|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: separation of church and state - a christian perspective please. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Much of the controversial banter has to do with interpretation of law.
The conservatives want judges who will not interpret the law but, rather, uphold it. To them, law is an absolute concept that never chnages in basic intent. The liberals believe that law is an evolving concept that changes with the times and the whims and wills of the people. They have a point in that earlier laws used to be quite draconian in nature. The conservatives have a point, however, when the maintain that law is an absolute rather than a relative concept. In other words, the will of the people is often not what is best for them. how many people would be for abolishing tough measures on speeding in certain areas, for example? Separation of church and State was designed to keep the state out of the church more than keeping the church out of the state. Of course, now that America is defined as a pluralistic relativistic society rather than a Christian absolutist moral society, religious influence will be forced out of government and limited to churches. The issue, however is whether a secular government is even capable of defining morality on relativistic terms.
Jar writes: Human nature is such that if no absolute God is acknowledged within our mind, any other alluring concept can become a substitute for that absolute. As an example, if a family is nuts over football to the point of erecting a shrine room to the Dallas Cowboys in their basement, they may not consciously be worshipping "other gods" but they are surely subconsciously allowing for an idolatrous worship, attention, and attention to be paid to a non-deity. The same could be said for centerfold models, (who are tongue in cheek referred to as goddesses) heck even some families put their kids on a pedestal that is un necessary. If you look at what is said in the early parts of the OT you find many such indication. You find statements such as "I am the Lord, thy God. Note the use of Thy. That implies that other people might have other Gods. This is what is mean't by having no other gods before Me. It means paying full attention to God and loving Him with your whole heart, mind, and strength. It does NOT mean doing a few little conscious easing gooddeeds throughout the week and devoting entire days to football, low rider cars, or any other modern "idols" of our materialistic world. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 07-06-2005 12:12 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The greatest commandment..(both of them)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
It is true that either political ideology wants judges to interpret the law as THEY see it.
aclj.org writes: Legislating from the bench is an attempt to redefine established standards based on "modern" relativistic concepts. Spme of us think that humanity is incapable of actually determining morality for itself...since humanity is flawed in nature. The appointment of judges who will interpret the law, rather than legislate policy, is certainly one of the most important responsibilities given to the President under our Constitution. President Bush is committed to nominating men and women who "clearly understand the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench. To paraphrase James Madison, the courts exist to exercise not the will of men, but the judgment of the law. My judicial nominees will know the difference." Many of the ills that plague our society have resulted from judicial rulings that reflect the personal political agenda of liberal judges, instead of honest, careful interpretations of the Constitution. There are currently over 90 vacancies in the federal judiciary. In some circuits, such as the Sixth Circuit, the situation is especially critical. There are simply not enough judges to handle the court's workload. In his Annual Report to Congress, Chief Justice Rehnquist urged the Senate to confirm more of President Bush's nominees: Senators "ought to act with reasonable promptness to vote each nominee up or down." Yet, Democratic leaders in the Senate, including the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have announced their intent to stonewall confirmation of Bush's judicial nominees if those nominees do not adhere to left-wing pro-abortion ideology. Of course, the other side disagrees! (BTW Schraff, I am playing devils advocate, here. Personally, I believe that what will be is mean't to be, whichever way that it goes.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
...That's why they don't get to choose which religion/morality is right for the salvation of this nation. And that is the crux of the issue. For the conservative, not to decide is to decide. That is why conservativism claims an absolute truth. To not agree on this truth means that everyone agtrees on relative morality and relative truth, which is equal to "ye shall be as gods"....ye shall make your own truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jar writes: You mentioned the Two Great Commandments earlier but if you look at them they are both relative laws."Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ..." "Love others as ..." These are both qualified laws, they point to internal states and conditions. Where or what is the absolute truth many folk seem to want? The internal state that you speak of is the very Spirit of God. I know that you seem to believe that God is "in" everyone, whereas I rather believe that He (and/or His Spirit) is "with" everyone. He only comes "in" when your internal state allows His presence and His soverignty to exist. The internal state that treats God as a philosophical concept of ones own mind is not the internal environment where the Spirit can thrive,IMHO. It takes a faith that this Spirit is real--even over what a "logical" mind can grasp.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I guess that I am having a hard time with the two commandments being relative. Love God (an absolute) with all (an absolute) your heart, strength, mind, etc... We all love God relative to our inability to die to our own idols and interests. He commands absolute love and we give Him relative love. Perhaps the absolute is in our will within our intentions. One can believe and love absolutely, can't they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jar writes:
Well, let's look at them.OK. Love God with all your heart. Does that not imply that there are individual limits? No. If I have a glass of water and a pitcher of water, there are obvious limits regarding the amount of water from each vessel. If I say to pour out all of the water from each one, both have emptied the contents absolutely. It matters not if I have less "heart" than Mother Theresa or..as it were..Lance Armstrong! If all of us are loving with our whole heart, the relativity matters not. It cannot really be measured if the command is "all." Will everyone react the same?No, as I explained. Is it relative to individual capabilities? I would have to think about this for a bit! And the second, "Love others as you love yourself." How much more relative could you get? How so? Which "others" are we talking about? Does this not break down to Love as you love? Is this relative to the perfect love of Jesus Christ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Good point, Charles. Let me ask you this:
Do animals commit suicide? It is my understanding that in general, no. If you hated yourself, your "love" would be a relative construct within your own hurt mind, but it would still obviously stray off the absolute command. Surely, God knows each of us uniquely...in weakness, strength, arrogance, and humility. So if the question is whether everyones relative standards clash with Gods absolute command, the answer in Christian parlance is that God provided His Son to live an absolute standard in our place. We need only to accept this action as best as we can understand and embrace it. Were you to hate yourself, many culprits could do you in.1) Medications. I personally know several people who cannot love temselves largely because they have lost the ability to feel pain and thus face problems. 2) Bad luck. Yes, there is not really luck involved, but some people have more challenges that hinder the open heart needed to trust anyone...much less God. One thing in our favor, I believe, is God Himself. He understands.Even those who have committed suicide which is a grevious "sin" against God and self will be offered forgiveness before any sort of judgement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jar writes: I don't know about that, but I DO know that the infamous bumper sticker, "God is my Co-pilot" SHOULD read this way: If we applied the standards found in the Great Commandments to traffic laws we'd see laws that said "Drive no faster than you safely can" and "Drive as you wish others drove"."I am God's Co-Pilot". The standards are not about trying to do your best only. The standard is Jesus Christ who Did the best that nobody else could or ever can do. Thus, it is not so much a matter of "trying". It is a matter of trust.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Freddy Flash writes: Scalia, Thomas and the other scoundrels who want to unite church and state in the U. S. are Counterfeit Christians like Patrick Henry and Oliver Ellsworth who view religion as merely a tool to be used by the government to achieve its temporal objectives. They reject the authority of Christ and believe instead in the rendering to Caesar what belongs only to God and joining together what God hath put assunder. The debate is essentially between those who see themselves as upholding existing law versus those who see their job as reinterpretation of law.
ACLJ.org writes: The Nation's history is replete with examples of acknowledgment of religious belief in the public sector. Our religious heritage is manifested in many ways that openly reflect government sponsorship and yet do not create an "establishment" problem. The employment of congressional Chaplains to offer daily prayers in the Congress is a practice that has spanned two centuries. The government has recognized as national holidays days with undeniable religious significance, such as Christmas and Thanksgiving. "In God we trust" is statutorily prescribed as our national motto to be inscribed on our currency. The language "one nation under God" is included as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. Congress has directed the President to proclaim a National Day of Prayer each year. It is the current practice in every federal court to open proceedings with an announcement that concludes, "God save the United States and this Honorable court." A portrayal of the Ten Commandments decorates the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court, directly above the bench where the Honorable Justices are seated. As Justice Douglas observed, it is only through this accommodation that government can "follow the best of our traditions" and "respect the religious nature of our people." Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952). In this link, the ACLJ soundly defeats the ACLUs tired position regarding seperation of church and state. court brief writes: Nothing in the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence requires the relentless extirpation of public references to God that Plaintiff demands. Whether it be in the national motto, the Pledge of Allegiance, patriotic music, or the nation’s founding documents, such references are wholly consistent with the First Amendment.” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Consider this: Is it a prayer?The following verse was read each day to a Florida kindergarten class. The school board said the purpose of the verse was to calm kids down and create a sense of appreciation for the world. Is the verse a prayer? How are students likely to interpret "you"? Could "you" be Mother Nature or a Giant Slug? We thank you for the flowers so sweet; We thank you for the food we eat; We thank you for the birds that sing; We thank you for everything. This message has been edited by Phat, 04-25-2006 06:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
It IS a controversial issue. I heard an I.D. proponent speak of the Christian moral duty in everyday life speaking on the radio yesterday.
Here was an interview with one such Christian. Nancy Pearcey of the Discovery Institute. Listen to both days. You may not agree with her, but the central issue is "Is God a public figure or are the secularists right in maintaining the private view"?
Does God belong in the public arena, or is religion solely a private matter? Nancy Pearcey makes a passionate case that Christianity is not just religious truth, but truth about all reality. Very controversial! (She also wrote a book. This message has been edited by Phat, 05-03-2006 09:57 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024