Replies

"...It is readily apparent that you view Christian persecution as synonmous with separation of church and state..."

It is readily apparent that you view the constitution as a document which calls for separation of church and state. This was not the framer's intention, nor is it even mentioned. Read the amendment again. Do I need to spell it out for you? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Where is the separation part? Looks to me like its a protection of individual rights, not a prohibition of them.

"...There is today an unprecedented rise in very visible Christian speech and presence..."

So religion should be kept in it's place, right? In church, or on the TV (but only the religious channel, right?), and you're generous enough to allow street preachers too. Nice. Just as long as they don't try using that kind of discomforting speech in YOUR earshot, though. Then they must be stopped. Right. Oh, and it's also ok for the president to espouse his religion, but not for much longer, since that violates the "separation" part of the constitution. How about on the job? Shall we prohibit the wearing of crosses in schools, like the French? Where is this leading, if the secularists get their way? I'll tell you where. To a complete loss of our rights of freedom of religious expression. You are blind, or you are on the other side of this (which I strongly suspect). You sound just like the ACLU. And don't tell me that Christianity isn't being squelched just because the majority embraces it. Tell it to the courts. They obviously havn't gotten the memo. Then tell it to the media, since they also missed it.

Huh? I point out to you that there is an unprecedented surge in very visible Christianity that is in no way whatsoever being squelched or silenced, and you draw from this yet more fodder for your self-pitying "I am persecuted" rant?

And what on earth makes you think that I disapprove of the current upsurge in Christian visibility and community presence? The fact that I do, in fact, disapprove of mixing state and religion? One does not follow from the other.

You apparently want the state to embrace and advance your particular brand of protestanism. But if you'll pause long enough to think it through, you'll realize that you don't want the state telling you how, when, where, or what to worship (which is, after all, the simple flip side of that constitutional coin you're tossing around).

The very best solution to this balancing act is what currently exists -- freedom to shout your beliefs from the rooftops, preach it on street corners, profess it in the construction of churches, and broadcast it in any form of media you choose. And concomitantly, to draw a bright and assiduously guarded line between the state and your religion.

I also think you need to step away from the computer for awhile and maybe take a walk outside. Get some fresh air. You seem to be on the verge of an "aimless rage implosion."