Replies

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.

“Kerebos, well thanks for the civility of your reply”

No problem. In making these posts I am, in spite of popular opinion, looking for a good argument, someone to poke holes in mine. Unfortunately what I predominantly get is the same old tired mantras.

“I think we have a sharp worldview contrast here”

And I am not so sure we do, granted there is some points we disagree on, and that may be more on method as opposed to principle, and then I believe that there are some we agree on although maybe not precisely, but at least we may be in the same ballpark. And then again, maybe I am not being clear enough on my position, a distinct possibility J
“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.”

As I would hope that anyone who believes in freedom of the individual would. The problem is that I see many on this board that would think that is just oke dokey, that is of course if it is their particular god that is being mandated.

“Let the voters themselves decide how much they want to be preached to”

I think some of them are.

“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 expel 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.”

And you should not have to expel your beliefs from any portion of your life; to do so would be akin to not having a belief in the first place, and this is where we may differ on opinion.

I follow a religion, (and I am not going to disclose what my religion is as to prevent this thread from digressing from principles into personality, and that is not directed at you) that we do not have our text hung in the courthouse and we do not insist that our children do their practices at school, and I find that I have no problem following my beliefs at home at work or anywhere else.

So I have to wonder what is it that makes it such a strong mandate for Christians to have their symbols and practices all over the place? Are they afraid that if they do not their religion will go by the wayside? And if it were to do so does that not raise a significant question as to weather or not it was meeting the needs of the people to begin with? I find that if a religion meets ones needs of finding peace and meaning of life and helping to build their spirituality people are naturally drawn to doing such, it is just part of the inner needs we have. But then again my religion has a practice of attraction, not promotion.

And we certainly have no interest in any faith based initiative program that the government has to offer. We do not want the government involved in any of our affairs and I have talked to some Christians, even some on this board, whose church feels the same. I applaud them for that decision since after al the FBI is just another socialist redistribution of wealth scheme, and I am not a socialist.

“It is not like a secular world view won't offended anybody but a religious worldview will. Somebody HAS to be offended”

There is always somebody who is going to be offended, so what. For me this issue is about principles, not if someone gets offended or not.

“Some Christians, not a majority by any means, want to make the United States a Christian nation.”

And there is the scary part, as I know these people exist. They are called theocrats and they are just as big a threat to freedom as the communist eve were Like you I tend to believe that they are a minority, at least I hope so, but I am also aware that their numbers are growing and they are also embedded with what is many times referred to as the Christian right.

I have read some of their positions about wanting to replace the codified law of the land with the law of the bible and have even seen post on this board that thinks it to be a great idea.. To me that advocates nothing short of revolution and needs to be stopped dead in its tracks wherever it is founds. There is no difference between these people and the Islamic radicals of the Middle East. They are just another brand of utopians just like the ones on the other side of the isle. The only difference between the two is the method they employ to reach their version of the utopia.

“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 government official. Don't you see that this is simply the opposite extreme”

Absolutely, I could not agree more and that is what we need to avoid. But as you pointed out early is that we need to find the middle way here although many conservatives would view that position as being wishy-washy and not standing on principle. Rush Limbaugh immediately comes to mind, and I love Rush’s show, but I disagree with him on this point.

And it is unfortunate that we have come to this point in our country but like it or not here we are. But the more I think about it, and honestly I miss the nativity scenes at the city display these days, but it really is more a reflection of how technology is changing the world. Meaning that we are a much more transient society than we were just 20 years ago and much more so than we were just 50 years ago certainly more so than what the framers could have ever envisioned. We have people from all over the world who are now coming to live in this country, and yes an argument can be made that we could do a better job of our immigration policies, and with them they bring their religions, customs, and belief systems.

So if we allow Christians to display their religious symbols on public property, remember that’s property we all pay for, are we not also obligated to let others display theirs? Can you begin to imagine what a fracas that could turn into? But unlike many on this site I believe that the first amendment says “freedom of religion” not freedom to be a Christian, so if the rules apply to one they must apply to all. Isn’t that they way our system of government is suppose to work?

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.

Therein lies the answer to why this case is about more than a threat to Christianity and more than just a threat to all religion.

... religion is being suppressed by the federal government of the United States in a manner inconsistent with our Constitution and History.

Religion and freedom of speech are being suppressed in this case but the key phrase is "a manner inconsistent with our Constitution and History". The Constitution is what is specifically under attack. Religion will exist whether it is legal or not. The Constitution only exists so long as its principles are understood and upheld. Those principles are consistently being undermined. Once the Constitution is rendered completely impotent and irrelevant it will be replaced.

If Algore had won the election in 2000 the principle of republican elective process would have been overthrown. That would have been severely crippling to the Constitution but not a death blow. The "Roy Moore/Decalogue" case cuts the Constitution off from its root, its initial authority, which was placed in an unamed God, "Our Creator." This was a completely non-sectarian reference to divine authority. Non-sectarian not just in the sense of divisions in Christian theology and not just in the sense of diverse religions but in a whole sense including non-religious and non-deist views. It was a placement of authority above and beyond man's will.

In spite of the fact that Judge Moore is a Christian and in spite of the fact that the Decalogue is the focus of this controversy neither Judge Moore, nor Christianity, nor God, nor the Ten Commandments is in any real peril here. Judge Moore demonstrated this on the personal level by refusing to deny his beliefs for the sake of a job. He lost his job but his core convictions remain untouched. God remains untouched. Christianity is untarnished by this. The Ten Commandments have in no way been altered by this.

The Constitution, however, has been severed from its root. Divine authority. Anything and everything it speaks to and protects is now up for grabs. There is only one replacement for divine authority among men; the rule of men. Those who seek to do this know that and want that.

I for one, a non-Christian, non-Jew, non-deist period do not want that. Without its root in divine authority over man's authority our Constitution is nothing more special than the constitution of the former Soviet Union. No rights at all just privileges of the State. The equality of men has rarely been surpassed as it was there. Religious man and atheist alike were equally subject to the brutality of statist authority. Defy the State on any issue there and the result was the same.

In spite of the imperfections of our Constitution, being instituted by men, and the erosions of its original intent and meaning over time by usurpers it is still the best invention yet created by men to prevent the tyranny of men over men. As long as it exists it offers some protection and has the potential to be perfected. It can only exist as long as it is connected to its ground.

China has millions of Christians. What it doesn't have is law to protect them ... or anyone else.