That was my first impression when I heard a Christian talk show host this morning. He detailed the story of 7-year-old Andrew Larochelle, an Eagle Scout from Ohio. Andrew wanted to send his grandfather a flag that flew over the US Capitol along with a message that read: “In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country and family.” When Andrew received the flag, he was shocked to find the message had been edited – “God” was removed from the personal message.
Instead of working to help the boy and avoiding the anti-religion stereotype that the Democrats have worked so hard to downplay, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, defended the change by the Architect of the Capitol, the office responsible for the flags, and said she has no plans to change the existing rules. I can’t believe she was that stupid.
Of course, the absurd ruling has been changed and both the AoC office and Pelosi are back-tracking, but I cannot understand why they would do this in the first place. It makes no sense, constitutionally, politically or otherwise, to try to censor this message. Couple this with the NASCAR immunization debacle and the Democrats have shot themselves in both feet and I’m sure the GOP will remind swing voters of moments like these.
Because Libs have an intellectual, spiritual, and practial problem – they want to be tolerant, but have no idea how to discriminate between worthwhile faith propositions, and false and evil ones. They also fail to recognize the unique contribution of objective truth and principles that xianity contributed to our country’s founding documents and thinking.
So they throw out God with the bathwater. It is easier to take an extreme “no God” position than to have to discriminate (“think”) cogently about faith – and of course, they don’t want to bear the reproach of taking a stand for Christ, or any objective faith proposition. They will never learn.
Do you guys have to butt into everything with your religious references? I, personally, don't care whether this kid had "god" on the certificate or not, but the response from religionistas was way out of proportion. Every little thing that comes up serves as yet another opportunity to bang your drums of grievances: "Oh, boo-hoo, we xians are being discriminated against!" Let's all just ignore the fact that some 70-80% of the population is some kind of monotheist, and you xians run all three branches of government (not to mentions state gov'ts). Jeez, Louise, you guys are just too much!
What if the kid meant Allah by "God?" Would right wing nuts be this upset if Allah was censored? Methinks, nooooooo. Hypocrites.
Then youthinks wrong Cineaste. Freedom of religion is freedom of religion for everyone. But you raise an interesting point because I don't think Allah would get censored.
Louis, did I say anything about discrimination. I just said it was a stupid move from every standpoint. Why change the personal message from a boy to his grandfather because of a religious message? It cements in the mind of the "70-80%" of self professed Christians that the Democratic party is by nature against God. By the way 70-80 will be self-professed and that means very little. The actual numbers are way lower than that when you look at how many people are actually practicing Christians.
It cements in the mind of the "70-80%" of self professed Christians that the Democratic party is by nature against God.
What can one say to this extreme generalization, other than it's the utterance of an extremist?
I would counter that the Democratic party is for a Constitutional separation of church and state. Even Jesus evidently felt that our relationship with God should be a private matter.
I would counter that the Democratic party is for a Constitutional separation of church and state.
I would say they are for a SECULAR separation of church and state, and that the Constitutional version is much closer to the Christian ideal of church and state, as described in the articles below. The secular version of what the founders meant seems to me to be inconsistent with both the practice and the writings (taken in their context and fullness) of the founders.
Additionally, as argued below, I think that the secular separation would not really work, because such strict separation basically removes the preserving influence of the Christian virtues and power that lead to virtue from public life, which leads to social chaos like we often see – teen pregnancy, domestic violence, substance abuse, poverty.
Separation of Church and State, but not God and State
What is “Separation of Church and State”? (First Things)
Fascism and Separation of Church and State
The Four Historic Models for Church/State Interaction
Even Jesus evidently felt that our relationship with God should be a private matter.
Actually, this is not true. Where did he say it was a private matter? Also, Christian teaching extends beyond the gospels to the OT (which Jesus affirmed) and the writings of the Apostles.
Regarding the Christian’s involvement with civil government, there are actually at least three distinct doctrines, not just one simplistic “all or nothing” appraoch (i.e. theocracy or secularism), as outlined well in such books as Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament. The author discusses three views from the NT: submissive confidence, deep resistance, and critical distancing.
In addition to these views, he also outlines the biblical responsibilities of civil government:
I would say that much of the biblical, non-religious approach to government, as I have oft outlined, is appropriate. The scriptures, however, do NOT prohibit Christian values or involvement in civil government. Only the mixing of power structures.
Please direct me to the place in the Constitution where it says that God must or may be part of the government.
btw: Some xian values are universal and may be included in any scheme of governance. What I object to is the imposition of specific religious doctrines or dogmas on everyone.
I am amazed that a 7-year-old achieved the title of Eagle Scout, usually reserved for Boy Scouts in their late teens. Tell us his story.
Please direct me to the place in the Constitution where it says that God must or may be part of the government.
So, you discount the Declaration’s mention of God as important?
See Where is God in the Constitution?
btw: Some xian values are universal and may be included in any scheme of governance. What I object to is the imposition of specific religious doctrines or dogmas on everyone.
Yes, but some universal values, esp. sexual ones, are now disputed as non-universal, and therefore religious.
To a secularist, the absence of the word “God” has a deep, almost mystical significance.
What a stupid comment. You guys keep saying we have a country based on Christianity and the founders wanted a Christian nation. Why, then, didn’t they include references to religion and god in the Constitution? There’s nothing mystical about this at all. Either it’s there or it isn’t. Just because a few of them talked about God here and there doesn’t mean we have to have a Christian nation today. One can also point to anti-Christian statements they made. Too bad you can’t force your round peg into this square hole.
and the founders wanted a Christian nation.
Nope, didn’t say that. They wanted a nation that followed Christian principle, honored the God of the Bible in it’s laws, and that allowed for freedom of worship.
Why, then, didn’t they include references to religion and god in the Constitution? There’s nothing mystical about this at all. Either it’s there or it isn’t.
Did you read the article? The basic ideas are that:
1. They DID mention religion in the very first Bill of Rights, which was to protect individuals from Government.
2. While the word God does not appear in this one very important document, God was uppermost in the minds of the framers, who included three overt references to God in the Declaration, mentioned God copiously in their writings, and who, after writing the Constitution, allowed church services in the capitol building, started off meetings of congress with prayer, and swore men into office on the Bible.
3. The reason they did not inculcate the Christian God was to remove the idea of a theocracy from the possibilities. But the reason they wrote THE VERY FIRST ITEM in the Bill of Rights was to PROTECT faith from government interference – i.e. they were concerned for the propagation of faith, without which many believed the nation could not be virtuous or successful.
And BTW, here’s a nice list of other Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution, but yet are part of our government.
The secularist argument that the constitution creates a purely secular government makes little sense in context, and is as extreme and partisan as those who say they were trying to create a theocracy, a Christian nation.
Either it’s there or it isn’t.
BTW, this comment is a red flag to me that you are involved in either/or extremist thinking – sure, the word God either IS or ISN’T in the Constitution, but to then say “therefore, they founders either DID or DIDN’T want a secular or Christian state” is dangerously simple and wrong.
You have the nerve to accuse me of extremist thinking? Ha Ha. Very funny.
References to God in the Constitution are non-existent because the Founders did not want to create a state religion, nor did they intend to establish a “Christian Nation” (TM). The first amendment of the Bill of Rights protects religion from Gov’t interference. It also protects gov’t from religious interference (something you neglect to mention).
It is you religious fanatics who want an xian theocracy. And you needn’t deny it, seeker. I’ve read enough of your writings to know better. “Xianity uberalles” is your motto.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
“So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
I have addressed the treaty of Tripoli before. It clearly does not mean what you think it means.
BTW, here's my previous tripoli explanation – the plethora of faith-supporting history, documents, and court decisions shows that reading secularism back into the founding fathers' minds is ludicrous.
The treaty of tripoli was written using that language to assure the crazy muslim pirates that we were not trying to christianize them.
Yep, seeker refuses to accept the English language when it states something as clear as one could make it. Then, he finds in the Constitution things which clearly aren't there. This is what xianity does to people.
I think my arguments are complete and compelling. I guess you don’t.
There's something we can agree on at last.