Cobb

I have two post on this very subject. I focused on how one interprets the bible and how that interpretation is guiding political discourse. But things are not looking good for those of us that appreciate religion but know that its role is a limited one in a free society. Karl Rove is winning.

How would you propose breaking their grip on the Republican Party? Will there have to be a split because those folks are like weeds killing all of the grass?

John Adams and Ben Franklin shouldn't be ignored..

I don't consider myself a christian fundamentalist in any way shape or form. Haven't attended church for anything but weddings and funderals in about 13 years.

However, I will take umberage to the "separation of church and state". You see, there isn't one in the Constitution. There is a phrase that says "The Congress shall pass no law...", and if you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, Jefferson's writings, etc. You find that what that phrase was intended to mean was that we wouldn't adopt a single national religion. It was directly aimed at England and the Anglican Church.

The "Separation doctrine" is an invention of the court in the early 20th century, when they decided that "The Congress" meant ANY government body that made decisions. Again, a reading of the Federalist Papers would have shown that the folks who wrote the Constitution meant the Federal Government at any point they referred to "The Congress".

Even though I'm decidely not religious, I'm more afraid of those who fear the idea of God than those who embrace it.

I think that in the end, we'll find that what we have to fear from fundamentalism is very much like what we have to fear from colorblindness as an ethos.

When it came down to dumbing down the substance of Civil Rights protections in law, you could basically get a class of ignorant voters to form a majority, as we saw with Prop 209. But there is only so far you can go with sloganeering. In the end somebody has to write a siimpler law that slashes through the complexities of settled law. Furthermore the implications of what it means to institutions has to creep out. There is plenty enough time to see whose ox gets gored if and when fundamentalists try to go too far.

I think that if we reduced the size of government bureacracies then the separation doctrine might give you less of a headache.

I ran into trouble from the very first item on your list. If given a choice between the Constitution and the Bible for what? The Bible is the written Word of God designed to reveal the Creator to his creation. My allegience to God and the Word of God allows me to see that the principles of the US Constitution are good about as good as we're going to get this side of eternity. It allows me to see that humanity is imperfect and we will get things wrong as often as we get them right but we can be redeemed when we make mistakes. My allegience to God and the Word of God requires that I fulfill the responsibilities of a citizen of the earthly nation that I am a part of. It allows me to see that my responsibilities are different from those of the government that rules over me (and in the case of the US am exppected to be a part of, government of the people by the people and all of that).

Yes I am concerned about current practices claiming to adhere to separation of church and state because I think current practice violates the Constitution.

Christmas may or my not be under attack but people are certainly trying their hardest to give a religious holiday a secular identity. It is the responsibility of the religious to maintain the religious meaning of Christmas not the secularists.

As a Christian I really don't like the negatives that come with living in secular society. I could think of worse situations to be in but I'm not going to pretend that this one doesn't have some very unsightly blemishes. I'm more than willing to work to bring out the secular society's good side.

America needs to be a Christian. What is that supposed to mean? I wish that everyone in America (and the rest of the world) would have a personal relationship with God. That everyone would choose to be righteous and honorable. But being that we are all flawed human beings I know that the best I can hope for is that folk will be shamed into doing the right thing most of the time.

The minute any Christian starts thinking that political activity is all about building power and influence they have completely lost sight of their purpose (to glorify God) and their true goal in life (to draw others closer to God).

So do I qualify as a part of the "Fundamentalist Christian Right"?

It's very simple, and here's an example. If gay domestic partnerships are Constitutional and your church's interpretation of the Bible says gay domestic partnerships are against the will of God, do you take it as your duty to God to change the Constitution?

You believe it is unconstitutional for the State not to support the Church? How do you come upon that interpretation?

"America needs to be a Christian Nation". That means that we consider it part of the national interest and foreign policy that we carry the message of Christ to the world. That we make it clearly and expressly stated that people who practice other religions in America are second class citizens. That it is important, if not required that our national leaders are Christians.

I don't think it's simple at all. In fact, I think people who think it is simple (both Christian and non-Christian) are a problem. The Bible is not an "when A, B, and C happen then you do X, Y, and Z or O, P, and Q" will happen kind of document. Although some accounts in the Bible follow that kind of formula it is much much bigger than that.

"If gay domestic partnerships are Constitutional and your church's interpretation of the Bible says gay domestic partnerships are against the will of God"

(The bit about a particular church's interpretation of the Bible is problematic for me but that's fodder for another discussion entirely.)

If people have convinced themselves that it is Constitutional then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll continue to believe that it is unconstitutional. If the laws resulting from the decision that the partnerships are Constitutional would require me to take steps that go against the dictates of the Bible and Church doctrine then I'll have to suffer the consequences of not abiding by those laws (much as Christians in China suffer the consequences of not abiding by the one child per family law although it probably wouldn't rise to the same magnitude). Whether I seek to change the law through the channels open to any law abiding citizen I really don't know. I don't think I care enough about the issue to start that kind of fight.

"You believe it is unconstitutional for the State not to support the Church? How do you come upon that interpretation?"

No I don't believe it is unconstitutional for the State not to support the Church. I'm not sure how you construed my sentence to convey that meaning. I think the State should leave the Church alone and stop pestering people about what they can say when and how with regrds to matters of faith. The legal battles that people get into these days concerning this issue are rising to the level of the absurd. People of all stripes now live with anxiety over the consequences of religious expression (theirs or someone elses) in the public square in a nation whose founding document is supposed to ensure the freedom to express religion.

"That means that we consider it part of the national interest and foreign policy that we carry the message of Christ to the world."

In that case America is most definitely not a Christian nation and never will be. Nor will any other nation qualify as such. It's the responsibility, the privilage, of Christians to carry the message of Christ to the world. Wanting the government to do it is just an easy out destined for desaster. The God given role of government to care for its people, to be righteous, and to administer justice. We've seen how well they manage that.

There is a certain Christian ethic that lays beneath governments offering aid to foreign citizens in need but it is often undergirded by a desire to elevate the helping nation in some fashion and that is as it should be.

"That we make it clearly and expressly stated that people who practice other religions in America are second class citizens."

Now that is something that no Christian in good conscience can believe. In fact it's down right creepy to read it. It goes against more than a few Biblical principles.

"That it is important, if not required that our national leaders are Christians."

It would be nice but it still wouldn't gaurantee a just and righteous government. Christians can be dishonest selfish jerks too (which I gather is why you wrote your post in the first place?). Seeing that government is a secular entiy I don't think it necessary to require leaders to be Christians. And no I don't think that government should be a religious entity either. Humanity has been down that road more than once and it always gets ugly.

I didn't expect that I would find so many Fundamentalists commenting at Cobb. But again these are the kinds of issues that hold my interest these days and I look forward to getting a bit deeper into them this year.

I am not supportive of same sex marriage and I think that secular advocacy of such may effect religious practice. So I see the separation of Church and State as critical - I don't think that people should gain standing to sue Churches because a chuch may not conform to some secular way of understanding human relationships. Legislation is fast, dogma is slow. Legislation should not have power over dogma.