Constitutional Amendment

[Hans Deventer]

Anyways, no surprises here, no minds changeable nor really listening. it's been fun, catch y'all later.

From the one who brought you: "Say what you want, I'm believing ......."

I appreciate how you include yourself in this.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ya, ya we all have that hope and it's great. I choose not to limit my vision, pessimism just isn't something I'm willing to embrace. America could do more than pretend to be the church, it's actually possible! So yeah, I'm glad that your not gloomy and I'm also glad that I don't share your outlook. The good news can be better than you think.

Absolutely not. This goes against everything that the NT communicates, in every place. Whether it's the Synoptics, John, Paul, Peter, and Revelations, I can confidently say the would reject this line of thought, as it goes against everything they said.

[Wes Smith]

It just seems impossible to me that you all have survived thus far without me weighing in. Had some connection problems yesterday and a trip to the Dr. for a nasty head, throat & chest cold. Am on my way to recovery with new additions to my in-home pharmacy!

I would vote against the ammendment and would campaign against it.

My one-word reason: competition.

I consider myself both to be a continue-er of the mininistry of Jesus Christ (the Church) and an evangelist for His cause (redemption of the entire word in order for his kingdom to come and his will to be done on this earth as in heaven).

Much like Elijah meeting the false prophets on the mountain, we are called to demonstrate "the more excellent way" like salt and yeast in the world and like shining stars in the universe.

If Christians cannot adequately demonstrate Christ and live the Christ-life among the nations, I seriously doubt that establishing a constitution declaring Him King would do anything but result in multi-directional animosity.

If such language would be included, I would be forced to leave the United States and live elsewhere. Oh, wait, I've already done that.

While I long for the world Jesus prophesied in his model prayer, I do not see that world coming about via any political or human-led procedure or process. It will come about through prayer and participation in the Great Commission and Great Commandment! (That'll preach. Love those "P" words!)

That's my post, but I do have another post simmering in my spirit. On NazNet we seem to have an almost infinite capacity to talk "about" the Kingdom. What is simmering has to do with enthusiastic discussion (forum) about our efforts "in" the Kingdom. When a believer thinks of him/herself in terms of salt, yeast, light, seed, pearl, and, etc., EVERYTHING changes. Every breath, every word, every thought becomes profoundly sanctified (for better or for worse) and we become these amazingly contagious folks who are constantly and aggressively living the Christ-life..organically and systemically and proactively living out the truth that we will do even greater things than Christ. This is radical and not one of us can plumb the depths of such a privilege.

My point is that I would love to see, much like the "never ending thread" on NazNet, a parallel thread that would keep our noses thoroughly engaged with the grindstone of being do-ers of the Word and not just hear-ers. (Where we would post our life and daily plans to share Jesus in our world.) Such a thread would keep us inspired and keep us accountable for plotting the overthrow of this darkened world. Perhaps the thesis of this thread was the tipping point for me. No, I do not believe that we can legislate or establish the Kingdom of God in a political or governmental sense, but I do believe with all my heart that not one of us truly knows who we are in Christ! We are profoundly more...and I long for the day when we are having more impact on the world than the world is having on us!

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Scott]

I voted no because a Christian nation is an oxymoron and thus impossible. I would not want the Constitution to make our nation hypocritical; I prefer to leave that to Congress.

[Hans Deventer]

In reply to the poll question: No, because amending the US Constitution is none of my business. And if it were, I do not believe laws change people, it is only the Holy Spirit who does.

[Billy Cox]

I voted no because a Christian nation is an oxymoron and thus impossible. I would not want the Constitution to make our nation hypocritical; I prefer to leave that to Congress.

Apparently this christian amendment idea is older than all of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_amendment

[Mike Schutz]

I do not offer this in any way as an attempt to convince anyone - only as an explanation of my perspective:

Why the Nations Rage
by Rich Mullins

Why do the nations rage?
Why do they plot and scheme?
Their bullets can't stop the prayers we pray
In the name of the Prince of Peace
We walk in faith and remember long ago
How they killed Him and then how on the third day He arose
Well, things may look bad
And things may look grim
But all these things must pass except the things that are of Him

Where are the nails that pierced His hands?
Well the nails have turned to rust
But behold the Man
He is risen
And He reigns
In the hearts of the children
Rising up in His name
Where are the thorns that drew His blood?
Well, the thorns have turned to dust
But not so the love
He has given
No, it remains
In the hearts of the children
Who will love while the nations rage

The Lord in Heaven laughs
He knows what is to come
While all the chiefs of state plan their big attacks
Against His anointed One
The Church of God she will not bend her knees
To the gods of this world though they promise her peace
She stands her ground
Stands firm on the Rock
Watch their walls tumble down when she lives out His love

Where are the nails that pierced His hands?
Well the nails have turned to rust
But not so the Man
He is risen
And He reigns
In the hearts of the children
Rising up in His name
Where are the thorns that drew His blood?
Well, the thorns have turned to dust
But behold the love
He has given
It remains
In the hearts of the children
Who will love while the nations rage
While the nations rage

Well, where are the nails that pierced His hands?
Well the nails have turned to rust
But behold the Man
He is risen
And He reigns
In the hearts of the children
Rising up in His name
Where are the thorns that drew His blood?
Well, the thorns have turned to dust
But not so the love
He has given
Oh, it remains
In the hearts of the children
Who will love while the nations rage

[Benjamin Burch]

The "two anointed" are the King and the Priest.

I realize that. I'm more interested in how this applies to the conversation we are having, within the context of your response to my statement.

That is, can you flesh this out for me?

[Lucas Finch]

I do not offer this in any way as an attempt to convince anyone - only as an explanation of my perspective:

Why the Nations Rage
by Rich Mullins

One of my favorite Rich songs!

[Roy Richardson]

I do not offer this in any way as an attempt to convince anyone - only as an explanation of my perspective:

Why the Nations Rage
by Rich Mullins

Why do the nations rage?
Why do they plot and scheme?
Their bullets can't stop the prayers we pray
In the name of the Prince of Peace
We walk in faith and remember long ago
How they killed Him and then how on the third day He arose
Well, things may look bad
And things may look grim
But all these things must pass except the things that are of Him

Where are the nails that pierced His hands?
Well the nails have turned to rust
But behold the Man
He is risen
And He reigns
In the hearts of the children
Rising up in His name
Where are the thorns that drew His blood?
Well, the thorns have turned to dust
But not so the love
He has given
No, it remains
In the hearts of the children
Who will love while the nations rage

The Lord in Heaven laughs
He knows what is to come
While all the chiefs of state plan their big attacks
Against His anointed One
The Church of God she will not bend her knees
To the gods of this world though they promise her peace
She stands her ground
Stands firm on the Rock
Watch their walls tumble down when she lives out His love

Where are the nails that pierced His hands?
Well the nails have turned to rust
But not so the Man
He is risen
And He reigns
In the hearts of the children
Rising up in His name
Where are the thorns that drew His blood?
Well, the thorns have turned to dust
But behold the love
He has given
It remains
In the hearts of the children
Who will love while the nations rage
While the nations rage

Well, where are the nails that pierced His hands?
Well the nails have turned to rust
But behold the Man
He is risen
And He reigns
In the hearts of the children
Rising up in His name
Where are the thorns that drew His blood?
Well, the thorns have turned to dust
But not so the love
He has given
Oh, it remains
In the hearts of the children
Who will love while the nations rage

Thank you, thank you, thank you Mike. I love the song, and it is spot on.

[Rich Schmidt]

Current poll results:

Yes: 4
No: 25

[Jon Bemis]

I would vote no in that I do not believe that political systems are the means by which the Kingdom of God is built. While I think that we should influence political decisions to the degree we can I also think that it is a false hope to think much good comes from that avenue.

[Jon Bemis]

I would not want the Constitution to make our nation hypocritical; I prefer to leave that to Congress.

IMO Congress is especially adept in this regard.

[Kevin Rector]

This thread slipped past my attention (I've been busy being out of the country and am just now getting back to "real life". Anyway, this is clearly not fit for the General Discussion forum, and it's not really current events, so I'm moving it to the General Theology forum, because the basic question at play is one of a theology of politics.

I know the thread has mostly run it's course... or so it seems, but I figured I'd move it for house keeping purposes.

--Host Post--

[Rich Schmidt]

Current poll results:

Yes: 4 (11.76%)
No: 30 (88.24%)

PS - I know anyone can see the current results at the top of the thread. I like to post them every now and then because I sometimes find it interesting to look back later at how results changed over time.

[David Gerber]

I'm not sure history bears out a positive result when this is tried. OF course, I could be wrong...I'm good at that.

[George Wallace]

Well as Kevin said this thread appears to have run its course. I thank him for moving it to theology for it is truly a theological question, I just didn’t want that to be a presupposition on anyone’s part in the beginning. At least until 3 more voted in favor it was pretty obvious that it was Jim against the world! It should also have been obvious up to the point that others voted in favor that I had not voted in my own poll. I really wanted to see how others voted and why.

See, I recently finished my final paper in my Reformed Presbyterian (RP) History class. My assigned topic was The Christian Amendment Movement. (CAM) (Could you tell? ) So while I am certainly not an expert, it was only a 10-12 page paper, I did do a lot of research and I wondered how this movement’s goal of Constitutional Amendment would play in a broader 21 st Century context. What was it Rich 89% against to 11% in favor?

Knowing the history here helps. Those here who viewed it as theocratic or an unholy alliance of Church and State, well, that really couldn’t be farther from the truth, the efforts were RP led and they/we don’t have an Erastian bone in our body! Simply put, the Church takes care of Church stuff (without interference from the state) and the State takes care of State stuff (without interference from the Church). Even if it doesn’t appear that way that was the intent, the difference being that their thinking on these things is that one of the things the State should do is make it easier for the Church to be the Church. All of this is rooted in a doctrine called the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. This doctrine is more robust, but the part that has implication here is that Christ is King of ALL, both Church and State. Matthew 28:19 for example.

There may be some naysayers in Naznet land, but my presumption is that most would say that yes Christ is King over all, and yes the nations should bow the knee to Christ and recognize His kingship, (notice I said should). The question then remains, is a Constitutional Amendment the correct or a correct vehicle or mechanism for this effort, and yinz said NO!

The RP Church is the remnant of the Covenanters, which in the beginning was simply another term for Presbyterians, but quickly came to signify a specific branch of Presbyterians. Again history helps, so if you’re not a history buff here where you should stop reading.

First the 1638 The Scottish National Covenant (actually the second one)- Charles I had been trying to impose Prayerbook worship and Episcopacy upon the Scottish Kirk this wasn’t received well Google Jenny Geddes. Next came the Civil War. The Parliament in order to secure Scot help to defeat the Royalists signed the Solemn League and Covenant, which stated that Scotland was forever given the right to the Reformed and Presbyterian religion and that England, Ireland were to reform their Church along the same lines. To the Scots this was not just a political agreement but a Covenantal bond before God Almighty – thus inviolable.

The English executed Charles I. The Scots/Covenanters were not on board with this. So as part of an agreement to recognize Charles II as king, he too signed on to the Covenant. (It was really more like coercion, but that is another story.)

So when Charles II took the thrown he promptly set about doing the exact opposite of what he swore to in the Covenant, later even burning it publicly. So, this set the Covenanters almost forever on a course of political dissent. They would not be told what to do by a Covenant breaking King (at least where matters of faith were concerned.)

So after, many Covenanters made their way to North Ireland where they could practice their faith a bit easier, but then came the Killing Times and many Scotch-Irish Covenanter fled to the Colonies. Here too they practiced political dissent. But after the American Revolution what do you do? It’s a new country with no part in the Covenants? So most joined the Seceeders (another bowl of the split P soup that is Presbyterianism).

The rest could not stop their political dissent for several reasons, but these eventually boiled down to two. 1) Slavery, that is the US Constitution allowed for slavery and the Covenanters could not abide this. 2) Because they believed Christ was king over all, both Church and State, it was appalling to them that the Constitution held out no higher power than “we the people.” The inalienable rights were derived from Christ and not to recognize this was an abomination. Again this rises out of the Meditorial kingship of Christ, not a desire for theocracy or Erastianism. They believed in Zechariah 4:14 aka the Two Sons of Oil, that is that God ordains both the Church and the State separately but they both fall under Christ kingship.

So the US RPs would not vote, hold office (any that required an unqualified oath to the Constitution) ect. So, after years of political dissent it became the mission to say, hey we love it here too, we are patriotic too, but our highest allegiance is to Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and under the US system there was opportunity for amending the Constitution. So in 1843 they first petitioned to have the Preamble changed. Again in 1863 they gained audience with President Lincoln who was in favor of such an amendment but was assassinated before doing anything. In the 1860s the National Reform Association was born. Part of its charter was to work toward this amendment. But it also worked for Temperance and other social issues. (think Naz CCC) So, in the 1940s RPs led a new movement CAM whose sole goal was to lobby for the amendment. That, and get the word out, by speaking engagements, tracts, meetings, a radio show and a publication - The Christian Statesman. From 1946-1971 the proposed amendment I stated this thread with was put before Congress, by Congress at the pleading of CAM which had grown to many churches bedsides the RP.

I agree with many of the commenters here, I don’t think I would trust Congress to pay more than lip service to such an amendment if it ever past. But, honestly that is anachronistic thinking. You see those who fought for this truly believed in it as a real vehicle for change. It wasn’t some political shenanigans, but a heartfelt step on their part to try and get the country to turn from their wicked ways. Call them naïve, call them overly reliant or trusting upon a move of the Holy Spirit, call them ignorant in a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington kind of way, but truly it is hard, once you are aware of they history and the loving and sacrificial effort many made, to be cynical or question their motives. Simply put, they just believed that if Christ is King of All then he should be recognized as such and that that recognition would be a blessing to all.

Knowing what I know about the state of the US political system today, I could not condone such an action as they undertook. But looking back, trying to place myself in the post US Civil War and post WWII mindset, well, if I had been living at either of those times in our history, I’d probably been right there with them.

Disagreement is fine, questioning their motivations is not.

Thanks for participating and sitting through the History lesson if you made it this far!

George

[George Wallace]

Also I thought this might be helpful to a degree. Especially for those who drifted off about half way through my last post.

It certainly is not the same understanding as the Covenanters had, but it is similar. It also speaks to a 21 Centery Chrsitian not a 19th or 20th. But, I HATE his use of a MADE UP WORD CHIRSTONOMY! It is to close and too easily confused with Theonomy which is a whole different system... Theonomy is like Christian OT version of Sharia Law balaughk!

[Rich Schmidt]

Knowing the history here helps.

Yes, it does. Thanks so much for sharing it. That was interesting.

[Eric Frey]

[Eric Frey]

[Eric Frey]

[George Wallace]

Wow! I guess I am going to have to read that one book of Boyd's

In the Second video post #101, he is quite impressive at 7:21-8:07 and the quote read by Rose at 9:32 to the close both sound like they were from Covenanter ministers!

They did/do truly abhor so called "Civil" Religion, many of the old-timers I know won't say the pledge, some won't stand for the Anthem.

Only 2 negatives I found were, I cannot agree with Boyd's self-assessment as a "Conservative Evangelical" an Open View CV guy is conservative? And two, I don't believe, in a Mega Church model. If he has 4-5 thousand people in a congregation I believe that's just wrong. That should be 25-40 individual congregations.


Good Stuff

I love that part about despising the fusion of Christianity and American Nationalism!

I've read a ton on his web site and several of his articles in books, and I can say truly I never thought I would agree with him on the color of the sky or even the grass, but I guess I stand corrected - a bit- because when it comes to at least some of Boyd's ideas about Christianity and Civil Government I am in agreement.

George

[Larry Parsons]

South Karea is full pf light,productivity and the gospel. It a free country and one of the most Christianized counties in the world. There is North Karea is a country that has no freedom, very little food, and almost no Christianity. What made the difference in those two countries? Is it because the laws each of these country have? just asking.
Thanks
Larry

[Joseph Ellis]

I voted no, but I certainly would support a Congressional resolution with the first statement: "THIS NATION DEVOUTLY RECOGNIZES THE AUTHORITY AND LAW OF JESUS CHRIST, SAVIOR AND RULER OF NATIONS, THROUGH WHOM ARE BESTOWED THE BLESSINGS OF ALMIGHTY GOD."

I think a constitutional amendment goes too far, plus there is no language in this proposed amendment that strengthens religious freedom. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing an amendment that clarifies the 1st amendment as freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion and that specifically states the freedom to practice religion in public space.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think a constitutional amendment goes too far, plus there is no language in this proposed amendment that strengthens religious freedom.

How does one get more religious freedom than we have in America? Our freedom is at 100%. I don't get how we could hope for any more.

[Joseph Ellis]

How does one get more religious freedom than we have in America? Our freedom is at 100%. I don't get how we could hope for any more.

Ben,

I agree we currently have complete individual freedom of religion. However, I think there is room for religious freedom within the public square to be clarified and strengthened. I don't believe that the founders ever envisioned a public school teacher being disciplined for leading his or her students in prayer. There seems to be a sense that you have a right to practice religion so long as it is not done on public property or in conjunction with serving in a public office or some other public duty. I don't think the first amendment was ever meant to restrict Christian monuments on public lands or public prayer or even a public acknowledgment of our reliance upon the God of the Bible.

[John Kennedy]

Ben,

I agree we currently have complete individual freedom of religion. However, I think there is room for religious freedom within the public square to be clarified and strengthened. I don't believe that the founders ever envisioned a public school teacher being disciplined for leading his or her students in prayer. There seems to be a sense that you have a right to practice religion so long as it is not done on public property or in conjunction with serving in a public office or some other public duty. I don't think the first amendment was ever meant to restrict Christian monuments on public lands or public prayer or even a public acknowledgment of our reliance upon the God of the Bible.

I don't think the founders ever envisioned public school, let alone public school teachers, etc. and regard attempting to bring in their support on this issue and essentially irrelevant.

I spent 36 years in a public school classroom. I can assure you that I did my share of praying in school - I just didn't do it out loud. My students (and their parents) knew that I was a person of faith, but, had I attempted to lead a prayer in my classs I would have deserved to be disciplined.

I have NO business attempting to foist my belief system on my students. Had it been done to my child, in a public school classsroom, I would've been one of the first to protest.

I spent a number of my school years as a student in a Utah public school, and it forever shaped my perspective on the separation of church and state. IMO they can't build the wall high enough.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben,

I agree we currently have complete individual freedom of religion. However, I think there is room for religious freedom within the public square to be clarified and strengthened.

This already doesn't compute with me... We are allowed to practice our religion in the public square as much as we want...

I don't believe that the founders ever envisioned a public school teacher being disciplined for leading his or her students in prayer.

Why in the world should you be allowed to force your religion upon students whose parents don't agree with your religion? That is ludicrous. You are allowed to pray for your students all you want. You are not allowed to lead a Muslim student in Christian prayer when that Muslim parents are paying your salary and object to it.

Again, this is absurd. There is no intrusion on religious freedom on the Christian teacher, here. A Christian teacher leading a Muslim student in prayer publicly is intruding on the Muslim parents' religious freedom.

There seems to be a sense that you have a right to practice religion so long as it is not done on public property or in conjunction with serving in a public office or some other public duty.

Again, technically not true at all. You have the right to practice your religion on public property and in conjunction with serving in a public office. You do not have the right to lead others who may or may not share that religious faith, in the practice of your religious faith, while being paid by many who do not share that religious faith.

I don't think the first amendment was ever meant to restrict Christian monuments on public lands or public prayer or even a public acknowledgment of our reliance upon the God of the Bible.

America has never relied upon the God of the Bible.


One last consideration.... we act as though it'd be okay if Christians teachers could lead prayer. However....

(1) What if a Muslim teacher was leading your student in prayer? How would you feel?

(2) A Reformed Baptist leading my child in prayer is the scariest thing imaginable and I will never want that happening. Ever. Especially not when my tax dollars are paying that teacher. Over my dead body.

[Larry Parsons]

Just asking. Wasn't America founded as a Christian Theocracy, not as a secular nation. Right? Those who left Europe did so in order to further God Kingdom. Right? The establishment of civil government was a tool to establishing the Christian religion in America. Right? If the State is not actively promoting the Christian faith, then it is actively destroying it. Right? Biblical Theocracy is not the Roman Law-type rule by the clergy, seen in the Crusades and Inquisitions. Right? Isn't Biblical Theocracy is just decentralizing the Rule of God's Law. Right?
Thanks
Larry

[John Kennedy]

Just asking. Wasn't America founded as a Christian Theocracy, not as a secular nation. Right? Those who left Europe did so in order to further God Kingdom. Right? The establishment of civil government was a tool to establishing the Christian religion in America. Right? If the State is not actively promoting the Christian faith, then it is actively destroying it. Right? Biblical Theocracy is not the Roman Law-type rule by the clergy, seen in the Crusades and Inquisitions. Right? Isn't Biblical Theocracy is just decentralizing the Rule of God's Law. Right?

Larry -
Thanks
Larry

Right?

Wrong!!!!

[Joseph Ellis]

This already doesn't compute with me... We are allowed to practice our religion in the public square as much as we want...

Why then have courts ordered Christian monuments be removed when they were put there by the will of the people?

Why in the world should you be allowed to force your religion upon students whose parents don't agree with your religion? That is ludicrous. You are allowed to pray for your students all you want.

Why should leading your students in prayer be considered forcing your religion on someone? This does bring up an interesting question, however: Is it ethical to evangelize children against their parents' religion?

Again, technically not true at all. You have the right to practice your religion on public property and in conjunction with serving in a public office. You do not have the right to lead others who may or may not share that religious faith, in the practice of your religious faith, while being paid by many who do not share that religious faith.

I would argue that I should be allowed to lead others in the practice of my religious faith while being paid by many who don't agree if it is in line with the performance of my assigned duties. If most do not like what I do, the correct recourse in that situation is that I should be fired through the election process. However, in most cases, the electorate desires Christian leadership provided by those elected officials who provide it. That often is a key reason they were elected in the first place.

America has never relied upon the God of the Bible.

It's difficult to know exactly what scope you are talking about here, but as I see it, I don't think this statement is accurate.

(1) What if a Muslim teacher was leading your student in prayer? How would you feel?

(2) A Reformed Baptist leading my child in prayer is the scariest thing imaginable and I will never want that happening. Ever. Especially not when my tax dollars are paying that teacher. Over my dead body.

I wouldn't have it. But why go to court to stop it? I would simply remove my child from that classroom. It is my right to do so. I can reject the Muslim prayer without restricting the religious freedom of the Muslim teacher.

[Jim Chabot]

America has never relied upon the God of the Bible.

Sure it has.

[Joseph Ellis]

Just asking. Wasn't America founded as a Christian Theocracy, not as a secular nation. Right?

I'm not sure where I've seen anyone advocating a theocracy. However, a nation that publicly acknowledges a reliance upon God need not be a theocracy in the sense that we would all fear. The freedom that we celebrate in this country is God's idea. The freedom to reject God is given by God. Of course, this isn't without consequences, but it is a God-given freedom regardless. No one is advocating state religion that punishes those who do not endorse the faith of the state. Clearly our founders meant to avoid that system. But I am advocating a state whose leaders are vocal Christians who allow the Holy Spirit to guide their decisions. The state cannot be Christian, but its leaders and its populace can. I don't see any problem with Christian leaders who are so God-centered that everything they do revolves around the leadership of the Holy Spirit, including governing.

[Rich Schmidt]

But I am advocating a state whose leaders are vocal Christians who allow the Holy Spirit to guide their decisions.

Have we ever elected a President who didn't publicly confess to being a Christian? (I'm not sure if talking publicly about their faith in Jesus Christ counts as "vocal" for you or not.)

I can't speak to how Spirit-led they've been, as I'm not privy to their private prayers and decision-making.

[Benjamin Burch]

Sure it has.

Absolutely not. My Christianity is not so cheap and vain. There is nothing here about Jesus christ, nothing about the creeds, nothing about the trinity, nothing about the Logos. ....

Nothing about the god of the Bible. Nothing.

[Benjamin Burch]

Why then have courts ordered Christian monuments be removed when they were put there by the will of the people?


Why should leading your students in prayer be considered forcing your religion on someone? This does bring up an interesting question, however: Is it ethical to evangelize children against their parents' religion?


I would argue that I should be allowed to lead others in the practice of my religious faith while being paid by many who don't agree if it is in line with the performance of my assigned duties. If most do not like what I do, the correct recourse in that situation is that I should be fired through the election process. However, in most cases, the electorate desires Christian leadership provided by those elected officials who provide it. That often is a key reason they were elected in the first place.


It's difficult to know exactly what scope you are talking about here, but as I see it, I don't think this statement is accurate.



I wouldn't have it. But why go to court to stop it? I would simply remove my child from that classroom. It is my right to do so. I can reject the Muslim prayer without restricting the religious freedom of the Muslim teacher.

Sorry about that. I was doing drive-by reading and wanted to get my "input in", and that was stupid of me. I'm sorry.

However, what bothers me about this post is that it is based upon a backwards understanding of freedoms and rights and the way they work in the USA. Rights are not something we are free to use in reckless fashion without regards for the rights of others. Our rights have always ended where others begin. My right to own and fire a gun ends at another's right to live. My right to say whatever I want ends at others' right to truth/integrity.

Our right of religious freedom ends where it begins to be forced upon others. Public school is for everyone, from all faiths. Therefore, it is absolutely not my responsibility to remove my child from a school that my taxes have paid for if I don't like the religion being forced on my child. Instead, it is the school's responsibility to ensure that every student has the freedom to practice their religion at school without any interference from teachers, and without adults having undue influence upon impressionable students without their parents around and against their parents' will.

So, I'm very sorry for the way I worded my post originally. I shouldn't have done that. I do, however, still hold to the basic point - I disagree with your entire post, because it works from a backwards -- and wrong -- understanding of how religious freedom, and freedoms in general, work in the USA.

[Jim Chabot]

Absolutely not. My Christianity is not so cheap and vain. There is nothing here about Jesus christ, nothing about the creeds, nothing about the trinity, nothing about the Logos. ....

Nothing about the god of the Bible. Nothing.

I'm not going to argue with you Ben. You can throw darts at the Christianity of others all you want. You don't have a clue here.

[Joseph Ellis]

Everything in this post is wrong. Period.

I assume that by this, you really mean: "I disagree with everything you wrote and I have no desire to discuss it with you."

[Hans Deventer]

Happy to see how everyone agrees here that the other doesn't have a clue and therefore discussing it makes no sense. I like unity.