Being a born-again Christian, I have to say that I empathise with many of her beliefs. But, there are too many Christians and christians who are blindly following anyone who espouses their beliefs, without questioning the issue of the separation of church and state.
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
(Please allow me to take a moment to become a professor once again).
The first part (the "Religion Clause") is not saying that you can't trumpet your faith, or use it in a stump speech. It is simply saying that Congress can't make any laws concerning religion.
Never the less, over all these years many laws and practices have been extrapolated from this clause and it is these laws that keep the Ten Commandments and Christmas creches out of public places.
Confusing?
In my humble opinion, this is a good thing because it protects us from the additional offense of beliefs that may not be our own. However, I believe most of the Founding Fathers would heartily disagree. We have grown away from the original intention of the Constitution and have assumed things that were never intended.
Of course it can be argued that as we've grown as a nation, certain situations and circumstances have arisen that the Founding Fathers would never have assumed. Therefore, many people claim that we must adapt. This is where we get the "originalist vs. non-originalist" arguments. (If you're interested in a more detailed discussion, visit that link).
Like or not, we have adapted. So, we can't say that the current beliefs about the separation of church and state come from the First Amendment only. But common sense tells us that if Katherine Harris is allowed to go about soliciting votes from the religious right, she will also be likely to feel the need to strongly represent them if and when she gets to office. And that means that she can push or sanction laws which may be religious in belief or origin, but are not actually impeding any religion.
"Great!" you say. "I'm a born-again Christian! Go Katherine!"
But what if Katherine was someone else? Let's make up a character. Kathar is a man who is very religious. His religion is the the Shantar Faith, which believes that white people are an evil, bleached and bloated blight and women are all seductive temptresses that need to be hidden behind voluminous robes and be given Shantar names such as Mabel, Bertha, and Walla Walla Washington.Cockroaches are his sacred animal, and if he's elected, he promises that all exterminators will be put out of business and anyone caught killing a cockroach will be put in the stocks and pelted with rotten vegetables, according to the Shantar Faith.
Would this alarm you?
Would you grow even more alarmed when you found out that he had a lot of supporters? Would you worry that he might be able to pass certain laws that wouldn't infringe on your religion, but might impede your rights in some way?
Sure you would! Plus, you'd think Kathar was just plain weird. Who wants a total nut job in the government? We have enough of them already!
So if you're in favor of candidates touting their religious beliefs, think twice. And if you're interested in the Shantar Faith, please send me $100 (to cover the costs) and a self-addressed, stamped envelope and I'll be happy to send you a pamphlet.
42 comments:
it is very refreshing to hear from a self-proclaimed born-again christian who still supports separation of church and state. I have used a similar example in speaking with my friends about this. I try to paint them a picture of a religion that is opposite of theirs. Unfortunately, most people around here cannot let go of their faith and imagine for a moment there could be another one to replace it in popularity. And therefore the example falls on deaf ears. They are like "but Christianity IS THE way. The ONLY way. It will never be minority"...and i try saying, "but what if..." Anyway. Good job, great post.
Hmm… I guess it boils down to a personal preference and a right to ‘pipe’ all they want about religion. When the dollar bill says, “In God we trust”-----this can apply to anyone’s God… Or you can simply ignore it and use the dollar with the ‘fairytale’ logo on it. If I was atheist, I wouldn’t care.
Since my faith is in Christianity, I do believe that more and more, our nation will keep throwing the word of God under the carpet. *In my belief*, people will come and persuade you to not speak so freely about God; which is a result of Satan’s work. I know, I know, some people do not believe there is a devil, but I do. I think the devil has gotten into many people who are actively trying to push the ‘don’t talk about God’ rule into the state---people who are even born again.
It amazes me that ‘born again Christians’ and loyal faithful Christians will follow this ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ trend just to please other people. People who are against God; against Christ.
We reject all shameful and underhanded methods. We do not try to trick anyone, and we do not distort the word of God. We tell the truth before God, and all who are honest know that. If the Good News we preach is veiled from anyone, it is a sign that they are perishing. Satan, the god of this evil world, has blinded the minds of those who don‘t believe, so that they are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News that is shining upon them. They don’t understand the message we preach about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God. ~2 Corinthians 4:2-4
Which in my opinion, is a ‘trick’. This whole hiding God concept is what the devil wants. Remember, if you are ashamed of Jesus now, He will simply state that He doesn’t know you either when you finally get up to the pearly gates. This is how it happens; gradually one by one will start to sink into this mindset.
The day will come when they want to put that chip into you—the chip that gives you your own identification number; the number which you can buy food, clothes and everything you need to live…the number which will also be the number of the beast.
Are you going to accept it?
Deb, excellent points, and Christians must always ask to what extent they are hiding their faith. I think it's fine to tell everyone you're a Christian, I think it's another thing to tell people that we need to reclaim America for the Christians.
For me, it’s all about ‘though shall not worship any other Gods’. It’s not about pleasing others; it’s about how it’s always been. Why change it now? Because of immigration? Because people with other religions want to change the way America has been for ages? Or is it just meshing in with everyone else---trying to make everyone happy?
I do know where you’re coming from, Saur, I really do… It’s just scary for me to see it all happening in front of my eyes. And, I do respect other people with different religions and beliefs---I really do… It’s just seeing what’s happening that has been already predicted by the bible…as you know as a theologian. (You are a theologian, right?) I think you mentioned that.
Just scary—that’s all.
And forgive me if that sounds racist or insensitive towards other people of different religions.
Deb, I know hon, and you're not offensive. I also understand where you're coming from. But how about this one to mull over: if it says "Thou shall not worship any other Gods" (as you pointed out) than what does that mean? Is Katherine "worshipping" the god of power? Or should we take it literally and say that she gets a pass because power isn't a god but a concept?
Now take that one step further and ask if it's worshipping God to talk about him to others. It isn't worship, according to Biblical standards.
Anyway, I'm not advocating that she stop sharing that she's a Christian. You and I do that, too! What I'm saying is that she is not simply a Christian when she's a politician, and she must realize that she represents the people in her district, and not simply the people in her religion. And she's giving the impression that she's not aware of that.
I think we are in agreement that our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves over the religion clause and what it has come to mean.
I am intrigued with your example. Passing a law against killing a cockroach has no religious overtones at face value. But as in your example it is against his religion, say Kathar were to attempt to pass a law.
As a Constitutionalist, because killing cockroaches has nothing to do with national defense or the welfare of the nation, congress should have no authority to pass a law on the matter. But as we both know, so many precedents of passing laws well outside the scope of the original founders intent have been laid, that this argument can't fly very far.
So I would have to say, let Kathar try and pass a law. He must have support of Congress and the President, all of which are elected by the people. So unless the majority of people are against the killing of cochroaches, it would never fly. It the majority of people were in favor of killing cochroaches and I were to disregard the fact that it has nothing to do with national defense or the welfare of our nation, then I guess I would have no problem with it.
In conclusion, I have a problem with it but for completely different reasons than you.
Ed, But what if there are others in Congress that are Shantars also? As you know, Congress doesn't always represent the people, or the majority. If it did, we wouldn't be at war right now (for example). So if there are enough people that can get Kathar elected, and there enough people in Congress that agree with Kathar, it might be possible...right?
OK Slick, What a very interesting observation! I hadn't thought of it, but I believe that you're right, that is one way to "make God in our own image," isn't it?
Isn't Ms Harris the lady who fixed Florida for George?
I'm all for the war on Christianity...
I would vote for a Shantar before that witch Harris!
Deb - the "in God we trust" motto on currency is a modern invention. About the same time as "under god" was added to the pledge, "in God we trust" was added to money. The original motto, which is still on currency, is latin for "out of many, one". Or something like that. My ancient Roman is not that good.
The seperation of church and state was something glossed over in the Constitution, but TJ wrote about it in detail (thats Thomas Jefferson). This is where most of the church and state ideas come from. TJ did not like the Church Of England, with the King as the Pope. He did not want a theocracy. So he said that the state and the church should not be one and the same. It is to protect religion as much as it is to protect the state from someone's insanity. Imagine if a bunch of Scientologists got elected!
Harris is holding onto what she thinks will get her elected. I would bet that she leaves her "faith" inside the church when the services are over. She is a simpleton twit who thinks that the fact she has money means she should rule over the unwashed serfs. She is USING RELIGION to get idiots to vote for her.
And she calls herself a "christian". I am ten times the christian she is and I am athiest.
Daniel, you're quite a devil, aren't you? :P As you know, I'm not advocating a war on Christianity. I'm slamming the practice of mixing faith and politics. ;o)
Lazy Iguana, I believe you're probably correct, she's a "Bush Christian" who won't actually behave as a Christian when she's in office. As you point out, she's simply trying to appeal to the masses. But mixing religion with politics, especially to manipulate, is especially heinous. And you're right about the Scientologists. What many people don't realize is that the Scientologists have a plan to infiltrate government and are already attempting to do it at the citywide level of Clearwater politicos. Trust me, I know. So it's a better analogy than you think.
hi saur,
boy, I am not even gonan touch this one..i agree with both you and eb..you both have very valid points..
:)
good post though
i meant gonna...not that gonna is word, but it is where I live anyway;)
I fully expect your "what if" scenario to happen someday.
btw, would you accept $100 in "green stamps?"
We've got a crapload of them leftover from the 7o's.
Well, you know my position on politicans and their postulating of their personal beliefs. Although I do not consider it offensive for someone to talk about his/her beliefs, to make them a basis for h/h candidacy is not appropriate, in my humble opinion.
I love it though. If islam was the faith in question, and it was the koran in our schools, people would flip out.
Christans really ruin things, no offence.
Barbara, we see eye-to-eye on this.
Uncle Joe, Well, you have to understand that all proceeds go to the Shantar monks, who pray (without pausing, except for meals and potty breaks) to the great Cockroach God (Arisixeti: He Who Eats That Which We Cannot) for all women to be subjugated and exiled to the Heilongjiang Province of China. They are also responsible for the Holy List of Names By Which Women May Be Addressed. This takes a great deal of money, and green stamps is simply not acceptible currency.
However, I will consult with them, and see if they might be willing to waive the fees entirely. After all, it's difficult to have a revolution if you can't get your message out.
Bossy Britches, well, I'm delighted you stopped in, anyway! ;o)
Uncle Joe, acceptable, I meant. Urk. My spelling sux today. I think I need dinner...
Alex, well not all Christians ruin things. But some just aren't helping any...
and as I re-read that..I mean Deb..I should really hire someone to do my typing for me..
:)
Lemme add my two cents in here:
separation of church and state goes further back than just England, I think. The founding fathers of our country were much more familiar with the corruption between HRC and the governments of Europe during the middle ages & did not want to see that happen in America.
Even though Harris is a "Bush-Christian" I still think it is good that she is vocal about her faith. Whether that does her good or harm in whatever she's running for remains to be seen. If your faith is a strong part of who you are I say don't pretend to be something you are not.
For too long, Christians have been the silent minority in our government and that needs to change. Even though I think King George is an idiot, the fact that he is vocal about his faith is admirable.
Unfortunately, Shantar monks, scientologists, muslims and worse will continue to gain majority in our government and the world as a whole, while Christianity will get the shaft because of it's apparent "intolerance".
Betta git usta 'dem 'roachiz.
I always knew that cockroaches were otherwordly creatures. I bow to the holy cockroach!
I believe in a strong separation between church and state. I think the founding fathers were wise in this.
We don't want any policy being made based on religion.
Politicians talking about their personal faith and beliefs is perfectly fine with me, but should they propose legislation based on their religion, then I have a problem with that.
If the Scientologists get elected in Florida, it will make moving to Las Vegas a very easy thing to do. People in Nevada have a lot of guns, and know how to use them. Scientologists will not stand a chance.
And Tom Cruise for President?? That is enough to start a mass illegal migration INTO Mexico. It would be amusing to hear President Fox complaining about all the illegal gringos putting a strain on Mexico's social services.
But the fact is that our founders based our laws on Biblical principles---the Ten Commandments being one of the bedrocks. I would think that a society that has these commandments displayed as their guiding light would be a much better society, as ours used to be. After all, what is wrong with teaching children not to steal, or to murder and lie? And what is wrong with telling them once they grow up that they should be faithful to their spouses, and to honor their parents and to love God?
I believe the separation of the ecclesiastical from the civil that our founders had in mind was because their fears were more along the lines of, for example, keeping the Baptists from imposing Baptist views on the Methodists through the creation of laws more favorable to the Baptist view, at the expense of the Methodists and other Christian denominations. In other words they didn't want America to become a Baptist nation or a Methodist nation, etc.
I don't think it ever occurred to them that Paganism would become so prevalent in modern America. And honestly, if there had been more pagans in early America, I don't think they would have given them much of a say in how our Government should be set up.
Sorry, but I'm just not politically correct.
In earlier times in America there was no problem with the public profession and display of the Christian faith, (town squares, schools, government buildings) because most were Christian and even with the differences among the Christian denominations they could at least all agree on something so universal to the faith as the keeping of the Ten Commandments, and belief in the deity of Jesus Christ.
America was born as a Christian nation and set up for a moral people, because moral people have the god-given ability to govern themselves from within, (though not perfectly, obviously) by the Spirit of God. This is why America is failing in our modern day; we can no longer as a people govern ourselves from within. The ideology of America has not failed us---we have failed it. Hence the only other alternative for us is to be governed by tyrants. And this I believe we shall see.
"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
John Adams. 1798
If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.
– William Penn, a contributor to the Constitution
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.
– John Adams
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
United States Supreme Court, 1892
A most thought provoking post, Saur.
Interesting discussion!
Thanks for stopping by my blog.:)
(notice how I very slyly avoiding getting involved in the debate?)
Let me toss this hat into the ring (whether it is relevant to the current discussion is questionable.
Perhaps the Juseo-Christian foundation is crumbling in this country because the foundation laid by the founding fathers has been replaced by a naturalistic, Godless one....
Saur, You should come out for coffee with me and my best friend here in town. We could talk for hours.
It's so good to see a xian who supports seperation of church and state, so thank you. I wish more people were able to look at the big issues objectively like this.
Sadly, they can't as evidenced by Green's quote: "Unfortunately, Shantar monks, scientologists, muslims and worse will continue to gain majority in our government" It's the 'and worse' bit that worries me. Green, you totally missed Saur's point here.
It's all well and good when it's your people who are gaining power, but when people with equally strongly held views (without saying who's right and who's wrong) from the other side start getting their say, well NOW it's a problem.
In my opinion it's politics as usual... and with all her money, just another cheap trick to court the *moral majority*.
Perhaps the citizens of Florida will see past this, as they were already dupped once by this woman in 2000....perhaps not.
Whatever the outcome, I agree with you Saur, church should be kept seperate from state affairs.
In my opinion it should never be used as a crutch to gain political status for any reason.
Shame on Katherine Harris if that is her goal.
ag: perhaps I did misinterpret the view of saur kraut's post.
However, where in my comment do I even mention race? When you get down to it there really is no such thing as race, since all people have descended from the same two people.
You (again) misunderstand the point of my comment, which is not hate based at all.
What I am saying is that in the future (not so far away future in my opinion) there will be one world government and one world religion that will claim to have "religious tolerance" that will in actuality accept all belief systems EXCEPT Christianity. This view is based on the Biblical book of Revelation.
Of course, how can I expect you to understand this view when you do not understand what Jesus taught and what Christianity is all about since you think that the Bible is full of allegory?
Jesus confirmed the ten commandments in His teaching which includes loving your neighbor as yourself (which is hardly racist) and such things as going the extra mile and turning the other cheek and forgiving and loving those who persecute you.
However, in this sense Jesus was intolerant: He taught that He was God and that in order to gain entrance into heaven that you must go through him.
When the Jewish religious leaders of the day questioned him on His traching and authority, He never backed down, never gave ground but stood firm in what He taught.
That He did miracles, healed people, forgave sins (which only God can do) was not enough proof for the Jewish religious leaders.
And the capper: He is the only person to defeat death (what Easter is all about).
How many people in history, aside from Jesus, have died and come back to life again? Answer: zero.
So if my believing that what Jesus taugt is true makes me "intolerant"
then that's fine.
04 April, 2006 23:14
Nice try Bryan, but you are forgetting a few things.
1. The original constitution clearly said that a slave only counted as 3/4 of a white person for census purposes. Slavery was perfectly legal.
2. ONLY white males who owned land could vote. If you rented land (were an indentured servant) you could not vote. Women could not vote. Pretty much only the wealthy landowners were voters.
3. If someone pissed you off, it was perfectly legal to challenge them to a duel and kill them. Thou Shalt Not Kill did not apply to matters of honor or for getting rid of pesky indians on "your land". Killing was only wrong if the person you killed was not black, an indian, or poor.
So how "christian" was this? Would Jesus own a slave, challenge someone to a duel, or kill an indian? Would he agree that only white men who own land have civil rights?
lazy iguana,
to be fair, you should also acknowledge the most ardent abolitionists were fueled by Christian belief.
saur,
i mix politics and religion all the time. i tend to vote republican, not because i'm pro-business or small-government, but because most republicans are pro-life, which is the most important political issue for me because of my religious beliefs. i also appreciate political efforts to preserve the environment and oppose the death penalty because of my religious beliefs. i'll vote for any politician who mirrors my views.
if someone votes for shantar because they also love cockroaches, more power to 'em.
Well written, Green.
Lazy Iguana: I'll give you a reply tonight when I get home from work.
Wow Saur, you are the controversial one!!
I will have to agree with green, bryan, debbie and ts on this one. God is the one who places all authorities and governments in their places. Romans 13.
I do vote based on who I feel would represent my beliefs also, because my faith is such a central part of my life.
It seems there is more animosity toward Christians than other faiths.
In Saudi Arabia they won't let any religion come in and build temples unless they are Islamic. Sometimes I think we take our freedoms to a level that God never intended, especially when we legislate against Him, not to get too deep cause this could be a whole new post!
Not all muslims are terrorists, but in recent time, all terrorists have been muslims.
Not all christians in america are ruining our country politically, but all of the people who are, are christians.
Separation of church and state is important to me. I was very insulted in the Air Force when my last commander pushed religion on our squadron without any consideration for the members of the unit.
On the other hand, when it comes to politics, I'm happy to know when a "pushy" religious candidate is running, so I can vote accordingly. (And for the record, I don't care what religion they're pushing, just don't push it on me thank you.)For instance, in our last town election, a candidate for the school board emphasized his religious convictions in his list of qualifications. (He was a new town resident, having relocated from the south, and probably didn't realize that people around here don't like that.) He lost by a large margin thank goodness! A church pastor is the last person I want on the school board!
My opinions and actions on this earth are based on one motivation:
To store treasures in heaven.
Non christians do not even view this as a possibility and are therefore more concerned with the present.
Do I expect non christians to understand? absolutely not.
is L Ron Hubbard helping organize the Shantar movement?
CRAWL ON!
Mallory, Nope, he's dead. Rumor has it that Tom Cruise himself may be behind the recent upsurge in membership.
Uncle Joe, ;o)
Mindless, and veggies are good for you!
Not So Cranky, I'm with you, though I evaluate each person according their own beliefs. That's why I don't vote democrat or republican, christian or jew, I simply vote for the best person.
Alex, that is a sweeping, generalized, and untrue statement. There ARE Christians who are doing that, but there are non-Christians who are just as ruinous.
Everyone: I'm seeing a general theme here and I want to be very clear: I am not saying you shouldn't vote by your conscience or your faith. It is how many of us are guided. It becomes a mistake when we intend to "take over" a government for our particular religion. And it's a mistake because it is un-American and unconstitutional, even in the most basic sense.
Saur- I know L Ron is dead. Is that relevant in this case? *G*
sorry, I couldn't resist
as for Mr Cruise, everytime he comes out with another "revelation" (most recently his abusive Dad, who is dead of course) his credibility slides further with me
Mallory, well aren't you the little naysaying skeptic???
Post a Comment