Jumping in a bit late, but the thread caught my eye. So to start with our first blurbie:
Quote:
|
A Christian is called by God to worship Him always, and not just in His house of worship. This includes following His commands, commandments and guidance provided by His word, the Bible.
|
*This is a fair enough interpretation of the type of Christian this individual happens to be, though I suspect you could find other Christians who, while doing the same things, would use different justifications.
My difficulty with this section is the use of rhetoric of definition. This is a peeve that is continued in the following section, is how the participants of the charismatic evangelical movements and the religious right in more general terms have co-opted the term "Christian." It is a clever and effective move on their part, though I wonder if what Christians really need is more divisiveness.
Quote:
|
Those who demand a separation of church and state are attacking Christians for their beliefs. There can never be a separation of church and state for those of us who call ourselves Christians. It goes against our beliefs.
|
*This is problematic at best. However, it does hold true to the central arrogance of many organized religions. I'll try to touch on a few points briefly if I can.
1. There is a legal precedent that is in opposition to and effects Christian beliefs, therefore Christians have a moral obligation to ignore or destroy that precedent.
-However, the other legal hurdles that are in place that bar other religious from accessing the same rights that the author is claiming can be left well alone. Consider the practice of polygamy within other religions, as one example.
2. I sympathize with what should be the author's dilemma. On the one hand, a religious calling does effect all aspects of your life. You cannot reasonably separate it from your political views. However, the author does not have this dilemma. The complaint here is simply that the government should be more overtly Christian (within the author's definition of Christian) than it is. Logically, this argument has no legs because the premise for this action: Freedom of Religion, turns out to be the same premise to the counter-argument.
Quote:
|
And for those who do not want Christians to "force their beliefs upon those who choose not to believe," sorry, but Jesus told us Christians to go and make disciples (followers) of all nations. To do anything less would be to turn our backs on God.
|
*Again, I can sympathize at first. I recognize that if a person has a deeply active faith, they feel that they also have a moral obligation to try to save you, me, and other godless heathens. Though I do find his claims a bit suspect. Given that Jesus was Jewish, they probably should be trying to make everybody Jewish. But then, that's a whole different issue.
Quote:
|
Remember this: When God is removed from our lives and our government, it leaves a void to be filled by that which opposes God - in another word, Satan. The government shall not establish a religion, but the government is required to protect religion.
|
*This has a few implications and assumptions that can't really be justified. It assumes that a government free of religion would necessarily remove religion from the lives of individuals. This just isn't so. Even when governments in the past have actively tried to eradicate religion it wasn't so. Furthermore, the assumption that where God isn't, Satan is, is fairly bold conjecture. Since this rhetoric isn't very polished, it is easy to see that when the author says "religion" they mean "Christianity" (as they define it).
Quote:
|
No matter how hard one may try to prove otherwise, this country was founded on religious principles and beliefs. It is important that our children are taught this not only in church but also as a matter of history in our schools.
|
*I'm willing to embrace this idea, however, so long as we take it to it's logical conclusion and discuss all the aspects of the religious history of our country. That ought to scare them pretty sufficiently.
The later point made about the hypocrisy apparent in Christians who adopt a stance which allows abortions is valid one, but only in a kind of interesting way. Presumably the impetus for this comes from the Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.
This particular commandment has a lot of flexibility in it, apparently, certainly more than I or perhaps you might easily see. When I read "Thou shalt not kill." I read it as meaning, *at all*. Given that reading, when we consider Commandments from God, which are pretty big and important things, then we can't have abortions, because that violates the command of God.
However, neither can we bomb abortion clinics, have the death penalty, or effectively make war of any kind. Naturally, this creates something of a problem. I feel confident that the Church was aware of this problem and presented provisos into the text itself, or into dogma, that would allow for such things. This itself creates a problem.
1. If the text stands and means Thou shalt not kill. At all. Then you have the difficulties mentioned above.
2. If the text or dogma has been amended to allow killing under certain circumstance, then there is a different problem, which is going against a direct commandment of God.
It's kinda pesky.
P.S. Nice Aly pic, Bill O'Rights