Category — Spirituality

Oh music to my ears!

I don’t know how I missed this, but the US 6th District Court of Appeals in its recent ruling on ACLU OF KENTUCKY v. MCGINNIS said these three wonderful sentences:

the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.

The ruling goes on further with this zinger:

the ACLU erroneously-though perhaps intentionally-equates recognition with endorsement.

Hmm… Did the court just suggest that the ACLU was intentionally ignoring the facts to make its case sound better? Wow, imagine that.

Anyway, if you don’t want to read the full ruling that is linked above, you can read the “juicy” parts right here:

The ACLU’s argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 673; Lemon, 403 U.S. at 614; Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265, 274 (4th Cir. 2001); Stark v. Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 640., 123 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Capitol Square, 243 F.3d at 300 (dismissing strict separatism as “a notion that simply perverts our history”). Our Nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. See, e.g., Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (upholding Sunday closing laws); see also Lynch, 465 U.S. at 674 (“There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.”); Capitol Square, 243 F.3d at 293-99 (describing historical examples of governmental involvement with religion). After all, “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach, 343 U.S. at 313. Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible.

Second, the ACLU focuses on the religiousness of the Ten Commandments. No reasonable person would dispute their sectarian nature, but they also have a secular nature that the ACLU does not address. That they are religious merely begs the question whether this display is religious; it does not answer it. “[T]he Establishment Clause inquiry cannot be distilled into a fixed, per se rule.” Pinette, 515 U.S. at 778 (O’Connor J., concurring); see Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 597-98 (1992). Although treating the subject matter categorically would make our review eminently simpler, we are called upon to examine Mercer County’s actions in light of context. “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.” Van Orden, 125 S. Ct. at 2863 (plurality opinion). Moreover, “[f]ocus exclusively on the religious component of any activity would inevitably lead to its invalidation under the Establishment Clause.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 680. The Constitution requires an analysis beyond the four-corners of the Ten Commandments. In short, “proving” that the Ten Commandments themselves are religious does not prove an Establishment Clause violation.

Third, the ACLU erroneously-though perhaps intentionally-equates recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow. Cf. Mercer County, 219 F. Supp. 2d at 789 (“Endorsement of religion is a normative concept; whereas acknowledgment of religion is not necessarily a value-laden concept.”). Because nothing in the display, its history, or its implementation supports the notion that Mercer County has selectively endorsed the sectarian elements of the first four Commandments, we fail to see why the reasonable person would interpret the presence of the Ten Commandments as part of the larger “Foundations” display as a governmental endorsement of religion.

We will not presume endorsement from the mere display of the Ten Commandments. If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation’s cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto. Fortunately, the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff. See Washegesic ex rel. Pensinger v. Bloomingdale Pub. Sch., 33 F.3d 679, 684 (6th Cir. 1994) (Guy, J., concurring) (describing the “eggshell” plaintiff as unknown to the Establishment Clause). Instead, he appreciates the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American legal traditions.

The Mercer County display has a secular purpose. Unlike McCreary County, there is nothing in the legislative history or implementation that tends to prove a religious purpose. Nor does the display have the effect of endorsing religion. The display is therefore constitutional as a matter of law. There being no genuine issue of material fact, the district court properly granted Mercer County’s motion for summary judgment.

Jay Adkins opened a can of worms on another topic this week – “Is it pleasing to God for people to make money in His name?”

Bravo Jay! A really good topic for a whole host of reasons – chief among them is that many people accuse the Church of only being interested in their money.

I started this post as a comment on his blog, but it grew until I was uncomfortable posting something this big on his site, so I moved it here instead.

I think this is a fairly cut and dry topic, yet I’m about to write a bunch on it anyway. My thoughts on this may be different than some, but do be sure to read Jay’s post because we come to similar conclusions. He just does it a lot quicker than I do.

1. God gave us dominion of the earth and everything contained in it. Money is just an extrapolation of the fullness of the earth.
2. We gave up our land lease to Satan by following him rather than God
3. Now, what was once a pure blessing to us, is also twisted by sin. It can twist us, IF we love it more than God.
4. That is why it is not money that is evil, but the love of money.
5. People seem to equate being wealthy with “a love of money”. That is not the case.
6. God gives to those who give to His Kingdom.
7. God gives us guidelines to follow for giving to His Kingdom

Everything we have, we have by God’s grace and through a talent that He provided to us. Ministry, revelation, etc. are no exceptions to this. If you have a God given talent that is a blessing to the Church, why is it wrong to in turn be blessed from that? I don’t think it is – I believe that you CAN profit honorably through true Ministry. Why? Because I haven’t read anything in the Bible that forbids taking profit from true service to the flock.

The closest thing you can find is Jesus overturning the money changers tables in the Temple, but is this the same thing? I don’t think so. Jesus specifically says that it is a den of robbers, referring to Jer. 7:9-11, where God says:

“Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, ‘We are safe’ – safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching!” declares the LORD.

I maintain that the “robbers” Jesus was evicting from the Temple weren’t just humble servants of the faithful, but rather were exploiting those who came to worship and most likely were involved in other nasty things as well – If God makes an analogy, I don’t think it will be a “sort-of” analogy, but rather one that fits His real meaning. So, the eviction doesn’t speak to profit through true ministry.

If you acknowledge that God doesn’t forbid making a profit through the honest use of ALL of His given talents (ministry included), then we need to look at the accumulation of this profit and if one can be wealthy and still be right with the Lord. This means we have to talk about giving, which is the other option to accumulation. As I mentioned previously, God gave us guidelines for giving – the Tithe, first fruits, sacrificial giving, etc. But God’s overall message to us on giving is clear in Malachi 3:10.

“Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.”

Well, that sounds like abundance to me. Also, God blesses many figures in the bible with material wealth, Joseph, David, Solomon, etc. Were these all perfect men who deserved their wealth? Of course not, all have fallen short of the mark. Just because God blesses us in one part of our life doesn’t mean that He approves of EVERYTHING in our life. God has blessed people in the past and will continue to do so.

To categorically say that the wealthy are in sin because they have ostensibly exceed some arbitrary level of lifestyle “sufficiency” is simply judging them based on emotion not biblical principle. Where does materialism start? I’m OK owning a Chevy, but what about a Buick? Oh, and a Cadillac? Everyone KNOWS that they are just sinful frivolity! See how ludicrous it starts to sound?

The fact is that only God determines what is “enough” for everyone – not us. He is the one that determines if we do enough sacrificial giving. If God has given material wealth to someone and is not happy with their giving, then they will answer to Him, not to us. Doesn’t Matthew 7:1-2 tell us:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Along those same lines, yet focusing more on making money from ministry, doesn’t the bible also tell us in Mark 9:42 that God will specifically deal with those who have lead his children astray? 2 Peter 2:1 further says that doing so will bring “swift destruction on themselves”.

This is the double whammy. If it were not OK to make money in God’s name, then anyone who did would be exploiting the Church. Yet, if it IS OK to make money in God’s name, but you shouldn’t KEEP a tremendous amount of it, that would mean that this person isn’t following God’s plan for giving. I think that it is highly improbable that a preacher could exploit the Church and not follow God’s plan of giving, and yet somehow manage to not lead believers astray and also continue to be blessed financially by God. It just doesn’t add up.

Let us remember that it is God who set up the rules for people giving to the Priesthood. They were all commanded to give according to their ability. Of larger tribes, more was required. Of smaller tribes, less was required. Each gave to the Priesthood as God decreed. The priests were given the best of everything – much of it for holy sacrifice, but much of it for their own use as well. So, giving money to the Priesthood is not just “OK”, but rather is required.

To go one step further – after their giving, there were STILL tribes with more and tribes with less. God didn’t command that the tribes all give until all of them had equal amounts. He doesn’t command us to do that either, yet this is what someone who maintains that “John Doe from XYZ Church has too much money” is really saying. What level do they advocate John Doe give until? Usually the reply will be something along the lines of “They should give everything in excess of their needs.” Well following that logic, what determines those needs? I think it probably equates down to “Well, somewhere about the same as me. Because CLEARLY, I’m giving the right amount, as I couldn’t possibly do with less.” I’m sure you see where I’m going with this… Its not about biblical principle, but rather about emotion.

On to my next point regarding if it is OK to have wealth. If you maintain that it isn’t possible for a Pastor/Minister/Preacher to be wealthy, then you have to wonder if it is OK for ANY Christian to be wealthy. I again refer to the fact that God has blessed many throughout the Bible. He blessed Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, etc. He blessed Lot. He blessed Job, allowed it to be taken away through no fault of Job’s and then gave it to him back twice as much as he had before. He blessed Lazarus, who was Jesus’ friend. He even blessed Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus – how else could they have put 75 pounds of myrrh in His tomb? God is clearly not against wealth. Therefore having wealth is NOT the same thing as the love of money.

As Matthew 6:24 says:

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

That means loving money MORE than God. Seeking FIRST the kingdom of money, not God. God presents us with opportunities to resource His Kingdom, and it is up to us to do so – BECAUSE we love Him more than the money. But, nowhere in there does it talk about specific amounts.

Even in the early Christian Church, in Acts 5, the story of Ananias and Sapphira – they fell down and died not because they didn’t give all of the money, but because they SAID they gave all of the money and lied to God. If it were otherwise, the passage would have said that the full amount for the field was REQUIRED, but because they didn’t give all of it, they would be punished. But that wasn’t the case – it was a case of loving the money more than God. If they simply hadn’t sold the field or were simply honest about the amount they were giving, they would have been OK. Nowhere in Acts is there a list of people who DIDN’T sell their fields – that didn’t matter. Loving money more than God and lying to Him over it is what mattered.

So, I think that a believer (pastor or not) can be wealthy as long as they are truly seeking God’s Will for their lives.

Even though it isn’t really the same issue, someone will invariably bring up the argument of “Well, what about the non-believer that is blessed financially? Why does God bless them yet they don’t believe in Him or follow His plan for giving.” Its a good question in and of itself, and I think there are a few answers:

1. God looks at an entire lifetime, He who is not Saved now, may be later.
2. Not all wealth is a blessing. How many rich stars, sports figures, etc. become alcoholics, go through several divorces, battle drugs, etc. Don’t think this isn’t true for other rich folks – you just don’t see it on CNN.
3. Matthew 4:8-9 shows that the world is Satan’s to give – could he not be giving to some according to his twisted will? Of course, you could say this same thing of someone who you believe is “exploiting” the church for ill-gotten gain, but again God says in 2 Peter 2:1 that He will deal with them quickly. God’s Word is always more powerful than Satan’s plan…
4. God has been known to do His work with non-believers – such as the Midianites conquering an adulterous Israel. God tells us to care for the poor. Not to liken them to the Midianites, but the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing more for the long term care of the world’s poor than most church efforts could even dream of. I can’t speak for their relationship with the Lord, but I suspect that if it was Biblical, they probably would have said something by now.

Wow, this really is much longer than I intended. My point is this (and is the same conclusion that Jay came to in a much more elegant way):

If you profit through lies, exploitation and illegal activity then it is not OK, especially if it is “In God’s Name”. There may indeed be people that do this – BUT

1. they will answer to God for it and
2. that doesn’t mean that one can’t be financially blessed through true Ministry or any other honest application of a God given talent.

In his blog today, my brother recounted a story of a woman who was surprised when she was asked if she swore to “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.

There was no “so help you God” on the end of it…

I guess this is just one more separation of Church and State issues, huh?

People don’t realize that without the ultimate authority of an omniscient God there is no reason to tell the truth unless it works in your favor.

Washington, in his Farewell address said this:

Let it simply be asked, “where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?

He then continued to say:

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

If the original GW thought that we needed a sense of religious obligation in our courts, who am I to argue?

For those with stamina, read the full farewell address. It holds a lot of wisdom…

Jay Adkins asked a great question about Debating for God on his blog. It made me think quite a bit about the matter, and here are my thoughts.

I think it is impossible to share your faith with someone without a certain amount of “debate”. I think Jay hit the nail on the head by saying it should be done in a calm discussion. How else will the person know that you actually care?

I’d like to add a level to the question which I think will add some clarity – WHY would we debate with someone on this matter? I think many times we are tempted to do it for God’s honor or even worse, our own.

I think the true answer to the whole issue is found in our intentions.

I remember having a discussion with someone that I worked with – she was a pagan (literally). She knew I was a Christian and asked me about it over lunch one day. “How can you believe that I will go to hell for not agreeing with you?”

Ever wonder why people who don’t believe in hell are worried that we think they are going there?

Anyway, we had a civilized discussion and I shared my faith with her. She ended the conversation with, “Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree…”

I replied, “I guess so – I believe that you have the free will to do so… But I do care about you and my hesitation is this – If you’re right, I’m no worse off, but if I’m right, you’ve got some serious things to think about.”

She finally realized that I wasn’t in this conversation for myself, but rather for her. On the surface, she was as hard-headed as the atheists that Jay talks about, but my intentions broke past that.

I think that this type of calm, caring discussion increases the likelihood of the seed hitting fertile the ground rather than the stone. After all, “people don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care…”

Thanks Jay for such a great topic…

There has been a bit of controversy going on about new NBC show “The Book of Daniel” that chronicles the life of an Episcopalian Priest and his less than traditional family.

In an interview with the AP, Star Aidan Quinn (Rev. Daniel Webster) says the show is a “wholesome show. … It just has the courage to deal with some of the real issues that go on in people’s lives.”

My response, is “Really? Hmm – go on…”

Quinn continues, “I’m an Episcopalian priest who struggles with a little self-medication problem, and I have a 23-year-old son who’s gay, and a 16-year-old daughter who’s caught dealing pot, and another son who’s jumping on every high school girl he sees, and a wife who’s very loving but also likes her martinis.”

Many folks embroiled in the controversy, such as the American Family Association are trying to petition NBC to remove the show. Others believe that the show is a positive influence and that the AFA is over-reacting. ” ‘This is an offbeat, inclusive series — inclusive of people of faith and inclusive of gay and bisexual people,’ Damon Romine, GLAAD’s entertainment media director, told the PlanetOut Network. ‘It doesn’t surprise me that the AFA would be afraid of this series — it shows a family that’s both deeply religious and loving and accepting of their gay son.’ ”

OK, time out! Lets take a minute and look at this. What’s wrong with this picture?

Now, I haven’t seen this show, and I haven’t made up my mind if I will watch an episode or two. In general I don’t like to monetarily support items that I don’t agree with, but then I already pay for cable every month and with a DVR I don’t watch commercials anyway – so I’m up in the air on it.

This aside though, I’d like to attempt to put forth a reasonable argument for why many Christians are upset and worried about this type of show – hopefully an argument that non-Christians will understand. I know that to many non-believers, Christians can look like an odd bunch, getting our panties in a wad about the slightest little thing. I’d like to at least explain the anger that “The Book of Daniel” has fanned, and why we don’t necessarily even need to see it to know what we are up against.

On the one hand, self-medication, homosexuality, drugs, fornication and alcoholism are topics that many people deal with on a daily basis. On the other hand, I’m sorry but who the hell can say that this is “wholesome”?

Merriam-Webster defines “wholesome” as “promoting health or well-being of mind or spirit”. Now, which of those show twists, exactly, were the wholesome ones? Oh, being the Episcopalian priest maybe?

As C.S. Lewis so eloquently describes in his book Mere Christianity it is very important to guard the meaning of words, for otherwise they end up having no use at all. He describes the slide of the word “Gentleman” from meaning a man who had a coat of arms and some landed property into a term of praise targeting his behavior. Originally, there was no conflict with being a Gentleman and a liar, but with today’s meaning that would be impossible – maybe. See, the problem is that not everyone agrees on what the behavior of a gentleman should be, so the word is now useless for the task of accurate description. It is a nebulous idea whose meaning though likely similar, can differ for each person in profound ways. While there were plenty of words to praise or chastise behavior already, we now have nothing save full explanations to refer to the original Gentleman.

We see this same issue with Quinn’s reference to “wholesome” – the etymology of it is from the old English “whole”, in the healthy sense and is circa 1200. Originally this meant in a moral sense, with the physical sense being first attested to circa 1374. For an English word at those times in history, saying morality would mean talking about a Christian morality and then the flow of this morality into the body in a physical sense. So, this was a distinct word – if something was “wholesome” it displayed the distinct characteristics of a physically and spiritually sound Christian foundation. I have severe doubt that “The Book of Daniel” will stand up to this definition, regardless of what Quinn says.

How can I say that without even seeing the show? Because of the creators and their world view. Forgive me if I’d rather not take my direction of what is wholesome from the mainstream media and Jack Kenny. The AFA says this of Kenny: “a practicing homosexual who describes himself as being ‘in Catholic recovery,’ and is interested in Buddhist teachings about reincarnation and isn’t sure exactly how he defines God and/or Jesus. ‘I don’t necessarily know that all the myth surrounding him (Jesus) is true,’ he said.”

Its OK to be questioning things – God gave us a free will for a purpose – but don’t take your questions and put our label on them. This is the crux of the issue. Being a Christian means a SPECIFIC thing, and we object to those who are not Christians telling the nation what it means to be one of us.

It would be like me putting a show on NBC entitled “The Lesbian” – just because I like women, doesn’t make me a lesbian. Right now, it means something pretty specific and I just don’t qualify. Portraying a Christian priest who acts in very unchristian manner is the same thing. They just don’t qualify to showcase the subject. How do I know he acts in a very unchristian manner? Because doing otherwise would never make it on NBC.

Romine says that its OK for a “deeply religious” family to be “loving and accepting of their gay son” – I would agree, but I doubt it is in the manner that Romine is talking about. In general, I believe that with only a few exceptions (Exodus International and Love Won Out for example) the Christian community at large has lost a huge opportunity to minister to homosexuals. As a Church, we seem to be OK helping adulterers and drunks overcome their sin, but gays have to have completely healed themselves before they can be among us? That’s not right. I say hate the sin, love the sinner.

The real issue is that I don’t think Romine, OR “The Book of Daniel” will sign up to the gay son being in sin. I don’t mean to focus only on the homosexual aspect – I’m sure that most of these other unwholesome things will be portrayed simply as foibles that make for drama in the life of Daniel. I would wager a large sum that “The Book of Daniel” is all about how the family despite its problems, despite its differences and despite the challenges of life are able to overcome through love and togetherness. Well, that is very sweet, and a nice message, but it isn’t Christian. Its secular humanism, and as a Christian, I object to it wearing a Christian cloak.

If my guess is correct, then the fact that Daniel talks directly to Jesus only makes matters worse. With this type of direct give and take relationship, Daniel’s actions will implicitly carry Jesus’ approval. I find it hard to believe that NBC, Quinn or Kenny have gone through the Biblical scholarship necessary to answer these questions, especially when their goal is ratings not sound theology. If the response to these culture-defining issues isn’t based on solid Christian teaching, then what is it based on? Given the source, I’d again say secular humanism. So, what about this is Christian?

Non-Christians say we are over-reacting. Christians say this type of show chips away at what it means to be a follower of Christ, and that’s something we will ALWAYS be upset about.

Or so the Supreme Court said…

See RECTOR, ETC, OF HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U S, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

The conclusion is that we are a Christian Nation, and the ruling outlines with every paragraph that we have a freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. The best line is:

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

Thats not all though. I’ve included a snippet of the text that really bears reading (emphasis mine). Its a bit long, but really worth it… Consider it the Cliff’s Notes for the link above.

But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from ‘Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile,’ etc., and recites that ‘it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered,’ etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from ‘Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, queene, defender of the faith,’ etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that ‘they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England.’ The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: ‘We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intended Desires.’

Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: ‘Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid.’

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration: ‘Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike State or Comonwelth; and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs.’

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: ‘Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare,’ etc.

Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thet are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’ ‘We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,’ etc.; ‘And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.’

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: ‘We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations,’ etc. It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, ’so help me God.’ It may be in clauses like that of the constitution of Indiana, 1816, art. 11, 4: ‘The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God.’ Or in provisions such as are found in articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the constitution of Maryland, ( 1867:) ‘That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty: wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief: provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution.’ Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of part 1 of the constitution of Massachusetts, (1780:) ‘It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. … As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.‘ Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the constitution of Mississippi, (1832:) ‘No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil de partment of this state. … Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state.’ Or by article 22 of the constitution of Delaware, (1776,) which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: ‘I, A. B., do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.’

Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ etc.,- and also provides in article 1, 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, ‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; … not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.’ And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: ‘The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. … The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to panish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.’ And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard’s Ex’rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: ‘It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.’

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, ‘In the name of God, amen;’ the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?

WOW! I’ve read many things about the history of Christianity in our country from places like Wall Builders and even at the Library of Congress, but I’ve never seen it put so firmly from the very charters of exploration and colonization through to the not so distant past.

Yes, this was written in 1892 and that was a long time ago, but you still would have had much the same ruling in 1950. For the past 55 years, our laws and culture have taken a tremendous beating by those who would seek to rewrite history. Don’t believe it? Read this interview with a former ACLU lawyer. OR, read this collection of excerpts from various sources.

It really makes you wonder – how is it that the ACLU, which did so much for so many, has taken this odd turn?

I’ve been reading a lot of blogs lately from soldiers deployed in Iraq, and also reading the blogs of their family members as well.

These people are amazing Americans. Shame on anyone who says anything to make them doubt the value of the job that they are doing.

I’ll continue to post links to blogs that I’m reading, but the ones listed below are a good place to start. There are views I agree with, and some I don’t – but the overwhelming sense from these people who are in a MUCH better position than me to know, is that a lot of good is being done in Iraq.

Thanks again to these wonderful people for their strength, dedication and sacrifice.

• 365 and a Wakeup
• A Soldier’s Perspective
• Blackfive
• Dude, Where’s the Beach?
• Intel Dump
• Major K
• The Cabarfeidh Pages
• The Officer’s Club
• Andi’s World
• Froggy Ruminations
• Counter Column
• Argghhh!
• One Marine’s View
• Euphoric Reality
• Sgt. Hook