Citizen Tom

There are various approaches to pamphleteering on the Internet.  Most of us are familiar with how bloggers spread their views.  A different approach, however, is by its nature more obscure.  That is the commenter who posts the same long and detailed comment everywhere he can.

The first time I saw such a comment I was sort of flattered and amazed.  Who would do so much work just to refute me?  Fortunately, my curiosity worked against such an ego trip.  Taking advantage of the wonders of Google I did a search.  Sure enough, I had no particular reason to feel so flattered.  

The last such pamphleteering comment on my little website came from Doug Indeap (see here) on this post, AN EXCUSE TO BE OFFENDED .  Here is a list of some of the places Indeap has posted variations of or a portion of the same comment.

• Back to the Constitution provides a concise explanation of the origin of the the phrase: Separation Of Church And State
• Video: The Truth About “Separation of Church and State” provides a teenager’s point of view.
• In his version of the Separation of Church and State, Mr. Garner Goes To Washington very carefully explains what is wrong with the oft used phrase, “separation of church and state.”
• The Emerging Scholars Blog, on the other hand, asks an interesting — and the crucial — question:  Is God Relevant in the Public Square?

While Doug Indeap’s comment is carefully reasoned, it is not well reasoned.  What follows is an explanation of why I hold that opinion.

For starters, please take the time to read Is God Relevant in the Public Square? I think you will find this post well worth the effort. Is God Relevant in the Public Square? considers the alternative options we have for dealing with the subject of faith in the public square.  With Option #3, Is God Relevant in the Public Square? offers our nation’s traditional solution.

This third option is the one for which Guinness argues. In such a public square, all faiths (and non-faiths) are welcome. In such a public square, persuasion is used, not coercion.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this third option is what Doug Indeap advocates.  If you look at the video I posted on AN EXCUSE TO BE OFFENDED , it is about a 75 year old cross.  Presumably Indeap viewed the video.  The cross he thinks violates his religious freedom is about as close to the middle of nowhere as you can get in the lower 48 states.  Nonetheless, Indeap still (albeit politely) takes exception to this so-called promotion of religion by government — even though veterans paid for this 75 year old cross.

Indeap either too much fears or reviles any evidence of God in the public square. Perhaps Indeap confuses secular government with the secularization of the public square.  There is a clear difference.

Because we are self-aware, we are inherently religious creatures.  Because we think, we wonder why.  How did we come to be?  Although our search is too often aimless, many of us live much of our lives in a quest to know the answer.  We debate, we argue, and sometimes we fight over our differing conclusions.

What history has too often demonstrated is that a politically powerful faction will often try to use government to enforce its religious views upon everyone else.  In spite of the 1st Amendment, the United States is no exception.  In our era, many, particularly many of our elites, have no use for religion.  Thus the citizenry must be vigilant against secularism.  To ensure each of us can practice our own particular religious beliefs (both in private and in public), we must stand up for each other’s right to practice religion.  As a People we must ensure our government leaders do not abuse their powers to either stifle one religion or to promote another.

Forced secularization of the public square is the stifling of religious belief. Look at Arlington Cemetery.  Would you have the Christian crosses and the Jewish stars expunged from the tombstones?  Would you have the crosses removed?  Would you deface the image of Christ?  Look at what the secularists demand.  The majority religion of the United States is Christianity; that the secularists would have us forget.  Christian belief is integral to our history, but the secularists say no way.  Christianity is at the foundation of both our culture and our method of government, but the secularists insist it never was.

Without Christianity, could the United States exist as we know it?  If you were educated only in the public schools, you may think the answer is yes.  However, without Christianity, we would not have religious freedom in the United States.  Look at at the Declaration of Independence.  God is where it all began.

To secularize the public square is to insist we deny and ignore the truth of our nation’s origins.   Secularization creates  an unsupportable fantasy.  What was the Founder’s objective?  Did they create a secular government to protect or to deny the practice of religious belief?

We cannot give into the secularization of the public square.  If we continue giving ground, not just our government, but we too, including our families and our children, must become more and more secularized.  Yet when he argues for the secularization of the public square, that is what Indeap risks advocating.

Since we have an election coming up in November, I thought it would a good time to quote one of the first “modern” political pundits.

Every one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word. You must know there are two ways of contesting,(*) the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second. Therefore it is necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man.  –  The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli

Satan makes the most hideous beliefs palatable and seemingly reasonable.  So it is that Machiavelli could give rulers scholarly advice in The Prince.  Therein Machiavelli carefully explained how the end justifies the means.  One can only guess how many rulers say they do not believe Machiavelli and lie.  All we know for certain is that far too many take advice such as Machiavelli would offer into their heart and soul.

Do we the People want leaders who lie to us?  Do we want leaders willing to use any means to achieve their ends?  Those are questions each of us must decide for ourselves.

How can we tell when our leaders lie to us?  When our leaders ask us to believe the end justifies the means, we know our leaders tell us an untruth.   Nonetheless,  it is not necessarily easy to tell when we are being ask to believe the end justifies the means.  Here, for example, we have a rabbi explaining how to solve the problem.

Bernard Berkeley from Glenview, IL:

Dear Rabbi,

Machievelli believed, “The end justifies the means.” What does the Torah offer as a counter-argument?

Dear Bernard Berkeley,

In life, nothing is as simple as a mere five word statement. Let us analyze the statement. Supposing you could save the life of an innocent child (”the end”) and you could do it by lying (”the means”) about his whereabouts to the murderer. In such a case Judaism would definitely say that the end justifies the means. However, supposing I could convince someone of the truth of the Torah (”the end”) by lying (”the means”) about what Torah is, then the Torah would say that it is not justified. Because here the means are a direct contradiction to the end, which is truth. We believe that one should examine each case separately, and indeed Judaism has legal guidelines to teach us how to act in cases of end versus means.

We fall into the trap of choosing inappropriate means when we have a selfish motive.  We are commanded to love others as we love ourselves.  Unfortunately, we are more often concerned about our own feelings.  So we can choose unwisely.   Instead of choosing for the good of all, we each tend to vote for the men and women we believe will further our own selfish interests.

According to the Bible, when the Jews allowed evil men to lead them, the Lord turned his face from them.  Then the Israelites saw for themselves the ineptitude and foolishness that comes from selfishness.  The prophet, Isaiah, provided his own observations in chapter 3 of the Book of Isaiah.  This chapter begins as follows:

Isaiah 3:1-4 (King James Version)

For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water.

The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient,

The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator.

And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.

Below I have listed the offices and the major party candidates we will have the opportunity to consider in Gainesville, Virginia, this coming November.

Governor

• Creigh Deeds (D)
• Bob McDonnel (R)

Lieutenant Governor

• Jody Wagner (D)
• Bill Bolling (R)

Attorney General

• Stephen Shannon (D)
• Ken Cuccinelli (R)

House of Delegates, 13th District

• John Bell (D)
• Bob Marshall (R)

In posts to come, we will look at each of these candidate’s platforms.  Then we will ask the following question:

Is the candidate asking us to believe the end justifies the means?

The Prince

Author: Nicolo Machiavelli

We live amongst predators who find it profitable to be offended by the beliefs of others.   Here is what the 1st Amendment (from here) says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When the Founders wrote this law, what were they concerned about?  The People looked around, and they saw the possibility the Federal Government might impose a state religion upon the new nation.  Because England and some of the colonies had state sponsored churches, they feared being forced to tithe to a church not of their choice.  They also did not want to be pressured to attend a church not of their choice.

On the other hand, the People had no desire to separate government from religious practice.  Even Thomas Jefferson (famed for that widely misunderstood phrase, “a wall of separation between Church & State”) approved the use of federal funds to Christianize the Indians (see here).

Now, however, we have lawyers paid with taxpayer funds to find objectionable religious objects on government property (see here).   In addition, stirring up useless controversy generates free publicity.

This video provides an example.

Here is a link to a group fighting the easily offended.  Until we can get judges willing to accept the original meaning of the Constitution, we have to fight fire with fire.  This mess is profitable for lawyers, but it is a waste of time for everyone else.

Here is a link to a video of a speech/sermon by Pastor Michael Youssef.

The Truth About America

The link to the video was forwarded to me by an immigrant from Asia.

Youssef is an immigrant from Egypt and passionately embraces the Christian values of this country.  He has no doubts about the Christian origins of this nation.  The people who doubt our Christian origins do not know our history.

The Book of Revelation is mysterious.  Even the people who lived at the time when it was written must have been baffled by much of it.  Now, almost 2,000 years latter, we are confused by the style of John’s writing, and we no longer understand the significance of many of the symbols he used.  Only by studying the history of those times do we begin understand.  Yet there are portions of the book that are readily understood, and careful study makes it clear this book was written for us as well.

The book begins with John’s introduction of his vision of Jesus.   Jesus instructs John to write what he sees to seven churches (in the land we now know as Asia Minor).  Yet as the next two chapters unfold (Revelation 2 – 3), we begin to understand Jesus is speaking to all of us.

Although He named only seven churches, but Jesus spoke to all Christians.  In His words to at least one of those seven churches, you will hear something for yourself.  I heard something in his message to the seventh church, Laodicea.

To repent of our sins, we must be convicted of them.  We each must accept our guilt and ask God for forgiveness and His gift of salvation.   So it is that I still find Jesus’ words to the church in Laodicea discomfiting.  The Bible had touched my heart, but not enough to divert me from myself.

Revelation 3:14-22 (Today’s New International Version)

To the Church in Laodicea

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.  I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!  So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.  You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.  I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.  Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.

To those who are victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.  Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

I was moderate and judicious.  I avoided risks and sought careful self-advancement.  I thought I had earned more than enough to attend to the needs of myself and my family.  In time, however, I learned there can never be enough material wealth.

Did the Christians of Laodicea learn as much?  Did they ever learn the need to have faith in God, or did they remain lukewarm?

Laodicea is no longer a city, but once it was prosperous and proud (See here and here.).  Once Laodicea produced the finest black wool, and it was a center of medicine, known for the salves it produced to cure the ills of the eye.   Nonetheless, for all its blessings, Laodicea had one particularly notable problem, its water supply.   Visitors to the city found the lukewarm water of Laodicea as hard to swallow as Jesus found the faith of its Christians.

Note: Earlier, I wrote a comment (here) observed the following.

Fortunately, there are very few dangerous extremists or fanatics in this nation. Unfortunately, good government requires much more than simply avoiding extremism or fanaticism. That is something I will talk about in my next post.

The indicated post will appear tomorrow morning.