Church and state: Should be hand-in-hand
For all of those of us out there who though that we would never hear any good news like this, read this article Finally, an actual Supreme Court Justice has publically announced that the courts are taking God out of public life...Can we vote for this guy as President next time around? It is about time that we see more of our political figures actually mentioning God and not being too afraid of what constituents will think...Now sure, I know that there will be public outcry from some of the cretins out there asking how you can have separation of Church and State when a Supreme Court Justice makes statements like that...For that answer, lets look at my "personal" opinion on this....Supreme Court Justices are not just someone from off of the street that the President selects as a Justice...rather, they are highly educated judges with years of experience on the bench, these people know the laws and the constitution...so, I don't think that any Justice would risk their reputations on loose interpretations of the constitution and what it says about religion....
Also, as the article goes on to state, in early March, the Supreme Court will hear two cases involving the rights to post the 10 Commandments....makes one feel a little better knowing that there is someone like Scalia on the bench who will be making moral rulings rather than attempting to win a popularity contest...Maybe finally, they will find that people do not have to look at and/or read something that they claim is offensive to them...I just wonder, what would happen if Christians started complaining about the show "Queer Eye"...to me that is offensive, so therefor I do not watch...would they rule that their can be nothing on t.v. pertaining to "sinful" living? No, as the majority, they would simply state that I don't have to watch, and this is if they would even hear a case like that....I think that we need more Justices like Scalia in there and maybe there would be a chance at saving this world before it is too late.
posted by Dysfunctional Deacon Peck @ 1/26/2005 07:58:00 AM
9 Comments:
A-Effing-Men!
Preach it deacon. That is exactly how it should be. The congregation gives you an A-Menah!
So, do you want an activist judge, or a constructionist judge? A "moral" judge IS an "activists" judge. Can you guys please make up your minds?
In response to your comment on my posting...
"So, what is the big deal then with the 10 commandments being posted by an individual rather than the government...if a Mayor wants the commandments posted, then HE is not the government, so what is the big deal.... "
Because as soon as the Mayor steps into his office, he IS the government. As soon as a judge enters a courtroom, he IS the government. This is because their decisions have legal weight and have the full backing of the government. When they go home, if they want to put a nativity scene and big marble block with the 10 commandments on their front yard with huge search lights and neon signs saying, "repent now, the world is coming to an end" they are individual citizens and perfectly within their rights to do so. They must be able to separate their faith from their jobs.
Thanks for stopping by. I know you don't agree with anything I say, but your comments are always welcome...
Dingo:
Because there is a nativity scene at a government building means absolutey nothing about a "particular" religion. IF you had taken a history lesson you would know that back in the day of the Constitution writing the biggest fear was the government demanding what religion you should be as in Catholic or Protestant, not if you were religious or not. This is a BIG difference in the left's interpretation of the First Amendment. Back in the 1780's, could you really predict the growth of Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists who would "be offended" by a nativity scene. No, absolutely not. So stop jumping to conclusions about a governement official and a nativity scene. Should we take down the tombstones at Arlington I have posted on my blog because they have crosses and stars of David on them? Good luck trying!
Deacon:
I am linking you to my blog... Could I (if you like what you see on my blog) be linked to yours. Good stuff here man!
Steve
I really don't like people like you, who are so ignorant and intolerant to think everybody is christian or believes in god, I am neither, not proudly or ashamadly thats the way it is. I don't think religion should mess with government you have to remember not everyone feels the way you do, and you have to learn to respect that. As for the nativity scene, would you be offended if there were public celebrations of ramadam?
To be quite honest, I don't care if you like me or not...and yes, I would be offended...The one thing that you have to consider is the fact that this nation is based upon the Christian religion...every state in this nation has a reference to God in their individual state constitutions...Our currency states "In God We Trust"...Not Allah nor any other heathen gods...The question to you would be why is Christianity so offensive to you? Are you afraid that something may be said that proves that there is a God? Are you afraid that you may prove yourself "wrong" in your beliefs? Tell me just what is so offensive......
To Steve,
I have, in fact, taken many history lessons. And, you are wrong in your assertion that the Founders were only concerned about Catholic vs. Protestant. I will refer you to a post from yesterday in which I quote James Madison and his contemplation of not only the problems between sects of Christians, but also of atheists and non-Christians.
http://barkingdingo.blogspot.com/2005/01/deconstructing-constructionists.html
Today's Americans do not give the Founders enough credit in their "worldly education." It was common in those days for highly educated persons to not only be taught English, but also Greek and Latin so they could study the classic philosophies in the native tongues.
And yes, a nativity scene is *a* religion - Christianity. While Muslims do believe in Christ, they do not believe his birth happened in the same way that we do.
I will also point to something else that Madison wrote about - mainly that state sponsor of religion is not only improper, but antithetical to our beliefs. If our religion is truly the divinity of God, it is much bigger than the state, and thus, survives independently of the state. It, in fact, exists in spite of the state. Christianity is over 2000 years old and has survived the rise and fall of many empires and states. To say that the government needs to become involved in supporting it, is in essence, saying that our faith is not big enough to stand on its own.
To Deacon,
I would like to point out that "In God We Trust" on our money nor "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, were there at the inception of our country. God was not added to our currency until after the Civil War. And God was not added to the pledge until 1954. Christianity does hold a special place in our history and in our future, but lets keep it special and not tyrannical. And on the other side, secularist must respect that this is a religious country and that they are going too far in many areas, also. The government should not be in the job of suppressing religion any more than it is in the job of endorsing religion.
also, I have reciprocally linked you if you still desire.
First off, Muslims believe in the same god as Christians and Jews do. Allah is simply the word for god in Arabic. When Coptic Christians in Egypt pray, they say: "Allah" when refering to god. Ditto for maronites in Lebanon, and various other Christian sects in the Arab world.
Secondly, God should not be in public life. The first ammendment specifically says that the gov't should not sponsor any religion. By promoting God in public life you are going against the first ammendment. You are violating my rights as a non-believer. You are going against the beliefs of people of other faiths as well (although, ironically, not Muslims, ha ha).
Putting the 10 commandments in a courthouse=sponsoring Judism and Christianity. It simply cannot be done.
As for our Christian founders, who cares? This nation is always changing, as are its demographics. We cannot ignore the fact and pretend that we're still a nation of mainly WASPs. That's just going to keep this great nation back.
Bowman,
so basically what you are saying then is, let's forget about the constitution as well? I mean, you stated "as for our founding fathers, Who cares?"....The founding fathers wrote the constitution, so, if we forget them and their beliefs, then forget everything that nation was founded on? Also, when you stated publicly displaying our religions, were you referencing govt. officials, or anyone who publically expresses our beleifs?
Post a Comment
<< Home