Thanks to that sharp moderator over at Xnforums, I saw this article on Missouri attempting to pass legislation that says it recognizes a Christian God, and since the majority favors the expression of the belief of that God, the voluntary prayer and religious displays are not a coalition of the Church and State.
Admittedly, my first thought was this was ridiculous that Christianity felt the only way it could demonstrate its viability, was not though good works, not by demonstrating love, not by loving one’s neighbor, but by passing legislation.
I see a modern day Paul, writing a letter to the Jefferson Citians, “I thank God in my every remembrance of you, as to how you passed that legislation and really showed them who was boss!” Amazing that Christians would even bother wasting their time on this nonsense.
Apparently it wants to protect a majority? Then let’s protect the majority! What is the majority “God” so we know which one to favor? They have already determined “Christian” so all you pagans, wiccans, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Christian Scientists, Scientologists, pantheists, deists, and other non-Christian Gods need not apply.
According to this statistic the primary majority were Christians, followed by secular/non-religious. (“We’re No. 2! We’re No. 2!”) But, among Christians, the majority was Catholics! Are the Protestants of Missouri going to stand for a Catholic God? I think not!
According to Barna if go by denomination designation, Catholics win again with 22%. However, only 22% of those Catholics are born again, whereas 88% of the Assembly of God, who comprise only 3% of the total denominations, are born again. Whew! What statistic do we use to determine “majority”?
Is the majority by state? The opening paragraph states it is relying upon the God of our “forefathers.” Do we determine which forefathers we use, and then use that majority?
So now a state can “opt-out” of the mandates of the Federal Government, regarding separation of church and state because of a majority position. If a county, within Missouri, happens to have a majority of Protestants, can it “opt-out” of this Catholic God? Or vice versa? Or a city, within a county that opted-out of the State’s opting out, can it opt back in? And at this point are you even sure which “opt” that city is going with? What about a subdivision within the city?
One of the most dangerous concepts, the very fear of our forefathers, was rule by majority. Anyone heard of the checks-and-balance system? From Eighth grade government class? We all fear majority rule, that’s why Christians want to beat everyone to the punch, and get it first!
But if we are going to do this thing, let’s do it right. One thing about legislation, it likes to get its definitions right. What is the majority definition of “God” so we know which one to favor? Watching how tragic this idea is, the only humor I can find, will be watching them define the correct God!
If they start with the God of tradition, the Catholics will be pleased as punch. Of course, the Protestants will raise the cry of ”Sola Scriputra” and the battle will be off. Will the Charismatics prevail by use of force? They have more exercise, from jumping up and down. All the Baptists have are pot-luck dinners. Where will the Wesleyans fare against the stalwart Calvinists? They have the freedom of will, against the awful pre-determined force.
Want to show the “majority”? It’s easy. Forget your statistics. Forget your roll calls. Start to define “God.” It will only take a few words, and we will see the “majority” quickly become 1000 quibbling minorities.
Hopefully No. 2 will be there to pick up the pieces.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Admittedly, my first thought was this was ridiculous that Christianity felt the only way it could demonstrate its viability, was not though good works, not by demonstrating love, not by loving one’s neighbor, but by passing legislation.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought is that it's ridiculous for you to think the purpose of the legislation was to demonstrate the viability of Christianity. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you've stumbled upon something I've missed out on, and you know somehow that Christians passed that legislation because they thought it was the only way they could demostrate the viability of Christianity. Educate us. Tell us how you came to this conclusion.
ephphatha: relax. It’s Friday. Unclench the panties. Why do people pass legislation? It is to impose a code. It may be a legal code, a building code, even a resolution as to commending a person. But it is to impose a code.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason one imposes a code by legislation, is that it is felt it is needed. We don’t pass laws about “you need to wear sunscreen” because we do not feel it is needed. We do pas them about buying cigarettes before age 18 because we DO think it is needed. Despite what you read, legislative personnel don’t like to waste their time on meaningless tripe.
Now, why do Christians think it is important to impose this code?
Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and
Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and
Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and
Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and
Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America
Do they think it is viable without the legislation? Then it is not needed. Why do you need the Ten Commandments on a wall in a courthouse? Does your Christianity rise or fall on that? If not, why care?
Passing legislation is a big deal, ephphatha. One doesn’t do it on a whim, or because your panties are in a wad.
Dagoods, your original statement above assumes that the purpose of the legislation was to demonstrate the viability of Christianity and that passing the legislation was the only way it could be done. I see nothing in what you just wrote to substantiate that claim. I haven't lost hope, though. I know you didn't write all that for nothing. You're going somewhere with it. There's an argument hidden in there somewhere. What is it?
ReplyDeletelya kahlo, as I was checking out the statistics, I did notice that America is becoming more secular and it did occur to me this might be a “get it in while we still have the majority.”
ReplyDeleteI guess it just bothers me that Christians feel like they have to use my system (the judicial system) to impose their morals. They can’t convince society by example, so force it by legislative mandate. I fear, though, before it “bites the dust” those, such as these Christians that desire to pass this law, will become more and more frenzied in their passion, and will not stop until they have achieved a virtual theocracy.