There is a Difference in Being a Christian Nation and having a State Mandated Religion
Posted January 10, 2010on:
Dec. 15, 2007 – There is a Difference in Being a Christian Nation and having a State Mandated Religion
Posted in Commentary
At first like most people I didn’t think there would be any harm done in removing these things from the public places if it would bring peace. Anything to bring peace! It didn’t change my religious views not to see these things. I miss them yes, but it had no real affect on my religious views as I had religion as a part of my up bringing. It was a part of my daily life. What I failed to understand at the time was the millions of children’s and adults who did not have religion and God as a part of their daily life and these public displays were the only inclusion of God and Godliness and Christian principle into their life. They were now left with nothing to counter balance the effects of the evil that liberalism unleashed on the public. The movies and music and general degeneration in our everyday lives. In fact, the more degenerate the more revered things seemed to become. The picture of a crucifix in a jar of piss being considered by liberal critics as high art! How low can we go?
Now from the benefit of 20/20 hindsight I see the horrific damage that has been done. This is why I have been stepping up to the plate and condemning such actions as those of our local misfits like Salami who was offended by a simple little sign in a sheriffs officers car. ( I have no doubt at all that he would not have made the same cry of being “offended” if the above mentioned picture was on display instead.) We have become a nation tolerant of all and everything, but Christianity. And this must somehow end, and the trend turned around.
However, I am equally concerned with the extreme measures taken by our politicians on the campaign trail which this article speaks so well to:
An Overdose of Public Piety
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, December 14, 2007;
“Now, there’s nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments. The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.
A certain kind of liberal argues that having a religious underpinning for any public policy is disqualifying because it is an imposition of religion on others. Thus, if your opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious belief in the ensoulment of life at conception, you’re somehow violating the separation of church and state by making other people bend to your religion.
This is absurd. Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty — a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation. It’s ridiculous to say that therefore abolitionism, civil rights, etc., constitute an imposition of religion on others.
Imposing religion means the mandating of religious practice. It does not mean the mandating of social policy that some people may have come to support for religious reasons.
But a certain kind of conservative is not content to argue that a religious underpinning for a policy is not disqualifying. He insists that it is uniquely qualifying, indeed, that it confers some special status.” end of excerpt.
We have to be careful not to allow the extremists to control this movement back to establishing the United States as a Christian nation as we allowed the extremist to destroy us as a Christian nation. Charles Krauthammer is correct that our politicians in their zealous desire to get votes are leading this extremist parade. They are also very misleading in what the Constitution actual says, Just as the liberal extremist were before.
As far as the politicians are concerned it will stop as soon as they are elected to office, but the mobs of fanatics that they have gathered along the way will still be there trying to enforce a national religion which is just what the constitution admonishes against.
There is a middle ground. One that our nation managed very well to follow until the liberal uprising beginning in the 1950‘s. This is the trend that we the people need to reverse. This middle ground where we proclaim ourselves a Christian nation while not imposing our Christian values on others, and in fact tolerating all others values as long as they do not conflict with ours or the laws which are for the most part based on our beliefs. This is where we need to move back to. Not that all was so wonderful before the movement. No. Catholic’s wore horns according to my father until he listened to and voted for John Kennedy.
Saner heads must be allowed to prevail to keep the good that has been gained and to throw out the bad that has gone to the far extremes. The movement has begun locally with little things like whether or not a prayer will be said before a council meeting and it will slowly carry on from there. We do however have to stand together and not allow the ignorance and intolerance of the Salami’s of our society to again gain the upper hand. When they are “offended” we must be offended by their ignorance and intolerance and we must speak up against them. We must be equally loud in speaking up against those so-called experts who willfully misread our Constitution and proclaim a simple sign stating the belief of the police officer driving that patrol car as being illegal. If you don’t agree with the sign then look the other way. It wasn’t and isn’t meant for your benefit anyhow since you are already lost to reason and very possibly to God also. BB