Sunday, February 24, 2008

Separation, Church and State, part 2

Early in the morn I awoke with the crow of the rooster greeting the sun as it peaked over the horizon bringing shadows to all it touched. I quickly dressed and went out to the barn to begin my daily chores by allowing the cows into their milk stalls. Grandpa and grandma soon followed and we each got our stools and milk pail to begin the milking.

As I was milking I had to duck as ol bossy decided to swish her tail at me and I said to grandpa, "grandpa you said I could hear more today as to why we are a nation under God."

These are the words I heard as grandpa spoke,

There are those who target Christianity as the focus of their argument against the inclusion of the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge. But your grandfather attributes this more to the fact that those associated with Christianity are more outspoken in the political arena than those of other religious affiliations. So, they are perceived as attempting to impose religious beliefs into government rather than giving moral guidance. But we need to understand a few things about the word, Christianity.

Now, does Christianity denote a particular religion? The answer again is no. It is a collective word. It no more denotes a particular religion than the word Protestant does. Though I will admit that at one time in history that it did. That was a time when Christianity was united as being a single religion.

But today, both words, Christianity and Protestantism, denote a group of religions that have at least one thing in common but each member of that group is an individual religion with beliefs separate from the rest. Thus, it can be said that we are a Christian nation, which we are, but not a nation of a particular religion. To declare Christianity as a religion is to recognize that if there was a Church/State relationship, that no man wants, it would be likened unto a man who was married to a harem.

History has shown us that religious persecution occurs when a nation is married to a particular religion. History has also shown us that when a nation has married it self to religion it is the religious beliefs of the ruler or rulers of that nation that was imposed upon the people.

History also teaches us that those who cannot participate in government will not be able to defend themselves when government tries to act against their best interests. In recognition of this we can then understand why the first amendment is worded as it is. It is worded as it is for the protection and continued existence of the religious establishment as it be at any time.

The first amendment declares quite clearly the government is not to pass any laws in regards to the religious establishment whether it be of beliefs or practice. In recognition of the role and purpose of government the Constitution is declaring that government cannot interfere, influence, or impose any regulation upon any religion. But if you notice and read it, it says nothing about what the religious establishment cannot do or do in regards to government, does it?

So, where did we get the idea that since government cannot be involved in the affairs of the religious establishment that the opposite is also true? To say that is to say that a very important segment of our society cannot or does not have a right to participate in our government’s affairs. Why is that clause of the Constitution interpreted in such a way as to imply it was written in some way other than what it says?"

With that said he stood up from under his cow and took up the pail of milk that he had just milked and said,

"Enough of this for now, boy, we have chores to finish. We can talk more on this later."

Saying nothing I just continued with the chore of milking knowing I needed to finish my given chores before school started this morn. With the thought of chores on my mind a small smile came across my face. Grandpa never did answer me when I asked if my chores were privileges given to me by him the other day. But then I thought of something else too. I knew I was given a privilege when I was given the both of them as my grandfather and grandmother.

4 comments:

Gayle said...

Griper, I love the way you present your knowledge and views on your blog. I also think children would be a lot better off if they had to milk a few cows, or feed the chickens or slop the hogs before breakfast! Far too many American children are too soft and they take everything they have for granted and demand more.

The Griper said...

awwwwwwwwww gayle you are far too kind with your words to this old fool of a man. but thank you. it is a real pleasure to have you as a regular visitor to my blog.

dcat said...

I have to agree that a little work don't hurt no one it teaches.

I used to have to do chores before and after school no big deal cause I am basically still doing them.

Only now it is for my self and Mr. has to help with them chores as well.

His mom does not live here! ;)

Donald Douglas said...

Very interesting, Griper. Thanks for sharing!!

Followers

Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code

 

Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster