Q: You mentioned (in last week’s sermon), “God never meant for religion and state to be combined… absolute power corrupts absolutely.” On the issue of separation of church and state what do you think of America’s “one nation under God” and that we are a nation built on Christianity? Should all aspects of religion and God be removed from government?
A: Acknowledging our Christian heritage in America and seeking to establish a state church are two different things. The accusation that Christians want to create a theocracy is a straw man. For the most part, Christians want a voice and a place at the table. The European model of state religion is a disaster. Reacting against this, our forefathers created the “establishment clause” in our Constitution which prevents a state church from developing or the government giving preference to one religion over another. As a pluralistic society, we want all voices to be heard and every religious position to be given its chance in the marketplace of ideas. In our Constitution this is called “the free exercise clause.” We should support the freedom of all. Christianity doesn’t need special status or preferential treatment. Nor should we be barred from the public square. To remove all references to God or the Christian faith from government or the public sector is to deny our heritage and who we are. The principle of separation of church and state does not mean separation of church from state. We are called to be “salt and light,” to positively influence our culture for good, to use our prophetic voice in defense of the weak, to be in the world, not of the world. If we are too aligned with power, we lose our voice and corruption is inevitable.
4 comments:
I'm glad to see you think that way. I am not a Christian and am very concerned about where our country is heading. I see, and I'm not accusing any particular person of this, VOCAL, PUBLIC Christians advocating a return to Christian values imposed by changing the constitution. Huckabee wants to ban abortion and homosexual marriage with constitutional amendments. I don't care about the abortion issue. I think you can make a scientific and legal argument that a zygote is a human and protected from crimes like murder. But the marriage thing is a non-secular idea. I'm not gay but I don't think I have the right to tell you what you can and can't do in the bedroom. I don't think that homosexuality sets a good example for children, but I realize that I am using my own values to make that judgment and I don't feel I have the right to expose my values on other people as long as they aren't harming anyone else.
I'm getting off the subject. :)
My point is this. You said, "To remove all references to God or the Christian faith from government or the public sector is to deny our heritage and who we are." I agree that a large majority of Americans are Christians. I agree that since that is the case, making Christian icons, if you will, illegal for display in public is a violation of "free exercise". The problem is which Christian emblems are being displayed and what non-believers perceive the message of the displayed item is.
When, for example, you put up the 10 commandments at a courthouse you are violating the establishment clause because the 10 commandments are a Judeo-Christian icon (I don't mean for your to take my use of the word icon to be insulting). The first three commandments are, in fact, contrary to other "legal" religions practiced by US citizens.
You might argue that the 10 commandments are the basis for all of our laws. That is an exaggeration of the facts. Murder was illegal in Europe before Christianity showed up. As I'm sure you've heard, in the treaty of Tripoli most of our founding fathers ratified the treaty which stated, As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
On a different subject; I have been reading your debate with DWWJ. I agree that he is angry/passionate about his case and perhaps frustrated that you haven't given up. You stated, "I'm sorry you and Dawkins are scandalized by this. It is must be troubling to you that 4 of 10 scientists are numbered among us "faith-heads."
I can't speak for either of them but I might be able to shed some light on why Atheist have started what they would consider "fighting back." There is a perception among us and I would venture all non-Christian sects, that the Moral Majority together with the Christian Fundamentalists are trying to force non-Christians into becoming Christians. It appears to many of us that the initiative to stop public funding of schools is a backdoor attempt to get creation into the classroom. That may seem extremely paranoid to you. I understand that. I think I'm extremely paranoid. As a matter of fact I would say that since my retiring from the military I have become a conspiracy theorist to my own embarrassment. All the evidence I see points me to the fact that forces within the government are working to deny individual freedoms.
Please watch the video at this address http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/video_dominionism-256kbps.wmv if you want to know where the anger comes from.
Respectfully,
Terry
Terry,
Thank you for your post.
Yes, I agree that some of the atheistic backlash is in reaction to some voices in the Christian community - voices that, quite frankly, embarrass some of us! Fundamentalists do not speak for us all. (In my recent studies I've come across atheists who are likewise put off by the shrill voices of Dawkins and Hitchens.) But, I don't believe it's fair to say it's the desire of fundamentalists to force people to convert. Their concerns are more about the direction of the country morally. As I said in the post, a state church is a disaster. I want nothing to do with a theocracy! Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world."
I will check out the website you mention.
My hope is that both sides would just back off and let us all live in peace.
I have to admit that I am both troubled by and happy about the venom in the words of people like Dawkins and Hitchen. I'm afraid if we don't do something to stop the formation of a theocracy now it may be too late.
Then again, I already told you I'm paranoid.
Please let me know what you think of the extremely unentertaining video.
Regards,
Terry
One more thing about Dawkins and Hitchens: those two guys, and admittedly many other atheists, would like to see the end of Religion. Not all atheists feel that way. And like the fundamentalists Christians, they are the loudest and most public voices of atheism. And believe it or not, for many atheists, atheism is not a religion (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.) Lack of a belief in something is not a belief system (It is not necessary to believe in evolution or the big bang to be a atheist.) I think atheism is more a philosophical point of view.
Post a Comment