[nathanbedford]

This article drags those of us of a certain age through a time warp that puts us back into the 1960s and the Warren court. At that time I was writing college seminar papers on prayer in the public schools and the other radical opinions then being written by the Warren court separating church from state and, in effect, eventually requiring the secularization of virtually every public institution.

We no longer live in the 1960s and the threat to Christians (and even to those Jews who are not secular and anti-Christian) comes not from the Supreme Court or the ACLU but from the Muslim incursion. The fastidiousness of the Warren court in erecting walls between church and state can only be seen as quaint anachronisms when juxtaposed against the onrushing wave of sharia.

What this article does not understand is that Christians must now make a choice. Either we accept the Warren court view and demand that it be applied equally against Muslims, or we look to impose a Christian sharia on Muslims-but there is no third way. We cannot have a quasi-separation of church and state which favors Christians in a world containing a determined minority of Muslims. It must be all one or all the other.

This is the great decision which God-fearing Christians must face.

[mtrott]

There is no “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. The question is, what activities or policies taken by the federal, state, or local governments actually constitute “establishment of religion”. Merely praying by officials or talking about our Judeo-Christian heritage and values does not force anyone to believe or accept religion. IMO, the right to free exercise of religion, as long as no person is thereby excluded from participating fully in civic or political affairs, outweighs the possibility that non Christians become “offended”. The problem today is that we have a religion, Islam, becoming more prevalent, but which is antithetical to the tenets of Western civilization and our Judeo-Christian based mores and laws.

[daniel1212]

What this article does not understand is that Christians must now make a choice. Either we accept the Warren court view and demand that it be applied equally against Muslims, or we look to impose a Christian sharia on Muslims-but there is no third way.

Their is indeed a third way, which is not that of Christian sharia, as the gov. cannot punish which faith one simply professes, only its actions, nor and teach formal religious education, but there is that which was the Constitutional way for about 150 years, which is to recognize that the state cannot be separate from religion the ACLU way, as its moral laws flowed from religion, and reflected the beliefs of the Founders overall and the general Christian faith of those who choose them, and indirectly those who elect the early interpreters of the Constitution. The latter electorate is what has changed, often with a form of "secular sharia law' reflecting the secularization of society.

But if the Constitution was truly interpreted the way the Founders manifested they intended, many of whom said and did things that the ACLU type would object to, then there could not be Islamic sharia law, nor the secular sharia that is hostile to any official proclamation expressive of Christian (vs. Muslim) faith, but our laws would reflect the general Christian faith under which the Constitution was written and reflects.