Posted on 07/02/2002 2:11:50 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
President Bush is taking the tone of a preacher again, declaring that Americans have "received our rights from God" and that he feels "the prayers of the people" as he carries out his duties.
In Cleveland on Monday, at what was characterized as a Rally on Inner City Compassion, Bush sought to rally support behind his faith-based initiative. He asserted that the United States "should not fear programs which exist because a church or synagogue or mosque has decided to start one."
Since taking office, Bush has frequently cited his Christian beliefs and his desire for religion to play an increased role in American society - a stance that has drawn objections from secularists and civil libertarians.
Bush says that faith helped him in his own battle with the bottle, and he maintains that religious convictions can help an individual - and society - in need.
He cited his religious beliefs last week after a federal appeals court prohibited schoolchildren from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the phrase "one nation, under God," in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Bush, responding to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, said that the United States is "a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty" and that citing God in the pledge "doesn't violate rights."
"As a matter of fact, it's a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence," he said at a news conference in Alberta, during the Group of Eight summit.
At the same news conference, Bush also mentioned that he had visited with victims of the Arizona wildfires earlier in the week and found them to be "hurting a lot."
"And I was trying to figure out how to bring a sense of hope, and I thought that the best thing I could say was that there is a God who loves them," Bush said. "And I believe that's the case. And as a result, I feel comfortable in my life because I have that belief and understanding."
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Bush's proselytizing runs the risk of blurring the line between religious practices and running the government.
"He does not seem to want to keep even a decent distance between government and religion," Lynn said. "He wants to mesh the two together in whatever manner he can create. "
For a short time after Sept. 11, Lynn said, Bush appeared to embrace diverse viewpoints.
"Now it's full speed ahead to prove the Religious Right is sitting in the Oval Office," he said.
According to Lynn, Bush may in fact have unwittingly hinted that he intends to violate the Constitution regarding the appointment of federal judges.
In criticizing the 9th Circuit's decision, Bush said the United States needs "commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."
Article 6 of the Constitution expressly states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States."
"He said if you're not religious, you can't be a judge," Lynn said. "That violates a central principle of our constitutional system."
If INALIENABLE rights come from the Creator, as many on this topic seem to believe, then our laws are WRONG to deprive anyone of their rights.
Didn't Jesus say a few things on that like: "Judge not lest ye be judged," and "Let those among without sin cast the first stone?"
Or is that concept lost on you?
The DoI was written...while we were still a colony! It didn't win our freedom, as I recall from my admittedly public schooling. It took a WAR to do that!
I've always been curious about the allegation that the 10 commandments were somehow related to the creation of our legal system. I've never seen an American law that enforces commandments 1 or 2. (No strange gods and name in vain.) With the dissolution most blue laws, you'll be pretty hard pressed to find laws dedicated to keeping the sabbath holy (or free of football, for that matter. I think most of the prayer that god gets originates during the playoffs).
Commandment 4 (honor father and mother), 6 (no adultery), and 9 - 10 (covetousness of wife and goods) are likewise also not framed as laws.
Sooo...because there are laws against murder (C5), theft (C6), and perjury (C8), the 10 commandments are a source of American jurisprudence?
Hey, 3 outta 10 IS 30%. That's almost enough to get you elected...in FRANCE!
I did read your post, and I saw that you made this point, which I cannot disagree with.
But you also made another point when you wrote: That's the same doc that said "Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness" while the USA was a slave country.
THAT is the point I was taking issue with in my earlier reply to you.
Or is that concept lost on you?
Actually, that is not exactly what Jesus said (as a matter of fact, he never says "lest ye" in the NIV translation, LOL). I know that may evangelical Christians love to pull that Scripture out of context (which is where you probably picked this up from), but context is key. Here is the actual quote:
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that you may not be judged.
Mat 7:2 For with whatever judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with whatever measure you measure out, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why do you look on the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull the splinter out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?
Mat 7:5 Hypocrite! First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye.
So, presumably, if one does cast the beam out of his own eye, he can then judge righteously. Whether one agrees or not, the application here is between "brothers" (fellow believers), does not involve outsiders (we are to judge fellow believers not unbelievers, Paul says the same thing, so the context here is one of spiritual matters), and has nothing at all to do with the death penalty or the government's administration of it. The same can be said of your "let those without sin" example. This is a woman who broke the moral law of Moses and was being condemned by the "religious" leaders, not civil authorities. Jesus taught against the "church" being the instrument of physical judgment, because Jesus did away with theocracy (much to the dismay of some reconstructionists). However, He spells out clearly through His Apostle Paul that governments are to "bear the sword" to punish lawbreakers. He also gave the commandment for the death penalty in the book of Genesis before He even chose Israel as a nation and before the giving of the Mosaic law. I don't have chapter and verse handy and don't care to look them up, as they probably don't mean much to you anyway. Take care.
The Mosaic code was written to be upheld by religious leaders. There were no civil leaders of Israel at the time, if the Old Testament is to be believed. They were wanderers, and only Moses, Aaron, and the Levites were their "leaders", all of whom acted primarily in a religious fashion.
Why not? I was a Christian once. Have you ever been an Atheist?
Ummm... Israel only "wandered" for forty years. They did have judges and then a long succession of kings (all it the same Old Testament). They did become an established nation.
Regardless, the verse you cited was New Testament. The Pharisees were a religious sect with a lot of political weight in the community. They were not the government of Israel or it's recognized leaders. They were not the Levitical priesthood. As a matter of fact, Israel was an occupied territory of the Roman Empire.
During which time the entirety of the Mosaic code was written.
>Regardless, the verse you cited was New Testament. The Pharisees were a religious sect with a lot of political weight in the community. They were not the government of Israel or it's recognized leaders. They were not the Levitical priesthood. As a matter of fact, Israel was an occupied territory of the Roman Empire.
So, your saying that the laws of Rome should have had precedence over the laws of God? Sounds right to me. :)
Why not? I was a Christian once. Have you ever been an Atheist?
I was an unbeliever once, so I "lived" like an atheist.
Anyway, there's no such thing as someone who "was" a Christian, but who is "now" an atheist. You didn't have the real deal. It's called false conversion (if you even claim a conversion; many think they're "Christian" because of a church membership, family ties, etc.). Unless you were born again by the Spirit of God and had His inner witness (if you are backslidden, this witness will be one of conviction and misery, not denial of God's existence), you have no right to say you were "once a Christian"! A true Christian could never stop believing in God. A true Christian has left the realm of mere intellectual belief and has entered the realm of objective experience. No one can talk him out of it because no one talked him into it.
Mat 16:15 He said to them, But who do you say I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 Jesus answered and said to him, You are blessed, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father in Heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
That's true faith. Faith that is revealed to us by God, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it, no matter how clever the package.
Besides, your previous ignorance (I don't mean that in a pejorative way) of basic Biblical text and concepts lends further credence to the fact that your "conversion" was of the spurious sort.
During which time the entirety of the Mosaic code was written.
>Regardless, the verse you cited was New Testament. The Pharisees were a religious sect with a lot of political weight in the community. They were not the government of Israel or it's recognized leaders. They were not the Levitical priesthood. As a matter of fact, Israel was an occupied territory of the Roman Empire.
So, your saying that the laws of Rome should have had precedence over the laws of God? Sounds right to me. :)
Who cares "when" it was written? It was and is God's Law and still has a bearing on us. What God did away with was the civil and ceremonial aspects of the law, not the moral obligation. Christ did away with the Old Covenant and instituted the New Covenant. For someone who claims to have been a Christian, you certainly have a difficult time grasping basic doctrines foundational to the faith. As for your last line, you are being intellectually dishonest and trying to score cheap shots, as nothing I wrote can be construed in that manner. You remind me of the people who twist Scripture to their destruction as well. I have no wish to keep up this banter with you.
I've NEVER met a God-denier who was intellectually honest. You sir, only further confirm my suspicions.
During which time the entirety of the Mosaic code was written.
>Regardless, the verse you cited was New Testament. The Pharisees were a religious sect with a lot of political weight in the community. They were not the government of Israel or it's recognized leaders. They were not the Levitical priesthood. As a matter of fact, Israel was an occupied territory of the Roman Empire.
So, your saying that the laws of Rome should have had precedence over the laws of God? Sounds right to me. :)
Who cares "when" it was written? It was and is God's Law and still has a bearing on us. What God did away with was the civil and ceremonial aspects of the law, not the moral obligation. Christ did away with the Old Covenant and instituted the New Covenant. For someone who claims to have been a Christian, you certainly have a difficult time grasping basic doctrines foundational to the faith. As for your last line, you are being intellectually dishonest and trying to score cheap shots, as nothing I wrote can be construed in that manner. You remind me of the people who twist Scripture to their destruction as well. I have no wish to keep up this banter with you.
I've NEVER met a God-denier who was intellectually honest. You sir, only further confirm my suspicions.
Prove this statement or withdraw it. You don't have a right to conjure up words and insert them in another's mouth.
I would like to see a quote from Bush stating that unless you believe in the same God he does, you are disqualified from serving on the bench.
Bush said the United States needs, "commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."
Which god is GWB referring to? Obviously he's talking about the god he believes in. If you don't believe in the same god as GWB you have no chance of serving on the judiciary.
If you were a prospective judge, and you told GWB that nature was your god and that rights come from nature, what do you think your chances would be of selection?
Ya, it's far easier to just call somebody names and run away.
Well, just where would that leave people who have limited means or parents that are not to bright? Who cares, right? Somebody's gotta' work at McDonalds. I hate the elitism among many "conservatives" and libertarians.
BTW, do you think Christians should be able to witness to non-Christians? How about public demonstrations or preaching on the streets to passerbys? Isn't that forcing their Christianity on people who don't want to be exposed to it?
Meanwhile, getting back to the Reverend Mr. Lynn, originally I felt no reason to comment on his little protest because I consider his opinion of little import. Now I'm not commenting on it, simply to tick you off....
Next time you feel no reason to comment, don't. Don't call names. Just move along.
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.