| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Brian Westley" |
| Date: |
04 Mar 2005 06:21:02 PM |
| Object: |
Cal Thomas finally smartens up? |
Well, after decades of advocating Christian supremacy, Cal
Thomas might actually be seeing problems with his utopian
vision of government-assisted Christianity:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~11851~2743041,00.html
....
What puzzles me is the extent to which those who want government to
endorse their faith seem ready to compromise their true beliefs in order
to receive an honorable mention from the state.
Some seem willing to settle for a moment of silent prayer in government
schools, a type of religious Miranda right, in which believing students
have the right to remain mute. Others are willing to place their God as
co-unequal with almost anything, just to have his name publicly
mentioned, even if that tends to dilute him so much he wouldn't
recognize himself, much less be familiar to others.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor defended the "under God" clause in the
Pledge of Allegiance case the court dismissed last year, calling those
words "ceremonial deism." She defined the term as the use of religious
idiom for "essentially secular purposes," thus satisfying the court's
requirement that basically says Rudolph, Santa and Jesus may co-mingle
on public property at Christmas (X-mas?) and Rudolph or Santa may be
displayed separately or together, but not Jesus alone.
Is this what conservative Christians wish to settle for: a governmental
genuflection or acknowledgment that they exist? Do Christians wish to
permit government not only to set the parameters for the pubic
expression of their faith, but to define the faith itself?
The courts have been wrong for at least half a century in their
limitation of religious expression, but the way to win back that right
of expression is not mainly through courts, but through hearts.
....
Well, that last paragraph still shows he's an idiot, but
he seems to have had a few brief moments of lucidity.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cal Thomas finally smartens up? |
04 Mar 2005 07:27:31 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley wrote:
Well, after decades of advocating Christian supremacy, Cal
Thomas might actually be seeing problems with his utopian
vision of government-assisted Christianity:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~11851~2743041,00.html
[snip]
Is this what conservative Christians wish to settle for: a
governmental
genuflection or acknowledgment that they exist? Do Christians wish to
permit government not only to set the parameters for the pubic
expression of their faith, but to define the faith itself?
[snip]
I suspect most KHRISCHUNS! figure that once they get
the camel's nose inside the tent, the rest of the camel
is sure to follow.
E J L
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Cal Thomas finally smartens up? |
08 Mar 2005 09:42:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:21:02 -0000, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
wrote:
Well, after decades of advocating Christian supremacy, Cal
Thomas might actually be seeing problems with his utopian
vision of government-assisted Christianity:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~11851~2743041,00.html
Will government set public parameters, define Christian faith?
By Cal Thomas
IN the latest culture-war battle, the Ten Commandments have reached
the Supreme Court.
One federal court has ruled that displaying the 10 standards God
requires in order to be declared righteous is constitutional because
it is part of this country's legal heritage. Another federal court has
ordered them removed from public property because their message
implies a government endorsement of religion. The justices will decide
whether displaying the commandments in government buildings is
constitutionally "kosher.'
There are some amusing things about this case. First, it is a group of
conservative Christians behind the effort. Not many, if any, Jewish
groups are petitioning government for this right, even though the Ten
Commandments are uniquely Jewish. Moses was Jewish, and the Ten
Commandments preceded all of the other laws that followed.
No human has ever obeyed them all. That's why the ancient Israelites
had to slaughter so many animals and offer blood and other offerings
(grain, fellowship and "wave' among them) and once a year slaughter
the Passover lamb to atone for their sin (for younger readers, sin was
our condition before we became dysfunctional).
Christians, who sometimes seem so bellicose about these things,
believe Jesus Christ fulfilled every one of the Ten Commandments and
thus became the perfect "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the
world' (John 1:29). Christians also believe "a man is not justified by
observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ' (Galatians 2:16) and
"all who rely on observing the law are under a curse' (Galatians
3:10). They believe anyone who wishes to be judged by the law falls
short and is condemned.
If Christians believe such things, why would they "settle' for the
posting of the Ten Commandments through which they believe no one can
be saved? Why not lobby for the display of their favorite verse: "For
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life' (John 3:16)?
The display of that verse on public property would surely be ruled
unconstitutional, but at least Christians would be consistent with
what they actually believe.
What puzzles me is the extent to which those who want government to
endorse their faith seem ready to compromise their true beliefs in order
to receive an honorable mention from the state.
Some seem willing to settle for a moment of silent prayer in government
schools, a type of religious Miranda right, in which believing students
have the right to remain mute. Others are willing to place their God as
co-unequal with almost anything, just to have his name publicly
mentioned, even if that tends to dilute him so much he wouldn't
recognize himself, much less be familiar to others.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor defended the "under God" clause in the
Pledge of Allegiance case the court dismissed last year, calling those
words "ceremonial deism." She defined the term as the use of religious
idiom for "essentially secular purposes," thus satisfying the court's
requirement that basically says Rudolph, Santa and Jesus may co-mingle
on public property at Christmas (X-mas?) and Rudolph or Santa may be
displayed separately or together, but not Jesus alone.
Is this what conservative Christians wish to settle for: a governmental
genuflection or acknowledgment that they exist? Do Christians wish to
permit government not only to set the parameters for the pubic
expression of their faith, but to define the faith itself?
The courts have been wrong for at least half a century in their
limitation of religious expression, but the way to win back that right
of expression is not mainly through courts, but through hearts.
...
Well, that last paragraph still shows he's an idiot, but
he seems to have had a few brief moments of lucidity.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
