Blah, blah, blah…
I really tire of hearing about the idiotic things going out there across these United States. Somehow, many have been duped into thinking that the Thomas Jefferson so-called “separation of church and state” statement is in the constitution, or something. Consequently, cities and towns and schools are no longer permitted to call the upcoming national, postal, federal holiday we call Christmas…Christmas! It is “holiday break” or “winter break.” Give me a break!
What nonsense! Just how tall was that wall? Would Jefferson have countenanced the use of government monies for religious purposes? You know, like school vouchers? No, no can’t do that. The money today might go to a religious school. Or, what about the use of government property for religions purposes? Naww. Wall.
But wait, maybe the wall wasn’t so high after all. See this quote by D. James Kennedy:
But didn’t Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? After all, Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in which he cited the First Amendment’s creation of a “wall of separation” between church and state, is an ACLU proof-text for its claim that the First Amendment makes the public square a religion-free zone. But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?
And…
Nonetheless, Jefferson’s presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest’s salary and for the construction of a church.
Any response?
December 4, 2007 at 9:57 am
I’m with you on this one! I’m also sick of the millions and millions of years talk.
December 4, 2007 at 11:04 am
So, should we encourage the same lack of separation between mosque and state and between synagogue and state?
December 4, 2007 at 11:20 am
Absolutely not. There really is no doubt that the framers intended that there not be a state Christian denomination. They clearly did believe that Christianity shaped and even guided the founding. There is not even a hint that Islam, Judaism or anything was seen as a par with Christianity in the founding. The problem we are faced with today is the pluralism of our society to the extent that all religions are seen as equal. If a school is permitted to have prayer (Christian prayer) then everyone cries foul and says if that is allowed, we need to allow a Muslim prayer. Rubbish, I say.
Remember too, that the federal government was not intended to run every part of our lives. The states were originally where the rubber met the road. State’s rights were fundamental to the equation. So, the early colonies and states were overtly Christian. Of course, most have no idea how far the federal government has usurped the state authority.
December 4, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Hmm….so you think our country should be a place in which Christians can practice religious freedom but not other religions?
December 4, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Did I imply that? Sorry if so. No, I think that the country is a place where anyone is free to practice his/her religion. In addition, I happen to think that the public arenas, including schools, should allow Christianity to be displayed and taught. i.e. prayers in schools, ten commandments displays, etc.
December 4, 2007 at 3:55 pm
This might be a little off the direction y’all are headed, but here is the problem I have. I heard that some airport in Kansas (maybe somewhere else, I don’t know) was putting in knee pads in designated areas so that Muslims could do their thing. Do I see any prayer booths for Christians? I didn’t think so. Why is it that every other religion is tolerated, accomodated and accepted, but Christianity is not tolerated at all? Sign of the times, maybe?
December 4, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Maybe part of the reason why there isn’t prayer booths for Christians is that we don’t take prayer as seriously as Muslims do. If all committed Christians prayed five time a day, maybe we’d be seeing the need for more prayer booths.
But your points are good ones. Christianity should not be booted from the public square any more than Judaism or Islam.
If we are going to allow Christian prayer in schools, shouldn’t we be just as open to allow Muslim children to stop everything in the middle of class and say their prayers as well?
December 4, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I wasn’t necessarily saying that I wanted Christian prayer booths, it was just to make a point…I think you got that, I’m just making sure.
December 4, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Wes, perhaps we do not pray as seriously as Muslims. Guilty. But, at least we pray to the true God. Quantity is not the trump.
But, no we need not allow Muslims to stop and lead the class in Muslim prayers. Remember, it is established that the US was founded on Christianity, not Islam. That said, we allow religious freedom.
December 4, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Although a republic such as the one we live within may be the form of government that is most free in a fallen world, that very reality begs us to recognize that we do indeed live in a fallen world. No human form of government will survive into the eternal state, and therefore by definition they are flawed and temporary. We need to be careful that we do not make pluralism into an idol; inevitably we as Christians must remember that the tension between church and state is the result of sin. There is never going to be a resolution of this tension until the kingdoms of the world become the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ—and then he shall reign forever and ever in a Kingdom that is most utterly non-plural.
I am no suggesting that Christians should not participate in government. What I am suggesting is the exact opposite: As Christians we most definitely should pray for and labor for our society to be Christianized, and we should use the government to do that. Is not the Gospel freedom? Is it not the case that there is no law against the fruit of the Spirit? All things for the believer must intentionally serve the Gospel’s purpose of reaping the waiting elect and bringing glory to God. Nothing could better serve that purpose than for Christian principles to carry the day.
I am not saying you can legislate people into conversion; only the Holy Spirit can change the hearts of people. But there is indeed only one thing you can legislate, and that is morality. Laws are for restraining sin—and the more Christian those laws, the more restraint there will be. That will not save people, but it is the right thing to do—period.
We must maintain respect for individuals because they are made in God’s image, but we are not required to respect false religions. On the contrary, we are required to expose them as lies and counter them with the Gospel. DO NOT HEAR WHAT I DID NOT SAY! I did not say the role of human government is to prohibit people from practicing their religion, even if it is false.
The solution? Get out your knives and get ready to carve me up, because here it comes. The best and most God-honoring government will always be a government of Christian men (I mean males, by the way) who do not stand in the way of the Gospel’s running its course but seek to honor the Lord in everything they do. Yet even this kind of government will always be incapable of doing what only will happen when the Lord returns. For that reason there will always be tension; and we cannot ever fall to the false idea that adherence to the principles of republicanism will resolve that tension. What we pray for is repentance and revival. When the hearts of people begin to change, so will everything else. But it will never be perfect until the eternal state
Until then we must repent and support Mike Huckabee.
December 4, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Les, you of course know that I am not saying that Muslims are praying to the true God when I respect them for their commitment to prayer.
And I didn’t say that Muslims should lead the class in prayer. I said that if we allow Christians to pray (Christians shouldn’t be leading the class in prayer either) we should allow Muslims to pray as well. I don’t see how a commitment to religious freedom but having Christians lead prayers in class work together.
Also, you know that we disagree that it is “established” that America was founded on Christianity.
Rob, I think its fine to admire the faithfulness with which many Muslims pray. Yes, they are praying to a false God, but I would use my respect for their commitment to prayer as a point of contact in interaction with Muslims.
Christians should be in politics. You are right. But that does not mean that all Christians are the best politicians. I will not vote for someone just because they are a Christian; they have to be a qualified politician. Rob, are you saying if you don’t vote for anyone but Mike Huckabee we need to repent?
December 4, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Wes, I would be very pleased if every school had a time of silent prayer to start the day. Agree? The Christian could pray to the true God and others pray to their god.
I know we disagree on established. As an American citizen, you are free to be wrong (smile, I do not know how to make those cute smiley symbols).
I find it hard to admire people so zealously committed to false religions. I hear people say they admire the JWs. Why? They are working themselves to hell. What is to admire?
The politician/Christian delimma may be upon us soon. Rob can speak for himself, but could his tongue have been in the old cheek? With an element of truth? Rob…
December 4, 2007 at 6:52 pm
By the way, this is for anyone:
Who says that we must afford equal time with any and all religions? In other words, if the 10 commandments are etched in the Supreme Court walls (and they are!), must we allow erchings of Koran statements? If you say not, why not?
Really, who says that other reigions must get this equal treatment, other than equal freedom?
Hey, if Muslims come under the Word of God and God is pleased to convert them via that means, yeah! Maybe it is a prayer of invocation at the high school football game. That was how the games began when I was in HS. Is that wrong?
December 4, 2007 at 7:02 pm
No tongue in check whatsoever. I find it shocking to even consider that there is anything in the least bit admirable about the exercise of false faiths; it is both tragedy and travesty. As I said, we must respect people because they bear God’s image, but committment to a false God ought to crush our hearts in grief…they are utterly lost! If we truly have compassion we must passionately long to see them delivered from their damning ignorance and irreverence.
December 4, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Rob, I thought the tongue reference was intended about the Huckabee comment and repentance
December 4, 2007 at 8:06 pm
OHHH! That makes more sense, then.
Of course not!
Repent of all political idolatry and believe the Huckabee gospel!
Go Huckabee! All the way! On with the reconstruction!
December 4, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Rob, what is political idolatry and the Huckabee gospel?
Can we not admire things about non-Christians? Good marriages? Devotion? Commitment? I see this as a way of building bridges so that the gospel can be shared with these people. I learned this from Jerram Barrs, a man I highly respect.
December 4, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Laura, The airports I’ve been to all have chapels.
Wes, I have read Jerram Barrs book, “The Heart of Evangelism”, A man respected country wide. Build bridges, but take the gospel.
Les, This goes back to this nation being founded on Christian principles.
Richard Land brought up the question today on his radio show “For Faith and Family”- Why is the American flag displayed in our churches, at the pulpit? Is this an endorsement of religion by the state or an acknowledgement of a nation blessed by God?
December 4, 2007 at 10:18 pm
THAT was tongue in cheek…
But, no, devotion and commitment by definition are not strictly admirable things. Am I to admire David Duke’s committment to racism just because its commitment? Should I admire the devotion that leads a terrorist that to blow himself and other people to bits simply because it is devotion? Obviously not.
It is the object of one’s devotion that is the subject of our discussion. Idolatry sets as its object a god who does not exist, a non-entity that is not admirable but rather despicable.
But it does not logically follow that we despise the person; when Jude says we are to despise even the garment those caught in sin are wearing the point is clear: People are of great value and that value is abused and cheapened by sin. Admire sinful devotion? God forbid.
Neither does this mean that non-Christians do not experience that which is truly good. Yes, there is no question that sometimes even the unconverted may have “better” marriages than even professing Christians. We may, to a degree, admire that. But even here there is tragedy; that “good marriage” does not merit favor with God; what is worse, the intentional goal of that marriage is not the glory of God. As such, then, it is ultimately self-serving and blasphemous.
The mistake that is made here is the disembodiment of virtues from God. That which is truly “good” is good because its reference point is the character of God; it does not exist as a moral entity in and of itself. We are able to use that which is truly lovely, noble, good and pure as bridges to unbelievers because, again, those things only truly have meaning as they are redeemed through Christ in the believing heart; this is what Paul means when we speaks of our being renewed in the image of Christ. We have the opportunity to point them to the giver of these things so that they may see that they are not ends in and of themselves but a means to delighting in God.
If indeed these virtues have their value intrinsically instead as an expression of the character of God, then God would always be obligated to reward the converted for whatever good is found in them. Instead, they are justly deserving of his wrath. This is precisely why failing to call people to repentance without clarity is so deplorable; we run the risk of leading them to believe that they’re really not so bad after all. It is love that calls people to cease trusting their relative morality. To fail here is to disrespect them as image bearers of God and to blaspheme God.
December 5, 2007 at 9:58 am
The airport thing was just an example.
December 9, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Hello the comment is funny.
I will definitely read your blog..
ciao