News-Record.com

When it comes to religion the government must remain neutral. Merely because most people in this country identify themselves as christian does not give them the right to insert their religious beLIEfs into the workings of our government that represents christians and nonchristian citizens alike. The only government that can succeed in a free and open republic such as ours is a government without religion. When you mix the two together you're just begging for trouble.

Control freaks, that's what these people seem like to me. Not happy just to have a prayer before the start of the meeting, they want to force the government to follow their wishes and who gives a hoot what the Jewish or Muslim or whatever else sorts of taxpayers of the city might think of it.

Is it really asking too much for these Christians to pray along silently (as Jesus instructed them to!) and if they feel inclined, silently add the magical incantation "In Jesus' name" on their own account?

"We're trying to protect religious liberty by making sure the government is neutral,"..............

rom.13:1-7 Rom 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. Rom 13:5 Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

notice in 13:4 it says those in charge
(city commissioners)are God's ministers...how ironic that these ministers would ban God's son name from being mentioned in a public format. not to worry...God is not mocked..... when the great roll call is made (reading from the book of life) many will be surprised who made it and many more surprised who did not make it !! Against Christians Like Us...aka ACLU .............

Buz, you ARE aware, I hope, that the Bible isn't America's or even the state's Constitution. It has no legal force here. Philosophical standing, it obviously has, but legal force -- no. And it's a good thing, too. I'd hate to have to go back to slavery...

rebelsnake I feel the words you posted are accurate for this issue. As noted by eric, where is the respect for those of non-christian belief? Where is the religious liberty that was tantamount in the founding of this country?

What angers me even more is how Dwight Cornelison spoke to the HP Council about what Thomasville's council does regarding prayer. Dwight Cornelison is a disgrace as a councilperson in Thomasville! I say this due to first-hand dealings on behalf of my parent's. Dwight should stay in Thomasville and help to continue to ruin that ghost town!

Shalom

"One of the other speakers, Thomasville City Council member Dwight Cornelison, said his own panel allows rotating prayer among council members without any restrictions and has yet to be sued."

This is the part you were referring to Daryl. I'm not a citizen of Thomasville, but I would be willing to bet that every member of their city council professes to be a christian. I can all but guaran-damn-tee you that should any council member lead off one of their meetings with a muslim or Buddhist prayer, they would be thinking twice about their "rotating prayer policy".

"The only government that can succeed in a free and open republic such as ours is a government without religion. When you mix the two together you're just begging for trouble."

The only thing that should not be mixed is specific religious institutions and government. Religion - all religion - is about ultimate values and principles of living - including Humanism. There can be no government, economy, education, social arrangements, NOTHING w/o religion.

All cultures/nations, from time immemorial, have mixed religion in with governmental functions. Eveything is based upon some kind of moral or ethical principle, from traffic laws to labor regulations. That's the idea behind liberal big goernment programs: to provide good and necessary things for the people (whether it will actually help them or not - welfarism, et al.). Why? Because it's the "right thing to do." So the notion that we can be a religionless republic is utter nonsense!

Christians are fully committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Messianic King; and to working tirelessly for His Kingdom. To accept the tutti frutti religious America is totally foreign to the Scriptures and the Matt. 28:19 & 20 mandate.

We do not believe that any one church should be institutionally the state church, but we do believe in a Messianic America, for only then can God's abundant blessings flow, to us and to every nation. The biblical triune God should be honored in all institutions and aspects of a nation; for "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." Prov. 13.34

So. yes, let us pray everywhere and in all circumstances in Jesus holy Name, that his blessing may rest upon our land and not his judgments.

Oh, let all of us have our own magic spells, prayers and all the rest. When you think about it, even the arcane language and customs of Robert's Rules is fraught with pseudo-magical thinking. And simple greetings are holdovers from folkloric sayings meant to attest to the safety of "well-met" strangers. Prayers only get dangerous if we allow them to become proscribed as to specific wording. My own mother-in-law has said a few prayers around my wife and I over the years, and I try to take it as it is (mostly) intended: expressions of hopes for good health and luck in life. The possible subliminal message of "watch your step, buddy, and come to Jesus..or else", I see as a result of her own fears.

On the other hand, if the rules of these various governing bodies said everyone MUST invoke Jesus, that would be clearly out of order.

The day is coming when many, many non-Christians will be in positions of responsibility in our government. Then, they, too, might wish to recite Hindu or Buddhist prayers, or invoke Allah, or even, perhaps, the Wiccan deities. The subtext for all this should be read as "Hey, let's be mindful of our duty to do our best for the public good." A truly open and diverse society ought to accomodate such well-intended goodwill in a variety of forms. Witness the ugly shouting down of the Hindu religious leader during opening of Congress recently. We don't want that sort of behavior to be the norm, do we?

There was the news story recently about the day the Senate opened business with a Hindu prayer, and some "patriotic Christians" tried to shout it down as "an abomination."

Freddy, it's a sad and pathetic thing to realize how many of our fellow citizens aren't even interested in CONSIDERING whether an "open and diverse" society is a worthy goal. People like these value the exact opposite -- a sealed and homogenous society is their sine qua non for happiness.

"Witness the ugly shouting down of the Hindu religious leader during opening of Congress recently. We don't want that sort of behavior to be the norm, do we?"

Yes!! We do. But actually it's too little too late. Christians have let our culture slip away, or be wrested from them, by secularist opposition forces. Action should have been taken decades ago to stem the tide. Now panicked believers are trying to play catch-up; but the tide is overwhelming - in the courts, and in the culture at large. And all the shouting in the world cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again - at least in the short term.

Nevertheless, I don't really have a problem with shouting down such wanton displays of idolatry in the hallowed halls of American governance. (Well, as hallowed as politics can be). It is indeed an abomination and a shame that false, pagan deities should be invoked in the halls of a nation that began in godly prayer (deistic or otherwise) and submission to the God of Holy Scripture. Only satanic unbelief and hostility toward the true and living God and His Messiah could allow such shameless and wretched apostasy.

But it is only the end result of a long process of liberal, humanist erosion of the Christian consensus in America. But in the end, the blame must rest not on the "gates of hell," but on a weakened, spineless and watered-down Church that lost sight of the fact that the gates of hell cannot stand against the Truth of the Gospel and the Word. The frog has boiled in the pot, and is now thrashing about in fawning surprise. Contemporary Christian losses are more a powerful wake-up call to a flabby and compromised Church than a testimony to the viability of godlessness.

Good for the shouters! It�s OK for starters, but it will take a whole lot more than vocal fulmination to restore the Christian consensus in a nation wallowing in the mire of rampant unbelief and sinful degradation. But all good calls to battle start with a good hearty SHOUT!!!!

" 'Witness the ugly shouting down of the Hindu religious leader during opening of Congress recently. We don't want that sort of behavior to be the norm, do we?'

Yes!! We do."

Nikos, that is the most disgusting, UN-American thing I've heard in a long time. It really sounds like you would be more at home with the Amish in Pennsylvania or the Mormons in the wilds of Utah -- or perhaps the Taliban in the mountains of Pakistan. They all work diligently to avoid contact with people of differing opinions. In fact I recall reading that Mullah Omar (you recall him -- the leader of the Afghanistan Taliban who ordered the destruction of those amazing Buddha statues) was quite proud of the fact that he had never in his life met a single Infidel. He sounds like a soul-brother for you...

"Eveything is based upon some kind of moral or ethical principle, from traffic laws to labor regulations."
Moral and ethical principles are not derived from religion.

"That's the idea behind liberal big goernment programs"...
"Why? Because it's the "right thing to do."

No one needs religion to know what the right thing to do is either. I just love the way some people stretch or condense the definition of religion to suit whatever situation arises.

""Witness the ugly shouting down of the Hindu religious leader during opening of Congress recently. We don't want that sort of behavior to be the norm, do we?"

Yes!! We do."

Nikos, you spread nothing but hatred and bigotry. I feel nothing but pity for those such as you.

nikos,
what eric & rs want from you is for you to shut up, sit down and behave. i applaud you for your voice of reason, though many hear cannot hear it. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life of all mankind and i encourage you to NOT avoid (as you have not avoided)contact with those of differing opinions - to continue to voice a Spirit led comment and be obedient to God's direction. i find it rather interesting that most of those blogging here on a 'religious' thread, are either atheist, humanist or supporters of such. not that this is a bad thing but i would like to see more Christian thoughts as well. keep up the good work of the gospel - peace and prosperity to you !

Interesting, the outcry to silence "religion". Let me get this straight guys, you are all suggesting a mandated, institutional belief system under which any other religion can't be specifically mentioned. But why should your ideas govern? Why should I abide by your beliefs that our society is better off?

The humanists of today are trying so hard to pretend that they are above religion. They are above the religious fray thinking, "I'm so glad am not like those religious people". When asked what decides morality of the laws they say, "society does", well, until its pointed out that several "societies" have decided things that are morally repugnant to them. Finally, after regressive ethical questioning, they are all forced to say, "because that is just what I believe". But they are not content to keep their beliefs to themselves, but rather make them part of the laws of the country persecuting those who disagree.

All the while, the humanists asserts he has no religious. He is merely a referee between the other religions - fully capable of doling out religious rations for society. However, the tide is turning and people are snapping out of this irrational thinking. Of course humanism is a religion. Of course denying one dominant societal ethos is establishing another! The illogic so long perpetrated is slowly being undone.

What will be the result? I don't know. Perhaps it will be to establish the national religion as humanism in much the same way France is doing. Finally making a rational basis for discriminating against other religions, particularly Christianity. Its one thing to say, "no Christian prayer at a public meeting, because we must have no religion" and another to say, "we are a humanist culture and not Christian, thus Christian prayers are allowed". The later is intellectually honest, the former is intellectually dishonesty at its worst.

There will always be a dominant societal ethos, Nikos is only suggesting that it be Christian instead of humanist. So, disagree with Christianity if you must, but don't be so intellectually dishonest as to suggest that you're not asserting that your own religion is better and should dominate culture. Behind Islam, Humanism find itself comprised of the most fervent, vocal, and intellectually blinded followers.

Since when does the government remaining neutral on religion translate into "the outcry to silence religion"? And another thing, this BS about the lack of religion, call it humanism(whatever that is), atheism or whatever label you care to choose, being a religion in itself is just plain stupid.

"Interesting, the outcry to silence 'religion'. "

This is a lie. I am sick to death of hearing the same one repeated incessantly. You'd think it wouldn't be all that hard to at least come up with some fresh ones to make things a bit more entertaining.

BTW, I bet you know what the Bible says happens to liars in the Apocalypse...

"what eric & rs want from you is for you to shut up, sit down and behave. i applaud you for your voice of reason, though many hear cannot hear it."

If you call bigotry and xenophobia a "voice of reason," then I'm glad to be deaf to it. I have no problem with religious and cultural diversity in this country... but Nikos purely hates it and wants it to be exterminated before he feels he can be happy.

He has apparently a long list of people he would prefer not to share the country with. I only have one sort -- the sort who hold as their central tenet of religion to be that THEY are the only ones who should exist.

I'll gladly share my liebensraum with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Wiccans, gypsies, etc. ... so long as they accept my status as an equal partner in the membership of this nation. Heck, I'll even sit quietly in a corner and not get in the way while all of those groups of people take a couple of minutes to pray before opening the business at hand. All that this issue is about is keeping the government from being made into a Christians-only club.

But that seems to be waaaaay too much to ask of Nikos and these yahoos at the High Point council meeting. Frankly, it should boggle the mind of all reasonable people.

“I'll gladly share my liebensraum with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Wiccans, gypsies, etc. ... so long as they accept my status as an equal partner in the membership of this nation.” Eric

That’s so nice that you would share your “loveroom” (lebensraum) with all those folks. But, as for your “status,” I doubt that you would be loved for long if enthusiastic Muslims came to power. “People of the book” have some meager status with them, but atheists and anti-Sharia types can lose their heads. I’m not averse to sharing our nation with whoever happens to come here – legally; but I desire that the Word of God to be the prevailing standard for morality and all public law and policy. Don’t get all hot and bothered, folks, YOU want the same for your humanist worldview. You (not every single one, of course) want abortion, perversion, legalized “recreational” drugs, free sex, gay marriage, socialized everything, Christianity repressed and in the closet, etc.

America was founded as a covenant Christian nation (long before 1776), and continued (more or less) in this vein for almost two hundred years. It is only in the last few decades that we have seen this publicly altered by the enemies of Christ and His Kingdom.

My personal preference is that this be reversed, and that a TRULY biblical worldview direct the course of culture and civilization. You obviously have a different preference. Your tutti frutti approach SOUNDS nice, but it ends up being a nothing view; i.e. it stands for nothing but “inclusion” – which fits the old maxim: “If you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything.” It may give you humanist types goose bumps to hear “Imagine” (there’s no heaven) sung at an Earth First concert, but it will only infuriate the Muslims, perplex the Hindus, and seem irrelevant to the Buddhists. Morality (sexual and otherwise), the biblical model of marriage and family, sanctity of the unborn, virginity, chasteness, holiness and a host of other Christian virtues are foreign to the modern humanist worldview. You dislike Christians intensely (liars, yahoos, bigots etc. as you called us) because we hold firmly to absolute truth and morality - and the prevailing ethos of atheists and humanists is to advocate and approve the very opposite.

Chide and berate us as you will, we STILL will not burn incense to your modern Caesaresque idols of unbelief, perversion, and immorality. Our enduring declaration is: Jesus Christ is Lord. There IS a God of love and truth and Law. His Kingdom shall come, on earth as it is in heaven. For us there is, and never will be, many true religions and gods. As St. Paul put it so boldly and eloquently:

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4. 4-6) “You” is Christians, and “all” does not include those who reject and dishonor the only Savior.

I don't hate or even dislike a person because he or she is a Christian. I really don't. I do dislike any outright form of bigotry, from whatever source. But that doesn't mean I always dislike the whole person who makes a bigoted remark. Happens in class sometimes, but I don't shout down the student, either.

Diversity and respect for the deeply-held beliefs of others (when not foisted against their neighbors intolerantly) is not "tutti frutti". It is the rational attempt to live harmoniously.

If those who would trun this into an out theocracy had their way, would the Inquisition be far behind? At the least, one could predict iconoclastic rages like the Taliban's directed against all forms of naughty and idolatrous images. I presume the hypocrites among the sainted would manage to grab a little porn here and there, though.

Do you really honestly think the majority of Americans, not to mention human beings across the globe, are going to someday all agree that Jesus is the one and only, and all that follows that? The species will become extinct from either man-made causes or some asteroid hitting the planet long before anything like that ever happens.

"Do you really honestly think the majority of Americans, not to mention human beings across the globe, are going to someday all agree that Jesus is the one and only, and all that follows that?"

This effort on the part of these dreadfully insecure people to make everyone the same religion is just a part of the effort to deal with their fears. One way or another, they want to force everyone to think the way they do, believing that it will somehow make life on earth as it is in heaven. It's a common fantasy, acted on by far too many people.

Being uninterested in figuring out how to live in the real world where anyone they encounter might be different in some way is one of the worst outcomes one can get from being religious. It is the very thing that makes religion so dangerous and potentially bloody.

As you say, religious people are generally good, as per advertising. It's just that when things go wrong, they tend to go horribly wrong indeed.

eric,
"Being uninterested in figuring out how to live in the real world".........................

you make it sounds as if a person who professes Christ as Savior has no social skill and finds it difficult to survive daily on planet earth. you make it sound like, if you meet me on the street today that you would intuitively know i'm a Christian with little or no social abilities. fairly arrogant of your part eric. contrary to what you may believe or think about Christians, not all of us start every single conversation with a new aquaintence with "are you saved, do you know Jesus Christ?". scripture encourages us (Christians) to be careful to not cast our pearls before swine. so i tend to listen to a new aquaintence, try to figure out where their head and heart is and eventually if i feel led/compelled to share the risen Christ, then i do so.
you are also wrong about Christians being afraid of those different from ourselves. variety is truly challenging and entertaining and i believe necesssary to individual growth (a social skill). God shows not favorites when offering salvation and He encourage His followers to act accordingly. and "yes", one day every knee shall bow and every tonque confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. no one will legitamately say " i didn't know Him"......

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed or ever. Amen.

sticking your head in the sand and covering your eye and plugging your ears and repeatedly saying nah, nah, nah - may give one a false sense of security for a season - but the reality is, when each of us take our last breath upon this earth, we will be aware of our eternal destiny immediately.
one more note eric, it is not xenophobia that motivates most Christians (i hope) but a God given compassion for mankind, to reach out to them and offer them what God offered us....Jesus Christ,Amen. for this i thank God, for of all people, i do not deserve His mercy.

"you make it sounds as if a person who professes Christ as Savior has no social skill and finds it difficult to survive daily on planet earth."

No, buz. I'm saying that people who want everyone to follow their religion have no interest in developing social skills. The religion in question is immaterial to the problem.

eric,
fault me if you will (and you do), but Christains are charged by Jesus to spread the gospel. according to the scripture we have at our disposal, God has made it clear that the ONLY path to Him is through His Son Jesus Christ - so eric you must see the reasoning we Christians are motivated by. if Jesus is the only way (and He is) then we Christians would be selfish and remiss not to do as He bid us to do. we're not BETTER than you or anyone else - we ARE sanctified thru the blood of Jesus and we feel compelled to share that news in order that you and/or others might place your faith and trust in Him.
here is a scene from the great white throne judgement........."eric is in line with countless others, waiting for their judgement from God, (but already aware that the fact that you are in THIS line, you already know your fate, eternal damnation).....you gaze to your left and you catch my eye - you say to me " you knew ! you new all along!" that Jesus was the only way for me to NOT be in this line but you NEVER told me,,,WHY? i for one do not want to face any in that line and be accused of hording the gospel.
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
is it possible that these tears are being shed because of our lost opportunities to share the gospel ? perhaps.....so you see the onus is upon each Christian to share the good news and if you decline to accept Christ, well then your blood is on your hands not mine and if you accept then i suppose i will earn a crown to lay at my Masters feet on that day,Amen!

"fault me if you will (and you do), but Christains are charged by Jesus to spread the gospel."

That's fine. Do what you want to convince people to join your religion. But how does adding three words to the end of a prayer at a government function help to accomplish this? Seems to me that it puts people off. It's certainly not attractive. Or hadn't you noticed?

When you take away all the trappings and the pretty words and the fluff surrounding religion, as in the major abrahamic religions that is, the entire bible/torah/qu'ran can be summarized with just four little words. When you get down to the real nitty-gritty of the whole deal it all boils down to this:

"Worship god or burn"

Not much of an choice now is it? What sane person is going to want to live like that??

As an aesthetic and poetic way to shape one'slife, religious stories and prayers are more than that, RS.

I don't want to stifle the mention of various gods. I simply don't want any governmental body presupposing one particular belief (monotheism, let alone Christianity) is the single MOST welcome. That smacks of ill-will toward citizens of other creeds, and those of none (or, if you insist, of a humanist bent).

" But how does adding three words to the end of a prayer at a government function help to accomplish this? "...............

eric here is the answer............

Jhn 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

we are to ask "in Jesus name"....... now you understand why Christians close their prayers this way.....not to offend you or anyone else..... we are simply following the edict of Christ. you concede that it is ok with you for Christians to proselyze - so where is the difficulity conceding the ending of a prayer "in Jesus name"?

Buz, my question was how does making a government meeting look like a Christian-only club meeting accomplish your stated goal of attracting new converts? That's the point of this exercise, correct?

eric,
i would agree that (for the most part) government meetings are not the place where one should try to make new converts. but i just don't see how ending a prayer in Jesus name is construed as one trying to win converts.
i have a tendency to wonder of point on occassion - sorry.

Well, looking over this thread, it seems that you and Nikos were making the connection, and I was confused by it -- it didn't make sense. Sure, Nikos was the one who was talking about how the government should be Christian-only, but your tangent about being required to say certain things in your prayers under apparently all circumstances sure gave this discussion a direction toward "looking for converts."

As I've said, I think it's only proper that these not be connected, not in a country like ours, where all people, regardless of religious stance, should have access to the democratic process.

What if, at the end of any prayer/invocation, all members of the public attending the meeting were invited to either echo the "Amen" or else to invoke with a word or two their own deity, thus filling the room with shouts or whispers of the equivalents to "in the name of...Allah, Buddha, Krishna, etc."? how would that go over?

You may have a pragmatic point, Freddy. Allowing no prayers, with no divine names would certainly solve the problem of false religions intruding into the court system; but it would disconnect our American cultural tradition from its spiritual life line - the Law/Word of God. As biblical Christians, our position (and I only speak for some) is that the God who revealed Himself through the Scriptures and His Messiah Jesus, is the Truth and nothing but the Truth.

It is our tradition in this nation to acknowledge Him as such, as the One who provides providential care over us and assures that true justice will be done. The only problem that you, and others who reject Messiah, is that you are not content with maintaining your private unbelief; but in your animostiy and rebellion wish to sever all ties with God and His Word and to relegate Christianity to the status of just another silly, archaic religion to be eradicated, so that Humanism may supplant all and assure people that they can abort their babies, have perverse sex and insitute socialism. That's what this is really all about, not Consitutionality or any other pretext.

Whether I personally do not find prayers edifying does not mean I think others should not be given opportuinity to voice thanks to their chosen deity. I don't believe the running of government would necessarily be impeded by such a scenario as I sketched out. It is only the insistence of some to drown out the whispers or somehow even to invade the very thoughts of others and demand everyone swear the same oath with the same name in the same fashion which would lead to outright tyranny or its concommitant, utter civil unrest as we see now in Iraq.

I am not the sort of humanist you fear, Nikos, who wishes to silence all talk of God. I am not Sam Harris. I do not have plans to advocate wholesale abortion, rampant unprotected and dangerous sex, or (too much) socialism. I would like to see more balance against rapacious and unchecked capitalism, in the name of protecting the populace against unscrupulous "captains of industry". I do think women and their physicians ought to have the greatest say in how to protect the woman's own life in cases of life-threatening pregnancy.

The Constitution you so blithely impugn is sturdy enough to respect the desires of the nation's citizens to worship more than one deity, or none at all, despite your protestations. If it were not, disparate religionists (and agnostics and atheists) would have been constantly at each others' throats, as they were during the worst days of New York and other cities, and the Republic would not have endured. My fear is it will explode someday from exactly these sorts fo zealotries, fomented loclly as well as from abroad. Hence my conviction we need level heads who allow for (if not personally endorse) a multiplicity of opinions on the existence and identity of god(s), lest we all end up as the Shi'a and Sunni and the innocents slaughtered in their crossfire.

" . . . lest we all end up as the Shi'a and Sunni and the innocents slaughtered in their crossfire."

The more we allow and promote a multiplicity of religions in America, who see it as just another aspect of good old American competition, the more we will end up with the scario you're describing -especially if Islam continues to gather momentum here and in Europe. Birtain and France are ALREADY in the grip of this violent and subversive "religion."

America's greatest and most noble foundations are based squarely on the Christian Faith: Marriage, Family, just laws, etc. It was the inspiration of the English settlements, especially the Mayflower folks. The Reformed idea of representative governance, as opposed to the Catholic monarchical system, which dominated the Latin colonies, was a primary and decisive influence in setting up our civil system. The rights we enjoy are predicated on the concept of liberty, so key to the Gospel message of the NT, as well as the lex talionis idea of justice in the OT. The fact that man has longed for freedom and representative assemblies in other times and places, only authenticates biblical truth (Romans 2: 14,15).

The complete and in-depth Messianic revelation of human liberty was revealed and implemented in the NT Gospels and Epistles. If sin is not dealt with and kept in check by laws and personal salvation/redemption we will see our precious freedom and rights disappear; because the universal testimony of Scripture is that sin, and unbiblical ideas, bring bondage and oppression.

This is why Christians desire that the "light of the glorious Gospel" be restored to its place of honor and centrality in all American life and governance. This does not imply oppression or violence to any person or religious practice; but it may involve their having to accede the place of preeminence to Messiah and His Kingdom.

Again, there can be ONLY ONE dominant world view in any culture on a long-term basis. Until that is decided, a culture will inevitably be in turmoil and conflict (not necessarily of the violent sort). America (or any nation) can NEVER have an even-steven, world view pastiche. Only a consistent and unified system can lead a people to greatness - as America did through its Christian consensus. Our moral and cultural decline is DIRECTLY attributable to the rejection of the Christain/biblical world view, and the substitution of a vague and values-deficient Humanism, which sees itslef as so superior to all previous world views that it can now set itself up as the arbitor of all views, as the one authentic truth for the future.

However, without God and His Word of truth, Humanism can only lead to degradation and dissolution. We are already seeing it happen before our eyes in every news program and headline. Anyone who wants more of Humanist "truth" has got to be blind, physcially and spiritually.

Yes, let's pray everywhere and at all times - courts, schools, fotball games et al.- in Jesus' most holy and blesssed name.

"The more we allow and promote a multiplicity of religions in America, who see it as just another aspect of good old American competition, the more we will end up with the scario you're describing -especially if Islam continues to gather momentum here and in Europe. Birtain and France are ALREADY in the grip of this violent and subversive "religion."

Excellent idea, Nikos- let's just delete that pesky First Amendment from the US Constitution and make sure the mirroring words about are similarly erased from the Constitutions of each state. We'll mandate a re-write: office-holders must be Pastafarians, and the only Church which Amerticans can- may, must- belong to , and the only God an American can worship is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Establishment Clause will be re-written to force membership in the CFSM, with mandatory prayer in the public schools. Private schools which teach other religions must be closed, and all public prayers will end with " Arrrrrrgh." Can't wait for National Talk Like a Pirate Day when the government will erect holiday shrines to the Noodley Appendages with our tax dollars and the stores clamor to keep colanders in stock for gift-giving.
And nobody works on Wedmesday- the day Sacred to the FSM.

What? You say you're not a Pastafarian? Tough macaroni, bubba. As Nikos said, we must all believe and worship the same for the Good of the US so you'd better pack up and go to Europe or somewbere.

I think another set of Romans beat Paul and those ever-loving not-very-representative Pilgrims to the punch there, Nikos. The many deists who crafted our nations formative documents looked to the Greeks and Romans just as much or more than the Bible. It is called a "Senate", remember, not the "Sanhedrin" or any other ecclesiastic body. The founders very clearly did not want anything anywhere near a theocracy. Period. No debate there. You are utterly 360 degrees opposed to the basic concept of our particular form of "democratic" republic.

No other nation had ever tried such an audacious thing as to to eliminate any reference to the presiding deity of their majority culture from the governing doctrines and documents. That has been the essential genius of why this country could embrace so many new ideas, and new immigrants. There was always strife as those with differing religious customs came ashore, but each group has added to the collective genius of the nation. If we begin to selectively excise (first atheists, I suppose) all heathens who practice Islam, then Hinduism, then Buddhism, then Judaism, then (maybe the worst, in the eyes of many Southern evangelicals, I find) Catholicism, then...then...

Where would you propose we stop, Nikos? Who will be left in your tiny non-republic? What sort of thought police would you devise for this Orwellian nightmare? It seems to me you will have guaranteed a nice little hell on earth for yourself. In the end, fathers and sons, brothers and sisters will be divided. Oh, yes, I forgot, that is precisely what you have been told must happen for the good of all humanity and the true end to be affirmed from almighty.

No, Nikos. This country is not for that purpose. The patriots who have worked the land just as nobly as any Puritan or Pilgrim, who have served their fellow citizens, who have fought and seen comrades die for liberty, will not let this occur.

Freddy, I say we all chip in and buy Nikos a month's vacation in some small town in rural Utah- and then ask for his perspective about religion, government and society.

Freddy, I did not, and do not, propose an only-Christianity scheme for our nation. Only that we return to the dominant Christian consensus that was held in high esteem by congress, courts, presidents and general public for so long. And when I say return, I do not propose the establishment of a church, laws or sanctions against other religions. The fault for losing this previous unestablished, yet symbiotic relationship of state and Church lies primarily with the Church for becoming liberal and lax and heretical – as well as the efforts of her enemies to prevent her from having any meaningful influence in government or culture.

I would have greatly preferred the Constitution to have acknowledged the Messianic Lordship of Jesus Christ, as well as providing for the free exercise of religion on a personal basis. It is nevertheless a great document and one worthy of heeding and protecting, as far as basic freedoms and governing dynamics. I do not think that the reason for the absence of an acknowledgement of Jesus Christ was in any way based on hostility toward Him or the Christian Faith; but rather a desire to avoid the state church pitfall of Europe. I also reject the idea of a “state church.” There was such a broad Christian consensus in the late 18th century that there was no overwhelming demand for an overt mentioning of Christ, although the biblical God was - in such terms as: Nature’s God, their Creator, Supreme Judge of the world, and Divine Providence. There would have been no doubt in that day as to Whom these ascriptions were directed. If it wasn’t overtly Christian or Trinitarin, it was certainly theistic.

As I said before, no one doubts that ideas about effective governance were drawn from other sources: Greek, Roman et al. This fact has been understood in Christian theology to be the result of common grace. The Bible itself acknowledges the general revelation of God’s nature and Law in cultures across the globe. The biblical idea is that these insights and understandings were the result of the imago dei and of common grace. But because of the fallen nature of man and the dominion of sin, these truths became distorted and debased - hence Abraham, Moses, the prophets and Yeshua - and God’s unique and authoritative Scriptural revelation.

The founding fathers generally had little or no idea that Humanism and other godless ideologies would one day USE the non-establishment clause to “establish” secularism and atheism, and to dishonor Christ, His Word, His Law and His Body on earth. No doubt deism was “involved” to a certain extent; but there was general agreement that we wanted something new and disparate from England AND France: nation and government that judiciously acknowledged nature’s God as the source of true “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and of the Supreme Judge as the source of true law and justice.

The Bible was used extensively as the source of laws, principles and morality in the early years of our republic, built on the foundation of the Great Awakening, almost two centuries of Christian education, culture and church attendance. It was a truly, albeit imperfect, Christian nation, and the Declaration and Constitution were both grounded in that milieu, regardless of its theological diversity.

Even though I believe firmly in the ultimate dominion of the Kingdom of God over this nation and the entire world through the peaceful preaching of the Gospel and teaching of the Word, I suspect that God allowed, perhaps even caused, the Constitution to be writ exactly as it was in order to force the Church to be ascendant in our culture, not by virtue of being specifically mentioned or mandated, but because it truly evangelized the people, and discipled the nation in accordance with Matthew 28: 19 and 20. God does not work top-down, but grass roots up.

I’m not really bothered, however, or greatly disappointed, by the wording of the Constitution. Christians are well aware of the spirit and intent of the people that formed our nation – which involved far more than either the Declaration or the Constitution. I AM VERY concerned about the huge loss of Faith today across our culture, of the abandonment of the very Truth and power that formed, built and prospered our country – notwithstanding all its faults and wrong turns. What nation doesn’t have them? We are losing our soul to porn, secularism, self-centeredness and unbelief – with terrible consequences – to us, our children and their children.

By all means, let us pray everywhere and in all circumstances in that glorious Name above all names.

"I did not, and do not, propose an only-Christianity scheme for our nation."

Really, Nikos? I seem to recall that you've been saying just that here in this very thread. For example:

"I don't really have a problem with shouting down such wanton displays of idolatry in the hallowed halls of American governance."

"Good for the shouters! It's OK for starters, but it will take a whole lot more than vocal fulmination to restore the Christian consensus in a nation wallowing in the mire of rampant unbelief and sinful degradation. But all good calls to battle start with a good hearty SHOUT!!!!"

"America was founded as a covenant Christian nation (long before 1776), and continued (more or less) in this vein for almost two hundred years. It is only in the last few decades that we have seen this publicly altered by the enemies of Christ and His Kingdom."

"Again, there can be ONLY ONE dominant world view in any culture on a long-term basis. Until that is decided, a culture will inevitably be in turmoil and conflict (not necessarily of the violent sort)."

Geez, Nikos -- this really sounds to me like you want America to be Christtians-only. Where did I go wrong in comprehending what you have been writing?

Where did you go wrong Eric? Probably at a low level reading comprehension class. I am perplexed as to why there are so many atheists and humanists on a religion blog - if they all assert that aren't religious....

Notice none of the quotes Eric handpicked mention anything close to establishing a state church. Rather, that the dominant societal ethos should be explicitly Christian. That is our worldview and we feel it to be correct. Eric, why should your worldview dominate? It is your stance that we are better off not explicitly mentioning Christ in public forums, but why? And why should I accept your view?

You see we're debating two worldviews. Yours and mine. All you do is bloviate in endless vituperation about the evils of a Christian worldview, but you have never offered a valid, cohesive argument as to why a pluralistic, humanistic worldview is better.

There has to one dominant societal ethos. Must be. The question is whose worldview is it going to be. Like minded Christians asserts that society should exalt Christ and none others.

Your petulant outcry reminds me of myself when I was a child, shouting, "why not?" and "it's not fair!". But in the end, I realized sometimes doing the right thing isn't fair to everyone involved (in man's sense), but it is just and morally right. One should not strive after what seems to be the most fair in the eye's of man, but what seems righteous and just in the eyes of God. But in the end, "I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man, than a fool in eyes of God".

For folks who are really into regularly believing self-contradicting books as "infallible," Nikos' statements are easy to accept, I suppose.

When a man says he does "not... propose an only-Christianity scheme" and "America was founded as a covenant Christian nation..." in the same thread -- it's sort of hard for those who comprehend English not to see that he's talking with a forked tongue.

Some non-theists participate in blogs about religion because the many concepts that go about under the general term are fascinating as metaphors, as signs of human need and wishes, and as what you call "worldviews". (I do not agree that one single world-view could ever predominate in a world with billions of human beings. The enforcement of one particular sanctioned lifestyle may become de rigeur if tyrants are ensconced in the seats of power, but the views of free-thinking human beings will never be wholly winnowed into some nasty little corridor to be slaughtered like so many bovine feedlots, either.)

You may not want to use Constitutional measures now that the framers disappointed you, Nikos, but you would still have lockstep assention to your chosen way. The means sound harmless enough, all that evangelical zeal and compassionate teaching of the bible; and I am guessing you are completely sure the discipled masses will all have perfect understanding of exactly the same nuances of the Christian faith you do one day.

My great wonder is why a religion blog doesn't offer more opportunities to discuss, say, more than one religion. I'd love if Nancy would be more regular in her attempts to rotate among the various "worldviews" out there, and then maybe we'd attract people who could teach us more on ideas less familiar. What do say, Nancy?

I myself have been refraining quite consciously from being negative and disrespectful towards any ideas on established religions for a while now. I have grown to have an admiration for people with passionate ideals, no matter what creed, as long as they are essentially non-violent and wise. I'd love to discuss the realms of some of Eastern philosophy, of Native American or Judaism, for example, and for a change. By Judaism, I especially mean non-Jews for Jesus sorts of typologizing.

“Where would you propose we stop, Nikos? Who will be left in your tiny non-republic? What sort of thought police would you devise for this Orwellian nightmare? It seems to me you will have guaranteed a nice little hell on earth for yourself.” Eric.

“You may not want to use Constitutional measures now that the framers disappointed you, Nikos, but you would still have lockstep assention to your chosen way.” F.N.

I would like to see an “ascension” to the Christian worldview in our nation; but that won’t happen for a while yet. Guys, we really are having an English comprehension breakdown. I will make another attempt to explain myself. (whew! wiping sweat from brow)

I DO NOT want to force, by government law or decree, assent to the Christian Faith. That would contradict the N.T. MO, which in every instance reveals a PRESENTATION (preaching etc) of the facts regarding human lostness and sin, and the remedy through believing (trusting in) the Gospel. All attempts, historically, to cause mass conversions have not only been unsuccessful, but ruinous, to the Faith. As I said:

“I suspect that God allowed, perhaps even caused, the Constitution to be writ exactly as it was in order to force the Church to be ascendant in our culture, not by virtue of being specifically mentioned or mandated, but because it truly evangelized the people, and discipled the nation in accordance with Matthew 28: 19 and 20. God does not work top-down, but grass roots up.”

This clear explanation was apparently ignored or missed. My position IS: A return to a CHRISTIAN CONSENSUS – not a “state” mandated religion. I am fully for the institutional separation of Church and state. But, as a committed biblical Christian, I DO want a close and vital relationship between government and the Christian Faith, whereby the government assures the free exercise of religious faith, and the Church is FREE to influence and advise government when it opposes God’s Law/Word – a prophetic role, NOT an official systemic control; much like the role of prophets in ancient Israel to the Kings (Nathan and Daivd). This was the relationship, more or less, that existed in the beginning of our republic and continued over many decades - no state church, but a dynamic interchange between the two institutions.

So your accusations of wanting a lock-step assent of everyone in our culture to Christian doctrine and allegiance is a gross misreading of my position. DESIRING that one’s ultimate world view and values system be the regnant ethos of a society is NOT the same thing as wanting a forced allegiance. The Church must earn its ascendant status, not be given it by law or decree. That’s too easy, as European scenarios have proven. A healthy, beautiful butterfly can only emerge through requisite struggle from the cocoon. The Humanist worldview has been dominant in our culture AND government for some time now, with poor to disastrous results.

Do not mistake philosophical opposition from Christians with violent hostility, or a desire to force their view down anyone’s throat. But changing laws and making policy is wholly legitimate in our representative system – as both conservative AND liberal elements have freely done over the years. You seem to enjoy misrepresenting my position for ad hominem purposes. We are simply contending for influence and dominance, as is the Humanist rainbow movement. Honest observers know this to be the case.

As I said, and Paradigm reiterated, there can be only one operative worldview in a culture on a long term basis. We are now in a intermediate, contending phase (libs, Marxists, secular conservatives, Christians, Muslims, etc al), so it APPEARS that there can be multiple worldviews content to compromise, even on vital issues. However, it is foolish and historically naïve to believe this can be a sustainable condition – a myth! It is simply NOT in the nature of worldviews to do so.

We should debate the relative virtues of our contending worldviews, as we often do; but to accuse falsely in order to malign is counterproductive and uncivil.

"As I said, and Paradigm reiterated, there can be only one operative worldview in a culture on a long term basis."

This is Medieval thinking. The Enlightenment, which did far more to influence the builders of the nation of the United States than the Bible, was a repudiation of this notion. The idea that people of varying views might be able to coexist peacefully and come to agreements on governmental issues is at the very heart of the First Amendment. There are innumerable examples that show it is a workable model; the opposition to this effort is destructive and irrational, IMO.

After you explained yourself the first time, Nikos, I did not think you endorsed laws to force assent. I simply hear you over and over that you all but expect assent, desire it, etc., as if it is clearly the single best choice for every living person. That is the problem I am addressing, now that you have both agreed with the framers while also expressing disappointment that the name of Jesus isn't outright called to in the founding documents.

I also do not agree at all that one absolute mindset is inevitable, universally, or even locally. Nor that it should be desired. That is what ultimately does separate believing Christian absolutists from not just secular humanists, but quite a few other actual faiths.

The Enlightenment, which did far more to influence the builders of the nation of the United States than the Bible, was a repudiation of this notion.

First of all, the so-called Enlightenment was not at all bereft of biblical and Christian thinking and ideas. In fact, it owed much of its freedom orented ideas to biblical principles - if not, directly, indirectly. It was the upwelling of cynicism in regard to entrenched Romanist, and to a lesser extent Reformation systems. It was essentially and intellectual reform movement.

But it has been clearly demonstrated that the pervasive spirit of Reform and innovation in Colonial America, which the Reformation had unleashed, was a ciritcal element in the general yearning for representative government and the rights of man decreed in the Scriptures - which were well taught and well-known at the time. Albeit Deism and enlightenment ideas were in the mix.

As it has been said, "All truth is God's truth." Meaning that all legitimate, worthwhile and practical ideas of society and governance spring from the Decalogue and the Gospel. The one lays the moral foundation for a civilized order, and the other the grace to free the soul: both indispenible elements in true and lasting human freedom.

I still assert vehemently that only one supreme moral and ethical system can exist in any culture for long - hence all the change, establishment and change and establilshment throughout history. Marxism replaced Orthodoxy-Czarism in Russia, Humanism replaced Romanist hegemony in France, and Christainity Roman polytheism/philosophy. Any moral-philosophical system is a complete gestalt. All are thought-up and engineered that way.

All Western thought systems (including secular ones) are either a variant of Christainity or an heretical counterpoint to it. Multiple systems may exist as subsets of the regnant one; but only one will directly shape and evolve a culture. And since true, biblical Christainity is the supreme and complete Truth, it must and shall prevail over the entire earth at some point in the development of the Kingdom. It will be quite a while before this happens, but it shall.

eric, good effort. Sadly, those efforts seem to have fallen on closed minds and ears.

And since you know me eric, I believe that you have a grasp of where I am in my spiritual journey. I love you as a fellow human as we journey along life's pathway.

I find some comments above very repulsive and unwarranted. How sad that people with differing views are so often castigated and ridiculed.

If people want to live in a sectarian and/or sequestered society, then I suggest following my friend eric's logic in an above post! America as a whole is not this and should not be sought out to become such. That totally and completely violates the premises upon which this nation was founded!

Shalom