|  eat | Nov 3, 2007 8:05am | 40: "Should Christians also let these symbols bother us?"
Ideally, I'd try notice the symbols and whatever significance they have for myself and others, and choose only a few things out of that set to get bothered about. Whether someone is bothered by a given symbol (Ten Commandments in a courtroom, "In God We Trust" on money, "under God" in the pledge, disclamatory sticker about evolution in biology textbooks, lack of prayer in public schools, not displaying the Nativity in a town square, etc.) clearly depends on what they view as right, normal, proper, common sense (I love that one), what have you.
The inclusion or omission of religious artifice in government is a barometer on the status of religion. It's significant because it can effect more concrete political action, for example: state and federal laws permitting/prohibiting abortion, stem cell research, right-to-die/live, government welfare vs. church welfare, etc. Rearranging the framework used to approach those kinds of issues seems very important for anyone trying to introduce those types of changes in government. |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Ewtn2000 | Feb 7, 8:01am | More "superficial" things like removing references to the Ten Commandments are noises of a different frequency in the political arena that perk the ears of those inclined towards somewhat paranoic persecution complexes. Then again, what one person calls a mildly paranoic obsession (or, insert a psychologically pigeon-holing phrase of your choice) another may call due diligence.
The only phrase that comes to mind from that is; "Just because your paranoid doesn't mean that no one is after you."
Lets take some of the symbols that have been inserted into this country by those who believed that we had some type of Christian roots from the beginning.
THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT: From Wikipedia, "the first governing document of Plymouth Colony."
"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten..."
Or
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either..."---George Washington
Or
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness..."
Well that was just a couple right off hand, maybe someone inserted those when no one was looking, trying to bring their own agenda to light.
No the Est. Clause does not separate Church and State as people think it does and to say "Agreed. ...the Establishment Clause didn't explicitly say that they shouldn't be separated always and at all cost, either." It did say a lot of things and to insert different interpretation causes us to think that there are unlimited possibilities of separation. Letter of the law says the FEDERAL government shall not establish... but how do we get no school prayer from that? (Engel v Vitale) or people who are Christians from speaking at an anti-drug rally (Alexander v Nacoghoche School District 1991) or a public cemetery not being able to have a planter in a shape of a cross (Warsay v Tehachpi)? |
| |
|
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
Apologetics → Discussion