The once great USA
is becoming a modern-day Tower
of Babel. However,
instead of the differences in language underlying the dissolution, now it is
the differences in worldviews, and even more so, the mutual antagonism caused
by these differences.
- Last Thursday, Mike Malloy commented on the Twitter war between Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen, Ann Romney and, eventually, Catholic League president Bill Donohue:
- And the Catholic League - that piece of human waste Bill Donohue - then twitted or tweeted or tweaked - ‘glad to know Hilary’s fans are in a state of apoplexy - you’d think she was outed by their hysterical reaction. Get over it and grow up! You child-raping sons of b-tches in the Catholic Church, I am so sick of all of you - especially your priests and your bishops and your scum, the Nazi Pope, I am so sick of all of you. And this Donohue freak—wow.
The hatred is bubbling to the surface like sickening methane
gas from a surrounding swamp. Meanwhile, the culture wars are being pursued
unrelentingly. For example, the ACLU brought charges against Jones County, NC
commissioners for praying to Jesus before each meeting.
- According to the [ACLU], the prayers “are explicitly sectarian and favor only one religion, Christianity”…The ACLU’s field office in Raleigh sent a letter to Jones County commissioners April 3, writing the commissioners’ invocation prayer “should not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed.”
How has “Jesus” become the one unutterable word in a country,
whose Declaration of Independence recognizes
that the God of the Bible is the one and only source for our “unalienable
rights?”
The ACLU charge is based on the erroneous assumption that by
eliminating religion from the public sphere, it would now become neutral,
assessable and pleasing to all. This, of course, is highly disingenuous. By
eliminating God, another religion
quickly and automatically fills the void. If God and faith can no longer be
invoked, then only the opposite beliefs – atheism, secular humanism,
cultural relativism, materialism, naturalism, moral relativism, and permissiveness – are allowed to
dominate the public arena. Ironically, by appealing to a distorted
understanding of the “separation between church and state” – the “establishment
clause”- secularism and atheism have now become our state established, sanctioned
and supported religion! However, this remains a carefully guarded, un-confessed
sin among the elite.
How do we respond to the wide range of these secular challenges?
Christians are very divided and understandably so. There do not seem to be any
easy answers now that the formational Christian consensus has withered. Here
are three possible but problematic solutions:
- Continue to fight these culture wars that only seem to be inflaming antagonism, polarization and even hatred. However, even if we are able to elect a Christian president who is able to push back on some of the radical advances, such a victory might only be temporary.
- Set our battle lines elsewhere, at more central and defensible positions. Here are two possibilities.
- Recognize the diversity of religions and worldviews within the USA and opt for a more generic form of prayer and religious expression. However, the majority of Evangelicals would understandably find such a watering-down totally unacceptable.\
- Call for de-centralization and a greater emphasis on “majority-rules.” Such a strategy would allow the Jones County Commissioners to pray in Jesus’ name if this was the majority’s will. It would also allow for gay marriage in those states or municipalities where it had been voted in.
I find “2b” to be the most attractive option. It would allow
for majority choice, diversity – the Federal government would no longer enforce
its own monopolistic and alienating religion – and would allow people of
divergent opinions to live more harmoniously together. Perhaps it might only
represent a temporary peace, but it would also allow us breathing room to observe
the implications or fruits of our different belief systems as they play out in
different locations?
However, the light of truth must continue to shine.
Hypocrisy must be exposed. The secular attacks will not cease until the church
is no longer the light and no longer denounces sin. Preaching against sin has
become “hate-speech,” and the Bible has become the hate-monger’s battle-ax. We
should not expect secularism to allow us to worship as we wish.
Dear Mr. Mann:
ReplyDeleteI am just curious about one thing. Let's suppose that a congressman asked leave of the chair to pray, under his own initiative, for the session and the chair gave leave (and would presumably give leave to any congressman of any faith to do so) would this be something which the ACLU would have legal basis to battle against? If they battled against this, would it not be an infringement of first ammendment rights?
Sincerely,
D. Smith
Using ACLU logic, if this represented some favoritism to Christianity, then it would be opposed, and I fear that the courts would uphold the ACLU.
DeleteDaniel, your perception of the ACLU as being an anti-Christian group is quite simply wrong.
DeleteSe here, here, here for a start, to see that you're wrong. The first link is a list of cases where the ACLU has fought for the rights of Christians, while the 2nd link is of a specific case, and the third is a general essay about the ACLU's involvement in supporting religious freedom.
And another case for the ACLU defending the free speech rights of a person, regardless of their beliefs - A letter defending a student who wore an anti-homosexuality, anti-same sex marriage t-shirt to protest the day of silence at his school.
Delete(Havok, somehow you response got lost.)
ReplyDeleteWe’ve talked to people who support this judgment and have heard other supporters speak on this issue. Although they might mouth this issue and the “separation clause,” they will also admit that they just don’t like these churches. One Episcopal Seminarian admitted, “These are the kind of churches that don’t ordain women.”
Mann: Although they might mouth this issue and the “separation clause,” they will also admit that they just don’t like these churches
DeletePeople could dislike the churchs AND this issue could be a legitimate concern over separation of church and state. You'd need to show not just that people do not like these Churchs (which seems to be quite a stretch given the majority of your country is Christian) but that this is not a legitimate concern over separation issues.
Mann: One Episcopal Seminarian admitted, “These are the kind of churches that don’t ordain women.”
This is irrelevant. The episcopalian seminarian presumably didn't rule on the case, and likely has little to no experience in constitutional law.
"Preaching against sin has become “hate-speech,” and the Bible has become the hate-monger’s battle-ax. We should not expect secularism to allow us to worship as we wish."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the heads-up.
BTW, there are some pastors who unfortunately are cowards and "soft-pedal" their sermons and discussions about what the Bible declares about sin.
This is another unfortunate aspect of what's going on, and in some ways, more damaging to the sheep.
Truth,
DeleteAlthough our pragmatic concerns may be important, when we place them above Scripture, we do a disservice. This is what Paul talked about when he declared his innocence because he had taught the entire counsel of God (Acts 20:24-32).
I think that we have to maintain the right priorities as you suggest - loving the Lord and His Word above all else!
Truth: BTW, there are some pastors who unfortunately are cowards and "soft-pedal" their sermons and discussions about what the Bible declares about sin.
DeleteI would agree with that. What the bible regards as sin does not line up with the vast majority of people regard as sin. Basically all Christians seem to pick and choose the things they *like* or *agree with*.
I think highlighting the truth about biblical morality in worship services would be a very good thing, as it would lead people to question just what it is they believe, and what it is they're supporting. I suspect it would lead to a further decline in Christianity's numbers, and (unfortunately) further reinforcement of hardline fundamentalists (ie. only those who actually bought all of the horrible things Christian morality appears to require would stay - biblical literalists like Daniel, for instance).
Although I do ascribe to the "fundamentals" of the Biblical faith, this doesn't make me a "literalist" as you charge. Instead, all proper interpretation attempts to arrive at the meaning intended by the author. And this might mean taking certain passages figuratively.
DeleteIf you want to bring personal charges against me, at least try to do so accurately.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteI deleted your last comment. It was without any merit or substance, consisting of nothing other than personal attack.
If you continue in this manner, I will delete all of your comments!
Havok,
ReplyDeleteYou responded, "You appear to be inconsistent. In the preceding comment you were welcoming of personal charges against you."
I do not welcome personal charges at all, even if I did alone a minor one to pass!
They do this so that parents do not get upset. Some parents are completely oblivious to the fact that little Suzy is even thinking about anything of
ReplyDeletethat nature. Have you ever seen how a mother reacts to
their child learning a curse word? It is similar to that.
They automatically blame whoever exposed them to
this for their childs bad behavior. This is just what
I think the reason is. It may not be, I am not sure, but it makes
sense to me.
My website :: http://www.sextoysdiva.com