I have a major problem with the Exclusive Bretheren (or Destiny Church) being involved in the machinery of governance when they base political action on their beliefs.

Then my suggestion would be: Don’t vote for them.

You have already seen the public reaction to the idea of a Congressman swearing Oath of Office on the Quran (that was 2004?)

My fear (and I apply this to the NZ but it is the same principle) is the adoption of one religion in the governance of the nation.

I accept your comment on proselytising, provided that it is limited to religious belief and activity.

When that proselytising is used to influence or even to create governmental policy and action then I strongly disagree.

To take a specific example…

I have no problem with Exclusive Bretheren (or Destiny Church)advertising for members, selling their beliefs to expand their Church.

I have a major problem with the Exclusive Bretheren (or Destiny Church) being involved in the machinery of governance when they base political action on their beliefs.

For the record, I have no problem with private citizens expressing their religious point of view, or even proselytizing, in a public forum. That is what a public forum is for — it’s a free speech zone subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations, and free speech includes religious speech. I do have a problem with evangelizing when public money is used to subsidize the spreading of a religious message or the religious message appears to be originating from the government.

The warrior is killed in war; the fearless scaler of lofty cliffs (in search of sea-fowl) is dashed to pieces; the industrious husbandman lives long and dies peacefully of old age.

It is an old proverb, and a nice compliment upon my ability to provide for my family and my community.

Thank you again.

“All I have heard the “Christian Rightâ€Â? do is to espouse the accurate constitutional proposition that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is a neutrality clause…”

… in exactly the way that I previously enumerated (with a note of sarcasm on the side).

Tena te ringa tango parahia!

Railing against the ACLU does not illuminate this topic in any appreciable way.

I believe my original point was that this post illuminates nothing on this topic. So railing against the ACLU is what I’m left with. This post was just another example of Justin’s never-ending little rebellion against Christ.

The kind of nation that the founders wanted to live in and the kind of government that they wanted to create are two fantastically different things, TL. You make the rather common error of thinking that the founders believed that the government was suppose to be the primary shaper of the Nation; The government having a rather limited role according to the founders.

So, yes, in fact, there is a different between “the government” and “the Nation” — the Nation being a broader concept of the culture, the people, the history, exc. The founders wanted the federal government to be neutral with regards to religion — meaning that the culture and the people could in fact express religious symbolism and faith in the public square, as long as the government took a neutral position on regulation.

This is obviously much different than what the ACLU and Justin wants – which is clearly reflected in the title to this post, to wit, that US not be a Christian Nation. Their means for effectuating this desire – as much as they can – is to purge Christianity from anything remotely associated with government (and correspondingly to increase the size of government, squeezing out Christ for the State.) One could go on forever giving examples of this ideology at practice with the ACLU.

It is an erroneous constitutional interpretation meant to support an anti-Christian agenda and this post was part of that effort.

The First Amendment resolves that issue in the negative, fine distinctions between the “nation” and the “government” notwithstanding. The Founders intended that there be tolerance for all and favoritism towards none. That’s the kind of government they wanted to create, that’s the kind of nation they wanted to live in, and for the most part, that’s the sort of policy that our leaders have worked to preserve for us all. It takes only a momentary glance at a nation like Iran or Saudi Arabia to see how fortunate we are to live in a society with religous liberty and tolerance.

Railing against the ACLU does not illuminate this topic in any appreciable way.

Transplanted Lawyer – you should be shocked to agree with me no matter how repellent I may be to you. My constitutional legal analysis is a great wall 100 ft tall X 10 ft. thick, filled with the iron of genius and wisdom. Many have tried to topple it, only to find themselves face-down in despair, slurping hopelessly through the bog of inferior analysis.

Now can we all agree that the ACLU is in fact a Stalinist, disgusting organization worthy of a Night of Long Knives? Come on, lets come together people.

The troublesome, and recent, development in this area of the law is the argument that “atheism is a religion” and the government promotes this “religion” by failing to promote other forms of religion at the same time. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. And failing to promote religion is not the same thing as suppressing it.

After they tell you how much they like that idea, you can reveal to them the above quote comes from an actual constitution — that of Iran, linchpin of the “Axis of Evil.â€Â? All I did was substitute the words “United Statesâ€Â? for “Islamic Republic of Iran.â€Â? If they want a Constitution that explicitly supports Christian ideals, all they need do is look to the constitutions of the Middle Eastern Islamic states for their model.

Am I missing something?

… or a Judge of a superior Court hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments in his Court (or was it a plinth at the door?).

Oh. Hang on. He wasn’t a Stalinist obviously. They were the ones trying to stop him…

… or the selection of SCOTUS Judges on the basis of their (known) religious beliefs, and specific continuing legal challenges such as the reversal of RvW.

Oh. But of course. A Judge who supports RvW should not be appointed because there are too many already on the SC benches supporting that particular decision…

The concerns of 18th century Americans were not ours. And vice versa.

I agree mostly with that sentiment, but when it comes to religious ideology, though, I disagree. I think the concerns of many in the fundamentalist, Religious Right movement do mirror the concerns of similar fundamentalists in the 18th century. Even to do this day, the Religious Right fights to combine church and state, and you can hear them proclaim frequently that the US is a Christian nation and they want to remake the government into the same thing.

I too am wary of projecting our sensibilities back in time as well, and that’s why when I hear so often that the founders wanted this or the founders wanted that…it seems rather dated. And this too could be seen as dated, but those who hold “founder’s intentions” with the highest regard should recognize that this states pretty explicitly that the government wasn’t founded on religion.

If nothing else, it presents an interesting footnote to the arguments.

I think that this statement does say quite a bit more about 2007 than many are willing to accept. Sadly, these words seemingly have no significance to highly religious politicians or the Religious Right base that keeps electing them.

well, what are words & meanings really anyway?

You know very well that government and nation go hand in hand, and the religious right is trying to remake this INTO a Christian nation. They make no secret about this. Bush makes no secret about this. The two being intertwined is not only dangerous for government, it’s also dangerous for Christianity too.

How would anyone be expected to actually implement such an amendment even if it were to pass, anyway? Constitutional amendments are merely appendages to the original document. It’s not as though when an amendment is ratified, someone takes the document out of the national Archives, whips out a Magic Marker and changes the existing text.