Like minds think alike? A few days ago I heard Joseph Farah talking about separation of church and state. His point, saying he had not seen this particular spin on this volatile issue, was that the Left’s idea of separation is pitting people against people- that the “church” and the “state” are not simply “things,” but are the people. (Joseph also said he wanted his listeners to take this concept and use it as their own in their own conversations with liberals. Okay – sure, I too say take it as your own. Interesting though; I wonder if he has caroused through my blog looking for ideas ?? Hmmm?
Notice below the reprint of my similar rant about this subject:
Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2003 @ 01:49
“** Another worry: Do we not support the separation of church and state, especially the left? I am left to ponder this concept as I read about gay marriage being legal now in Mass. In our haste to find the newness of tomorrow, we have totally forgotten that the institution of marriage is an integral part of the Christian Bible. Where in the Constitution is the idea of marriage mentioned at all? Nowhere. So, how did the Mass. High Court find the right for homosexuals to marry in the Constitution? How?, because our laws are shallow and hollow, void of the concepts that founded this formerly great nation. --Separation of Church and State: what does it mean? Separation of Men and Men? Separation of Moral doctrine from public direction? The interpretation of this phrase can be numerous and the meaning must become a major part of its debate. Contrary to common belief, there is no such phrase in our Constitution and we must define what we mean by church and by state as they apply to separation. Aren’t they both defined by their people –their membership, if you will? The church is not a building or even a single belief, but a combination of the totality of its people; the same is true for the state. Thus, those that support separation of church and state are in fact supporting a division of the people. Am I wrong to suggest that such a concept is one of exclusion rather than one of inclusion? Christianity, on the other hand is not exclusionary; Jesus taught his followers to go in among them (non-believing), to love all people and that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. ‘There is none righteous, no not one,’ and that we were all made in his image, none greater nor lesser than any other. It is the Christian principles built into our social psychic that love and tolerance of all beliefs is proper for the best in harmonical discourse (I love that!- “harmonical discourse”) We must agree –to be patriotic Americans, whatever our beliefs—that the concept of separation of church and state must not mean the separation of God and government. The back bone of American constitutionalism includes the concepts of sovereignty and inalienable rights; to accept these concepts one must also accept the idea of a Higher Power as a part (leadership role) of our chain of command — that's called consistency.”
Notice below the reprint of my similar rant about this subject:
Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2003 @ 01:49
“** Another worry: Do we not support the separation of church and state, especially the left? I am left to ponder this concept as I read about gay marriage being legal now in Mass. In our haste to find the newness of tomorrow, we have totally forgotten that the institution of marriage is an integral part of the Christian Bible. Where in the Constitution is the idea of marriage mentioned at all? Nowhere. So, how did the Mass. High Court find the right for homosexuals to marry in the Constitution? How?, because our laws are shallow and hollow, void of the concepts that founded this formerly great nation. --Separation of Church and State: what does it mean? Separation of Men and Men? Separation of Moral doctrine from public direction? The interpretation of this phrase can be numerous and the meaning must become a major part of its debate. Contrary to common belief, there is no such phrase in our Constitution and we must define what we mean by church and by state as they apply to separation. Aren’t they both defined by their people –their membership, if you will? The church is not a building or even a single belief, but a combination of the totality of its people; the same is true for the state. Thus, those that support separation of church and state are in fact supporting a division of the people. Am I wrong to suggest that such a concept is one of exclusion rather than one of inclusion? Christianity, on the other hand is not exclusionary; Jesus taught his followers to go in among them (non-believing), to love all people and that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. ‘There is none righteous, no not one,’ and that we were all made in his image, none greater nor lesser than any other. It is the Christian principles built into our social psychic that love and tolerance of all beliefs is proper for the best in harmonical discourse (I love that!- “harmonical discourse”) We must agree –to be patriotic Americans, whatever our beliefs—that the concept of separation of church and state must not mean the separation of God and government. The back bone of American constitutionalism includes the concepts of sovereignty and inalienable rights; to accept these concepts one must also accept the idea of a Higher Power as a part (leadership role) of our chain of command — that's called consistency.”
ok. how then do you justify making non-Christians act like Christians from a Biblical standpoint? Essentially what you propose is a sort of standardized morality based on the supposed beliefs of our founding fathers (and yes, I realize that you'll claim they were Christians - in a sense yes, however most of them were so confused and mixed up with humanistic deism they wouldn't know heads from "biblical" tails). I think this is wrong and I don't think this is what Christ had in mind when he said "go and make disciples of all men." He didn't say, "go and make them act like you do" or "go and legislate so they act like you," having said that, why then do most Christians feel it so important to legislate their own brand of morality? This I won't ever understand.
ReplyDeleteIn the world of polity a nation must have a few things in common in which to define itself and to bring the people into a unit. Would you prefer another set of known rules? You do agree society must have some standard of rules, right?
ReplyDeleteIn short, judeo/chrostian values are rooted in the 10 Commandments; I'm figuring such a basis is as good as it gets.
I disagree with your assumption that our founders were morally/religiously confused; nothing could be further from the truth. A couple of them were not above questioning even their own beliefs, such as Franklin and Jefferson. But many were ordained ministers; all believed in a Higher Power.
Any significant religion's disciples believes their religion is the one true religion; this defines "disciples."
Sounds to me like you have some conflicting issues of perhaps guilt and/or and emptiness in your life. These "issues" are getting in your way of honest intellectual recourse. If religion generally is repugnant to you, you have some unsettled doubts pro or con. Do yourself a favor and "water" those religious seeds; you might surprise yourself.