The following article lays out the threat we are facing with radical Islam here at home. Many would contend that it is not just radical Islam that would like to institute sharia law here in the U.S. I wonder what is the percentage of the total Muslim population that would prefer sharia law over our current legal system. To look at the condition American society today I can see how some would be mislead into believing we would be better off with sharia law established.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjEwOTk4ZmIzZGYwOTNlOTRlMTY1OWIxMWNkMmYyYzA=
I would like to make two points and leave you to hash this out for yourself.
1. If sharia law is a threat to our American freedom then it certainly would not have been the right set of philosophies to draft the American form of constitutional government from. (I believe that no other major religion would have been lead to such a government but lets just consider Islam right now.)
2. If Christianity supplied the over arching set of values and principles that American freedom was born out of, shouldn't we have another look at what we got from Christianity that made us so great? Would our troubles today be less if we still held those values and principles?
OK, so that was more than 2 points but who's counting. If we as citizens had a real understanding of what is good and what is evil we would not be easily fooled by anything (especially dishonest politicians). We used to get that ability to discern good from evil from the Bible.
Our Founders did. Up until the time we started to remove Christian influence from our public life, court rooms, class rooms, town squares etc, our success was a testament to their wisdom.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
One Morality Will Prevail
Just in case you thought it an isolated case. The following is another student punished for believing homosexuality to be morally wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/
Instead of deciding these matters of public policy and morality at the poles we have allowed liberal judges, professors and intellectuals to assign us our morality. I would be very disappointed if abortion had become legal via a national ballot but it would not be nearly as grievous as having the moral issue settled for us by an arrogant panel of judges. National debate, open discussion is at the heart of republican governance. Circumventing these is creating a division among our population that is coming to a head. This could be avoided by letting free Americans exercise their freedoms in deciding what our morality will be.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/
Instead of deciding these matters of public policy and morality at the poles we have allowed liberal judges, professors and intellectuals to assign us our morality. I would be very disappointed if abortion had become legal via a national ballot but it would not be nearly as grievous as having the moral issue settled for us by an arrogant panel of judges. National debate, open discussion is at the heart of republican governance. Circumventing these is creating a division among our population that is coming to a head. This could be avoided by letting free Americans exercise their freedoms in deciding what our morality will be.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Here is another example of the open mindedness and tolerance of the left. (HA). I mean no one any harm. Quite the opposite I hope and work for health and healing of everyone.
This is one more example of the fact that one side's morality must prevail. You cannot have two opposing views that are equally treated or preferred without one prevailing over the other. This is an example:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/
Instead of judicial fiat or executive order ruling our public policy we have to force the discussion publicly.
This is one more example of the fact that one side's morality must prevail. You cannot have two opposing views that are equally treated or preferred without one prevailing over the other. This is an example:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/
Instead of judicial fiat or executive order ruling our public policy we have to force the discussion publicly.
Monday, July 5, 2010
American Freedom is Unique and Distinctly Christian
I was sitting in church yesterday during our song service which included our usual patriotic hymns. The Battle Hymn of the Republic came up and we sang all four verses. After reading the words of all four verses of the song the name of the song peeked my interest. I did a search as soon as I got to a computer. WOW, what a bizarre trip through Americana. (Apparently this song stirs up some deep, dark convictions. Google it and see for yourself.) Anyway, I did find some consensus. This song was the theme of the Union Army and adopted by the Republican Party in one of their conventions. It distinctly refers to Christian doctrine:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
I just couldn't imagine the apoplectic reaction we would get from the left if this were once again the song our warriors sang going into battle. This is clearly a violation of the "separation of church and state" clause of the Constitution by the military and political leaders of the time. Why didn't someone shut this down?
(This is a trick question.)
America's Founding was inspired by Christianity. The First Amendment was not to limit Religion's influence on public life and Government but to limit Government's influence on religion. (In the 1700's "religion" almost always meant Christianity.)
The Declaration of Independence is the document that declared our birth as a nation and it makes us the first nation in history to claim the God granted inalienable right of liberty and establish a governmental system based on it. To say there is a separation between church and state is to lose this God given right and leave liberty in the hands of men and governments to barter out. It means we have to abandon the Declaration's founding claims of the self evident truths. Americans used to know this.
Alexis De Tocqueville in his Democracy in America notes of Americans in the 1830's:
"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren, traditionary faith which seems to vegetate rather than to live in the soul." Democracy in America vol 1 p 306
He added on the next page:
"Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot."
Our President and a prominent leader in the Republican party (Carl Rove) have been quoted as saying that we are not a Christian nation. Do they really understand what this means? Do we get to vote on it? I realize that our morality does not live up to the standards of the Bible but do we want to leave the philosophies of Christianity that inspired the birth of our country and it's unparalleled freedoms without a vote, forum or even a discussion?
Christianity gave us, as a nation, more than we realize. One of the most important things it gave us was a sense of right and wrong that transcends the experience of all mankind. We need a refresher of values that guide families and nations through troubling times as well as prosperous ones.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
I just couldn't imagine the apoplectic reaction we would get from the left if this were once again the song our warriors sang going into battle. This is clearly a violation of the "separation of church and state" clause of the Constitution by the military and political leaders of the time. Why didn't someone shut this down?
(This is a trick question.)
America's Founding was inspired by Christianity. The First Amendment was not to limit Religion's influence on public life and Government but to limit Government's influence on religion. (In the 1700's "religion" almost always meant Christianity.)
The Declaration of Independence is the document that declared our birth as a nation and it makes us the first nation in history to claim the God granted inalienable right of liberty and establish a governmental system based on it. To say there is a separation between church and state is to lose this God given right and leave liberty in the hands of men and governments to barter out. It means we have to abandon the Declaration's founding claims of the self evident truths. Americans used to know this.
Alexis De Tocqueville in his Democracy in America notes of Americans in the 1830's:
"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren, traditionary faith which seems to vegetate rather than to live in the soul." Democracy in America vol 1 p 306
He added on the next page:
"Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot."
Our President and a prominent leader in the Republican party (Carl Rove) have been quoted as saying that we are not a Christian nation. Do they really understand what this means? Do we get to vote on it? I realize that our morality does not live up to the standards of the Bible but do we want to leave the philosophies of Christianity that inspired the birth of our country and it's unparalleled freedoms without a vote, forum or even a discussion?
Christianity gave us, as a nation, more than we realize. One of the most important things it gave us was a sense of right and wrong that transcends the experience of all mankind. We need a refresher of values that guide families and nations through troubling times as well as prosperous ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)