Replies

Thank you for your excellent, not to mention sane and rational, post! I can only hope that someday I too might be able to be as expressive with my thoughts, via the written word, as you have demonstrated to be.

But at any rate lets go through it.

“What is best, and what history shows the founders wanted, is a government neither prevents nor demands, but does allow, its officials to acknowledge God Almighty.”

And this is a tough question, should our elected officials be allowed to make references to their religious believes? Where does their function as an elected official end and their personal life begin, or are the two one and the same? I too do not think that the founders intended all religions beliefs or perspectives be removed from public life, but at the same time they were keenly aware, from a world historical perspective, of the suffering and oppression that came with a commingling of church and state.

They also were very aware of the importance of a spirituality portion of ones life and believed it to be an important component to the success of a free country. That does not however mean that they intended this country to be exclusively a Christian nation as the Christian right myth purports. They intended this to be a country where people of all beliefs could pursue their spirituality without oppression and interference from others. And I also believe that the phrase “freedom of religion” also means freedom from religion, as the religious test for office of the Constitution would seem to support.

“We want the Constitution of the United States to be respected rather than twisted – twisted beyond all recognition.”

But weather or not it is being respected, or being twisted, is it not really a matter of subjective opinion? I just love the use of the phrases here of “judicial activism” and “following the rule of law” when describing a court ruling in a case. By using the term “judicial activism” it is demonstrated that the majority here does not agree with the decision, but when using the term “following the rule of law,” it is meant that most here do agree with the decision. When in both instances what is being done is that judges are interpreting the law, as they understand it to be, which is what they are in place to do. It is part of the checks and balances of government.

“This is really not that difficult. There is a difference between a public official acknowledging God and a public official imposing God’s worship on others. That is the middle ground of liberty, and on that ground we stand.

How is it in the middle ground? Is not Judge Moore’s placing the Decalogue in the Courthouse rotunda on others who may not share those same beliefs? And if we are going to allow judge Moore to such to achieve equal treatment under the law, or achieve the middle ground does that not mean the with have to also include writings from the Talmud, the Torah, the Koran, and the Sutras? Or do the people who follow those faiths not have the same rights as Christians when it comes to public places?

Again, thanks for your thought provoking post.

K

Kerebos, well thanks for the civility of your reply. I am blushing over here.

If the government ever got off of that middle ground, and tried to impose a worship of a particular god, even mine, I would stand against it. There is no such thing as imposed Christianity. That is not where the threat is today. Today the threat is that legitimate free expression and exercise of religion is being suppressed by the federal government of the United States in a manner inconsistent with our Constitution and History.

I think we have a sharp worldview contrast here. A God who is not God of every area of life is no God at all. If God is to be excluded from all aspects of government (and now government touches so much that this would practically expell Him from public life) then He is no God at all. I can't separate my faith from my politics, or my business, or my marriage, or anything else. If there is a "kingdom" where God is irrelevent, then that undermines the very concept of "God".

Look, there are two incompatable worldviews here. It is not like a secular world view won't offended anybody but a religious worldview will. Somebody HAS to be offended. I am not compartmentalized in my thinking. I can't go to church on Sunday and worship a God that I then think is irrelevant, and should not even be mentioned in the rest of life.

There are millions more like me. Somebody has to be offended. Someone has to be excluded. Either the radical secularists have to be offended, or the whole-life Christians have to be. You seem to think (perhaps you will reconsider) that the answer is to make the rules in advance so that the Christains are the ones to be offended no matter how many hearts and minds they persuade. For example 77% of Americans disagreed with the removal of the monument in Alabama.

Some Christians, not a majority by any means, want to make the United States a Christain nation. Since Christianity is a relationship, I am not sure you can have a Christian nation. You can have a nation of Christians though. I suppose you can also have a nation that acknowledges Christ, even while supporting the right of all of its citizens to worship or not as they please.

Let's pretend for a moment that some group of Christians want to go beyond recognition, and use the government to DEMAND a public profession of "faith" from every govenment official. Don't you see that this is simply the opposite extreme (and just as immoral) as what we have now? Secularists now use the government to FORBID a public profession of faith from every government official. Either of these extremes amounts to a religous test for office. One is a test for a particular faith, the other a test against any faith, but both are religous tests.

It does no good to hop back to the idea that they can PRIVATELY express any faith they want. A faith that can only be expressed privately is no faith at all. The real faith in that case would be in the power that one yields to when they decline to acknowledge their God, not that God Himself. Ones god, by my understanding, is whatever or whoever comes first in your life.

You are using a religous test for office to automatically exclude all of those who believe their faith must rule over all areas of their lives. This is now being done regardless of the will of We The People, and all governments ultimately derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

So here I am in the middle. Don't use a religous test to DEMAND or FORBID acknowledgement of God by any public offical. If you are just talking about officials expressing themselves, verses Congress passing laws, there is no violation of the 1st ammendment. Let the voters themselves decide how much they want to be preached to.

I realize this means that some people might have to listen to ideas with which they might happen to disagree. Too bad-that is the price of living in a free country where government can neither FORBID or DEMAND, but rather must ALLOW, free expression, even on religious matters. I wish I lived in such a country, for I was born in such a land. I remained in place, but that country was taken from me.

Officials of other faiths have the same rights as Christians regarding public expression, but that does not mean that a public official must acknowledge all Gods or none at all. That is just another way of making all God's irrelevant, which dienfranchises those who feel that one God is more relevant than others.

I would not expect a Jew or Hindu or Moslem elected to office to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. Neither would I want a law saying they can't. Public officials of all faiths should have the right to advance their beliefs. I don't want to make the rules in advance so that only one side is allowed to win- which is what the secularists are imposing on America now. I want FREEDOM.

If we elect Christains, Jews, athiests, or whatever then that is up to WE THE PEOPLE. There is no institutional commitment to Christainity, except that which is written on the hearts of the voters.

How is it in the middle ground? Is not Judge Moore’s placing the Decalogue in the Courthouse rotunda on others who may not share those same beliefs?

No. It is not the equivalent of making a law respecting an establishment of religion which is the only thing the Constitution prohibits.

And if we are going to allow judge Moore ...

We did not allow him to. Alabama State law gives the privilege of choosing decorations for the Rotunda to the Chief Justice. Therefore it is by the rule of law that he chose what he chose.

... to such to achieve equal treatment under the law, or achieve the middle ground does that not mean the with have to also include writings from the Talmud, the Torah, the Koran, and the Sutras? Or do the people who follow those faiths not have the same rights as Christians when it comes to public places?

When the people of Alabama lawfully elect a Chief Justice who wishes to place something from the Talmud, the Torah (the Decalogue?) or the Sutras he/she may do so. What could be fairer?

Freedom of expression for all as protected by the U.S. Constitution, equal representation of the people's will through the elective process where everyone has a vote and a protected privilege of office as proscribed by State law arrived at through the legislature for the dispensation of authority overseeing public properties? This provides the fairest representation of the will of the people through republican principles of democracy. Nothing has been imposed upon anyone. Citizenship in each State and the Union itself is voluntary. All are free to leave any or all States at any time.

There is no right to have one's personal views promoted by the State, or anyone else, just because you have a right to hold any view you wish. There is no right to not be offended because your view is not the most popular view.