[COMMENT: Friends... It is time to rattle the secular-humanist cage, and break its hammer lock on Western culture.
The logical reasoning in the email below (by Cal Thomas, for whose thinking I usually have a deep respect) is atrocious, but appallingly typical in the West today, even (or rather, especially) among Christians who cannot put 2 + 2 together about the nature of God and His relation to politics.
If God really is God (Creator and Sovereign), then He is lord over all things. Politics and civil government is not excluded.
Christians today are putting the pinch of incense on the altar, acknowledging Caesar to be sovereign over America rather than Jesus Christ. That is betrayal of our faith. It is also betrayal of our intellectual integrity, and of the public square -- we are allowing people who have no intellectual integrity to commandeer the public arena. We are the victims of a dumbed-down education system which has taught us NOT to think, only to feel-good and comply.
John Roberts did not show "fine intellect", he showed his ignorance of the logic of morality, of politics, and of his own Christian faith. The assertion that "Jesus is Lord" is a political statement. The early Christians understood that, and Caesar understood it. He persecuted the Christians because he understood they they meant Jesus to be lord over him and over his empire. Christians ought to be saying that Jesus is Lord over all governments, including especially the US government which began that way. The founding fathers were not deists. Not a one of them.
If God is the creator of all things, then He is sovereign over all things. ALL things. The Biblical view is just that. When God was dismissed from His sovereignty in 1962 (the highest court in the land throwing prayer out of schools), the Court effectively also dismissed from themselves any authority to command obedience. They trashed their own authority by trashing all authority. Civil government gets its authority ONLY from God. There is no other source for authority. If God exists, a Godless government is therefore an outlaw government.
That is because there is only one law in the cosmos, the law of God. Without God, there is no morality, none at all. No moral distinction between right and wrong.
That is the very meaning of the relativism which saturates our culture, including the thinking of people who want to keep religion out of politics. If there is no God, then there is also no law, just power struggle. (See "Defining 'Oughtness' and 'Love'") That astonishing (to us moderns) bit of information was common place among both American and English jurists of the 1700's, e.g., William Gladstone who "wrote the book" on law for that period.
For people to say that we should not take our religion into the public arena is to ask the logically impossible. (See definition of 'religion'.) Everyone has a religion, everyone takes their religion with them, and no one can avoid appealing to it without fundamental self-contradiction. Atheism is a religion.
For most folks, the issue is "pluralism" and "inclusiveness". "But we have Hindus and Muslims and atheists in America today!" For the answer to the pluralism problem, see the Constitution Library, and click on "Pluralism" in the Contents box.
Pluralism is about honest and open discussion from all viewpoints, not about "non-pluralistcally" imposing some imaginary "neutral" secularism. Secularism is no more neutral than is Christianity or Hinduism. There is no neutral position, but there are neutral rules of discussion by which the right position can be distinguished from the wrong position.
Pray that Christians (at least) will get their intellectual integrity back and go into the public arena standing up for what they believe with honesty and grace. E. Fox]
In a message dated 10/13/05 7:41:02 AM, Cal Thomas writes:
<< [In a Fox News interview], Hecht replied it is "easy" because, "Legal issues and personal issues are just two different things. Judges do it all the time. In fact, a judge is going to take an oath that says I'm going to judge rightly in cases, which means that you have to set aside your personal views in deciding the case. And if you don't do that, you're either a bad believer in your views, a bad judge or both." >>
Scalia said it more eloquently, of course, a couple of years ago, and I regret I don't have his exact words at hand. In essense, he told a RC group that strictly construing the Constitution ought not be informed by religious convictions (or lack of the same); nor should it entail compromising religious convictions (nor lack of the same).
I thought John Roberts showed the same fine intellect in his testimony. I hasten to write that I am not imputing to Roman Catholics a lockhold on fine legal minds. I look forward to Miers' appearance before the Grand Inquisitors, in order to see what type of mind she has.
Gov. Cuomo was an executive, not a judge, and he was right in saying that he could not impose his religious views upon the people of the State of New York: New Yorkers had to have the "right" to abortions-on-demand, because the Supreme Court had made such a "right" into "the Law of the Land." The point is that persons with deeply held religious convictions about the murder of children in the womb will not avail themselves of their "right" to kill children in the womb.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *