Posted on 04/29/2002 10:09:02 PM PDT by drstevej
Chilling Christian expression
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 30, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Christian conservatives rightly lament the extent to which the courts have restricted religious freedom in the name of protecting it under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. But in focusing on the courts, we may be overlooking a more damaging menace to religious (Christian) expression.
I have no doubt that many who urge the strict "separation of church and state" sincerely (though mistakenly) believe that they are acting as foot soldiers for the framers of the Constitution. Others are purely hostile to religion – particularly Christianity – and use perverted constitutional interpretation as just one of many tools in undermining the Christian worldview and policies flowing from it.
These secular forces are not satisfied with the slow progress of the courts in eradicating all vestiges of religion from the public arena. They also employ their pens and microphones – which is clearly their right – to chill Christian expression by public officials.
Take, for instance, a recent New York Times story about a speech by President Bush on his faith-based initiative. The Times didn't criticize or quote others criticizing the president's program, about which I have my own reservations, but questioned certain statements in his speech involving "religious ideas."
Bush said, "We feel our reliance on the Creator Who made us. We place our sorrows and cares before Him, seeking God's mercy ... justice and cruelty have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them." The Times seemed particularly troubled that these utterances sprang from the president spontaneously and not as part of some pre-written speech.
"Bush set aside his talking points and for 20 minutes spoke the language of faith," according to the story. You see, it's one thing if the president occasionally throws a slab of raw meat to his canine conservative base for political purposes. But it's downright spooky if he really means it.
The Times must have felt compelled to interview people about the propriety of Bush's over-the-top remarks. Rev. Arthur Caliandro, co-chairman of the Partnership of Faith, "a coalition of leading clergy members in New York," warned, "I think it's very dangerous."
The always-reliably-hysterical Rev. Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, added, "He went from a kind of post-Sept. 11 pluralism to presidential evangelism today. This man [Bush] now seems to have an enormous difficulty separating his personal religious commitment from his public policy positions."
Let's not miss the message here: It is not only wrong and dangerous for a president to refer to God in his speeches. But he must not even allow his religious worldview to inform his public policy decisions. You can't get much more radical (and ridiculous) than that.
Another high-profile example affirms the point. The left's sometimes-favorite whipping boy, Congressman Tom Delay, was roundly denounced for comments he made in response to a question following his speech for Worldview Weekend in Houston, Texas. He was asked what could be done about colleges in Texas precluding the teaching of creationism.
Delay said they could call their state politicians and complain. "They can change things. They can throw the PC out and bring God in." That would take some time, Delay acknowledged, "but the immediate is don't send your kids to Baylor – don't send your kids to A&M."
The Houston Chronicle editorial board was outraged and said, "Delay's distaste for Baylor and Texas A&M is part and parcel of his rejection of distinguished scholarship and scientific inquiry and his fanatical desire to transform American government into a theocracy. House Republicans who value reason should reconsider their bizarre commitment to have Delay replace retiring Rep. Dick Armey as Republican leader in the House."
It's one thing to question Delay's comments about these colleges or his views on teaching creationism, but it's quite a leap to conclude that he rejects distinguished scholarship and scientific inquiry (as if creationism is inherently incompatible with science and as if adding creation means omitting science). And it's fanatical itself to impute to Delay a "fanatical desire to transform American government into a theocracy." Where in left field did that come from?
Whether intended to or not, these kinds of constitutionally protected – but irresponsible – editorial comments chill religious expression by public officials even in private settings.
Christian public officials should be permitted to proclaim their faith without fear of being accused of advocating a theocracy. Secularists have succeeded in banishing God from public schools; we must ensure they do not prevail in excising Him from the minds and mouths of public officials.
Sure is. It usually takes the passage of generations before a scientific position is seen as having been faith based. In the case of Lysenko it didn't take that long. There wasn't much food to eat after a few seasons of applying his a priorisocialist theories of genetics to the real world.
The theory of evolution holds up pretty well. Not many tumble to the metaphysical aspects of it. But then there is an entire priesthood which sees that they don't.
It takes way more faith to believe as you do,
then to just have the faith of a child in what the Bible says.
Yep. Takes a human to do that sort of thing.
Deaf to spec for a couple of lesbians who like creating deaf children for their own Personal Reality or en masse, even. Ask the folks who supplied Bush his already-been-killed embryos.
I'm more mentally screwed up than I thought if that is the case. When I ran across Voegelin, I didn't have to figure him out or study him, he was saying what I thought all my life. Got a little miffed even for him stealing my ideas.
It would seem to me that if they are correct, then there are no absolutes, and there is nobody to answer to in the end. Thus, why make a fuss?
However, if we are correct, and all men will stand in judgment before the Creator, one can understand the urgency of our message.
====
I post the following without comment.
Romans 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
That's easy Jerry. They hate God.
Under no circumstance should they allow themselves to think that they will be judged by something or someone they cannot see.
No matter how many "fossil records" and scientific terms they use and hide behind, the simple truth is the fact that they hate God with a passion.
That's why I don't engage them anymore.
I have two quotes and a criticism
"I consider an intimate knowledge of the Bible an indispensable qualification of a well-educated man"
"We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authority in the Bible than in any profane history whatever."
And now to think outside the box . . . I had to play on Kyle field (Texas A&M) in September on a Saturday afternoon. The Astroturf was 110 degrees! This doesn't even begin to explain the contempt I have for A&M. But hey! Dem tiguhs won 17-14
Keep up the "good fight".
<><
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.