Posted on 04/15/2005 5:09:20 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
You're not. The world isn't ready to love their neighbor.
You have to make a case that we can't love our neighbors in place. In other words, if we maintain our cultural soundness here, and if our freedom and prosperity excels (as it should), then we can share what we build by helping others in their own countries. If we bring too many people from different cultures here, and I think we have, then we will face a problem with assimilation. The philosophy that all cultures are equal has already permeated our media and our university campuses; it's filtering down to our lower grades and such, as well. That notion is that Christianity offers no special rewards. Think about it: your Christian taxes are being spent to deny your own beliefs not by removing Moore's slabs, but by teaching children in school and youngpeople in universities that Marx and Derrida have more to offer than absolute morals.
We can help the world better if we help ourselves first. I see nothing unchristian about that at all.
Folks far smarter than me say the original was believed to only apply to the Federal Government (you might check your colons). It was only later that the various states changed their constitutions to reflect a change of heart.
It further stated that even today, some states restrict non elected offices to God fearing folks.
The other post from the atheists are apparently concerned that some states continue to have these clauses. Why they have not been changed to date is a puzzlement.
All we have and all we are come from Christ. He gave us simple commandments to follow with simple warnings. It is our duty to follow Christ by loving our neighbor, God will take care of the rest. The fear you have is because you do not know Christ.
I didn't see this as a separate question.
Answer: ......No.
You are imagining things, are you not?
Again, loving our neighbor can mean a lot of different things. Go ahead and claim your superior Christianity, but don't claim that other opinions are less considerate to other people without supporting your argument with facts. I claim that we can help others by sending teachers, farmers, and engineers, as well as missionaries and medical workers. You claim that we should invite them here. It's just a difference in strategy. Yours is perhaps just the faith of the misguided, not necessarily the faith of the inspired.
The first amendment restricts the establishment of a national religion,
Yes, it does. It also stops legislators from making law based on the establishments of religions. - Would you want Islam to be the basis for some local laws? I doubt it.
it does not restrict legislators from making law "based on or 'influenced' [caused] by any of the establishments of specific religions." The amendment simply does not say this and has never meant this.
Dream on that religions can legislate 'laws' in a free republic. -- Why you would want such power for State or local legislators is beyond comprehension.
Christianity ain't easy.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"
27So he answered and said, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and "your neighbor as yourself."'
28And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."
29But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30Then Jesus answered and said: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, "Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.' 36So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?"
37And he said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
The 'extremists cause all the problems' approach is also myopic.
There is only one correct way to live and that's in obedience to how God has created our lives by His plan.
There are religious extremists, who fail to follow His plan, but are believers not walking His walk, but fall into arrogance of becoming 'Christian activists' and 'do-gooders'. That form of arrogance becomes degenerate, but morally degenerate. It is frequently associated with legalism and religiosity. There are other believers who fall away from God, become carnal in immoral degeneracy and are associated with lasciviousness.
There are also unbelievers, who follow either their own relative interpretation of good which is good for nothing from a divine viewpoint, but still morally degenerate. There are also unbelievers who become immorally degenerate and fall into criminality.
The first stages of arrogance open up a worldly system that simply opposes the plans for living created by God. The later stages of such rebellion lead to an arrogance that attacks the institutions God has created for mankind to survive.
The real issue isn't extremism, because those who are luke warm will be spit out of His mouth. Rather, those who persevere and walk with Him continually and fervantly become spiritual soldiers, continually indwelt and filled with the Holy Spirit, ...a status never before held by believers until this present Church Age. To most believers who have slipped into a cosmic system, characterized by forms of arrogance, and to unbelievers, who in their arrogance have chosen to avoid and never accept God, the truthful Godly walk isn't so identified, but is errantly refocused on cheap counterfeit worldly systems of thinking.
I'm imagining nothing.
Feel free to deny that you are arguing that States can use religious tests as qualifications for offices. Anyone can read the truth.
No it doesn't. It never has. The government has made all kinds of laws concerning religious practices (e.g. buying liquor on Sunday, etc.) all the way back to the Founders, and I think they know what the Constitution they ratified meant.
Are you drinking?
The point is that only you can know what that plan is for yourself. The thought leaders of the Enlightenment believed that government could play no role in that relationship. Before, the pope had bestowed Christ's authority onto kings, who then ruled the people. After King Henry the 8th rose up and burned down more than 100 abbeys and monesteries in the name of religious freedom, the king claimed direct authority from God. In short, the people were still obligated to take his dictates as if they were from God.
The thinkers of the Enlightenment understood that the people do not need a governmental vicar by which to obtain their commands. The government should limit itself to earthly concerns. The thinkers of the Enlightenment understood that by claiming to represent God, earthly men -- corruptible men, could misuse the trust they gained by claiming this to their own ends.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, even if one claims to have God on one's side.
America's founding, rooted in the Pilgrim's flight from the Anglican state chruch, and in the Quaker and Rhode Island experiments in free thinking, combined with the Enlightenment philosophy that the signers and authors of the Declaration of Independence had been studying, made for a strong conviction that government had no religious authority. People had to justify their laws in terms of practical arguments, so long as they honored the few rights provided by the Creator as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.
Today, all of those ideals are still in full effect. Nothing has changed, except we have as a culture grown more secular. So some people try to justify the reintroduction of religion into government as a means for recouping our cultural losses. But there won't be any easy way to accomplish that. The best solution is to revisit the Enlightenment and try to regain our understanding of its ideals. We have slipped so far behind in understanding it because of postmodernism, Marxism, and multiculturalism.
What the Christian right proposes is a retreat into theocracy, an abandonment of the original intent of the most enlightened founding fathers. We know how that works. We know that men are incapable of representing God's will in the form of government authority. We have to find a better way.
No it doesn't. It never has.
The words of Article VI & the 1st Amendment are clear.
The government has made all kinds of laws concerning religious practices (e.g. buying liquor on Sunday, etc.) all the way back to the Founders, and I think they know what the Constitution they ratified meant.
Agreed, our fed/state/local governments have consistently ignored the Constitution since it was written. What else is new?
Atheism and agnosticism are also religious systems of thought. Ignoring God will either lead to criminally instable government or tyranical legalism incapable of addressing the meaning of salvation. The Soviet Union and NAZI Germany well exemplified these weaknesses.
Boiling it down, you don't trust God.
God can accomplish his purpose with satan leading the government.
Yes, and they don't support your argument at all.
our fed/state/local governments have consistently ignored the Constitution since it was written.
Uh huh, so the founders ignored the constitution they wrote starting on day one of the republic. Those rascals.
Yawn.. -- Thanks for your input.
Whatever. G'nite.
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.