budd <e@iques.org> wrote in message news:<76e7iv0rudm2j2oufltfjv0mb5o0nu7mic@4ax.com>...
Hello all, this letter appeared in my local paper and I want to send
in a rebuttal to this guy but I dont want to sound shrill or less
than logical. any help is appreciated..........
Help yourself to anything you find useful in the following:
[snip editorial]
The author suggests that personal freedom is directly proportional to
government advocacy of religion. Unfortunately, the Afghan Taliban
regime has been overthrown, so he has lost his best opportunity to
experience first-hand how much personal freedom exists when government
advocacy of religion is at its peak.
Most likely, however, his usage of "religion" is not so broad as to
include religions other than his own personal beliefs. When he says
it is "selfish" to oppose religion in government, he means he sees
nothing wrong with the government promoting *his* personal religion.
Sure, *his* personal freedom would not be harmed by having an official
government endorsement of what *he* believes is right!
Or would it? In 2,000 years of trying to mix Christianity and
politics, not once has the result been a "redeemed" political system.
In every case, the result has been a worldlier, politicized, and
corrupted Christianity. America was founded by people who grew up
under officially Christian governments, and who came here seeking,
guess what, personal freedom. That's why they put the establishment
clause in the Constitution in the first place, and why liberals,
spiritually-minded Christians, and freedom-loving citizens of all
denominations, seek to preserve the Constitution's protection of
religious freedom.
m
.
|
