Chilling Christian expression

WorldNetDaily ^ | April 30, 2002 | David Limbaugh

[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.

[drstevej]

Go Tigers!

[betty boop]

One can have empirical observation but no general theory of evolution because the sequence of forms is a mystery; it just is there and you cannot explain it by any theory. The world cannot be explained. It is a mythical problem, so you have a strong element of myth in the theory of evolution.

Delightful, LarryLied! I hadn't seen this from Voegelin before. I suppose in a way the theory of evolution is an attempt at myth-making. But in a way, it's a funny kind of myth, for it symbolizes a funny sort of "reality" -- a reality assumed to be purely phenomenal; there's nothing more to it than sense perception can tune into.

Myths have always been about "filling in the gaps" of human existential experience/knowledge. No finite, contingent creature -- man -- can know all there is to know. He "turns on the great wheel of life," so to speak; he himself does not make the wheel turn of his own power (or preference).

The funny thing about the Darwinist myth, however, is its seeming stipulation that whatever the theory cannot account for simply does not exist. It's a "closed" myth, so to speak, while the great myths of the human past have been "open"...to the mysterious All in which we all participate....

Still, we may regard it as a myth in the sense that it does contruct a world view that its adherents find both coherent and satisfying.

Thanks, LL, for pointing me to a new Voegelin site!!! best, bb.

[LarryLied]

Thank you. FR is great. I debated whether I needed to explain that "myth" is not a derogatory term but decided freepers would get it. And you not only knew, you explained why it isn't better than I could.

Got any more Voegelin sites? I've only recently run across him.

[Uri’el-2012]

DL>(as if creationism is inherently incompatible with science)

g>Actually, it is.

3 posted on 4/29/02 11:31 PM Mountain by gcruse

Not if you have read Gerald L. Schroeder in either of his two books.

Gerald L. Schroeder BS,MS, Ph.D from MIT

Genesis and the Big Bang : The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible

The Science of God : The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom

Baruch HaShem Adonai Yeshua HaMashiach

Praise the Holy Name of the L-rd Jesus the Christ

chuck <truth@Y'shuaHaMashiach>

[betty boop]

Thank you, LarryLied. You said you've only recently found Voegelin. Here's a great site that gets you around ERIC VOEGELIN 's prolific writings.

Voegelin is usually classified as a philosopher of history. To me, the term doesn't begin to do him justice. He is (among other things) a profound philosopher of consciousness, in the manner of Plato and Aristotle. I've been reading him for 16 years now -- found him shortly after he died, in 1985, on the basis of a single citation in another work (it was E.R. Dodds as I recall, The Greeks and the Irrational). The quote goes directly to the subject you raised today; and the rest, as they say, is history:

"The myth remains the legitimate expression of the fundamental movements of the soul."

I later found that quote in his Order and History.

Certainly, to Plato, the myth was not something "false" or "untrue," the meaning it has acquired in our positivist, phenomenalist age.... Certainly that is not the meaning that Voegelin attaches to it.

He's a wonderful, challenging, teacher. :^) I love him dearly, and recommend him highly! best, bb.

[betty boop]

Here's another good Voegelin site. There's a "Dictionary of Voegelinian Terminology" and some outlines of his works that are most helpful.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Amendment I

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.

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.

I think there are more in the latter category. Much more.

[avenir]

I hate pseudo-intellectualism also. One of my favorite authors ever—Ernest Van den Haag—wrote on crime and political issues. He was a sharp man, but he wrote so clearly and concisely, and with a great wry wit. Many "intellectuals" are just bags of hot air (perhaps because of their haughty elitism?).

[DreamWeaver]

Bump

For later reading.