be made at the National level to prohibit the free (meaning unencumbered) exercise of religion by the citizenry. In short, Congress has no authority to either endorse or prohibit religious expression of any kind. Today, Congress oversteps that authority.

John Adams understood quite well that our government would only continue to function well as long as it was understood that the government does have a stake in promoting morality and religious expression.

We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. - John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

74 posted on 07/13/2005 10:55:42 AM PDT by nobdysfool (Faith in Christ is the evidence of God's choosing, not the cause of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Thank you for your reply.

Don't worry - I do not have scientific evidence and reproducible experiments that will convince all competent listeners, or even just yourself, that there is not a God.

I didn't ask you to convince me. I assume from your words that you are a physicalist, in which case there would be no "convincing" in the first place, because under a physicalist premise there is no truth, understanding, meaning, mind, self or anything to be "convinced" other than the purely physical forces of random collisions of subatomic particles. I asked you how you were certain, because your certainty would require omniscience. No offense intended, but the claim of certainty of knowledge of no God is a tacit claim to be a "know-it-all".

And don't worry - you evidence sufficient cluelessness of what I believe that there is no chance I can explain it to you in a way that you find plausible, much less persuasive.

I can only go by the words you use. Thank you for the link to Dennett. I am familiar with his ideas, if that is indeed what they should be called, because if he is correct then his thoughts too are nothing but the result of irrational causes; they are all empty sensations created by chemical conditions and random collisions of protons and neutrons.

Cordially,

75 posted on 07/14/2005 8:58:47 AM PDT by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
You have no idea what I believe. That's ok.

Have a good day.

76 posted on 07/14/2005 12:11:44 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


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