ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,707
- 245
- Thread starter
- #61
Why thank you.Ridiculous? ScreamingEagle, I wouldn't have you think that I would take your commentary out of context, or dodge a point I must agree with by directing my attention to only those posts I disagree with. You should be flattered I considered every thing you posted worth a thoughtful response.
If you think we already have a secular government, then why is it the secular Left is currently attacking our already secular government?Not so. Some few minor details aside, we very much have one right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.
You don't think secularists think that public policy should be separate from religious influence? Then why is it today that secularists on the Left think the 10 Commandments should not be displayed in a Courthouse or that "In God We Trust" should not be written on our coins?Nope.
Glad you agree that it's impossible to separate government policy from religious influence.Yep.
Now you're saying politics can be separated from religion. You get confusing. OK, you're probably splitting hairs here. Let's agree that formal religious doctrine should not be instituted in the government but that religious influences can be.It sure can.
Secular government per se does not demand government by atheists. However, that is becoming almost questionable today. It is the secular Left that is now attempting to institute their beliefs into our government and wipe out all other belief influences. Witness their removal of a statue of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. It's almost getting to the point where people are now worried that if they are Christian they cannot hold office or judgeship.Different issue. Secular government does not demand government by atheists. As a point of fact, one of the very rationales stated my the Foundng Fathers <b>for</b> the wall of separation of church and state, was to prevent religion, or religious affiliation, from being a consideration regarding public service or citzenship in the USA.
PS: There is no "wall" in our Constitution. That is a figment of someone's imagination in a legal paper.
I agree that their religions need not be the government. Doctrine and dogma of a religion should not be instituted in our government per se. However, as long as those religiously-influenced laws do not establish a religion per se, our laws (voted in by majority vote) should still be able to reflect religious beliefs. For instance, it is a religious belief and one of the 10 Commandments to not steal. Our laws against stealing reflect those religious beliefs without establishing, for example, the Methodist religion.Yet their religions need not be the government. Their religious doctrine and dogma need not be supported by or supportive of the government, nor does the government need be supported by or supportive of their religious doctrine or its dogma.
Agreed that laws must be described and enforced separately from religious doctrine - however, not religious influence. But this is what today's secular movement is challenging. They are questioning anything that has the whiff of Christianity attached to it, thereby negating any law they do not endorse.True, but those laws, described and enforced by a secular government, must be described and enforced separately from religious doctrine and dogma.
"What would Jesus do?" is a valid, and allowable, consderation which a government official might have when creating or enforcing law and policy. What is absolutely invalid is that same government official demanding, or even implying, that disobeying that law, or not following that policy, is being disobedient of Jesus--that disobeying the government is disobeying God.
Your argument is that Christians believe in a secular government as procribed by our Founders?I believe it--that is my argument. The trick is to convince you of it.
Well, if that's all, you have won the argument. However, I think the secular liberal Left (which many Christians stupidly support) does not believe we have a secular government. Why else would they be challenging our laws and accusing them of being non-secular?
Did our Founders have any problem with saying prayers at government functions? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with children saying prayers in school? No.
Did our Founders prevent a school teacher from carrying his personal Bible to public school? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with the 10 Commandments displayed in Courthouses? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with laws prohibiting pornography? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with prohibiting homosexuality? No.
Why were such things as these OK in our prior secular government but not today per the secular Left who scream about the "wall of separation"?
But they did not let their religion become the basis of the law in this land. They pointedly rejected all notions of placing Jesus vicariously into office.
Religion never became the "basis" (a tricky word) of law, but it certainly did influence the laws of our land. Frankly, it is because Christianity influenced the laws of our country that our country is so great. The same country would never have been created if formed under Islamic influence, for example.
Ommission of the prospect of eternal damnation at the hands of some Supersonic Santa Claus, is no argument that one's morality is "relativistic", "degenerate", "slack", or "leftist" in any manner what-so-ever--all you can validly assert, on that account, is that their morality is not superstitious. No religion can objectively claim to hold a monopoly on moral behavior. "Jesus is Lord", "There is only one God and Muhammed is His prophet", "if you see the Bhudda in the road, you must kill him", and "the Earth Goddess cries every time you flush the toilet", are all examples of the kind of "religious" morality that secularists, indeed, demand be relegated to to an impotent backburner, and allow our laws to reflect a rational approach to society, which allows for objectivity in the law that validates the moral fabric of our society and our country.
You remind me of the tale of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned.
Our very successful nation thrived for two centuries under the auspices of Christianity and if we don't bring it back under the influence of basic Christian principles (which are rational in nature) instead of godless secularism we are doomed as a nation to slide down the slippery slope of relativism to our demise.