Good question SKM. Let me clear up "submission". I like to drive fast. If no one's around and it's safe to go faster than the speed limit, I do. If I get pulled over for speeding (because I broke the law), I don't complain about the repricussions for my actions. I am in submission to the law and penalty. I pay my ticket and go about my way.
Biblical example. Three jewish boys were told by the king that they had to bow down and worship the statue in his image. Their religion prevented them from doing so. They told the King "do what you must" which was throwing them in a fiery furnace. They accepted that because they were in submission to the King's authority. The Government didn't prevent them from practicing their religion, there were just consequenses "persecution" for doing so.
Today's example. I have to kill puppies to worship sham a lang a ding dong. As stupid as it may be, I would. When I get sent to jail for cruelty to animals (which I should be). That was my choice.
We make a choice to obey the law or not. We have to be OK with the results of our choice.
To me, submission doesn't necessarily mean obeying the law as much as submitting to the consequenses.
Ricky...What? "as long as while practicing your religion, you are still in submission to your government". What do you mean by that? If someone worships Ram a lang a ding dong...and the way they do that is by killing puppy... your saying they can or can't? If the government says its illegal to kill a puppy that way, then it takes away there freedom of that persons religion,..right? Did I miss understand you?
Jib, thank you. Interpret and uphold. Right on. So we can blame our First Amendment Failures on our judicial system then.
ps...I tell my kids it's ok to pray in school on their own quietly. Who the heck's gonna know if they say a silent prayer before a test or something like that?
__________________
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
ND, your quotes from wiki point to the fact that this seperation was mentioned in court. From what I understand the judicial system has nothing to say about making changes to the constitution. They are merely there to uphold the law. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not an argumentive point, because I think I know which way you lean on this issue. Just my understanding of how the system works.
The way I understand it, the judicial system exists to uphold the law, and not make law... but when talking about the Supreme Court of the US, the purpose becomes slightly blured. The Supreme Court upholds the law, BUT also "interprets" the Constitution.
__________________
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -Dr. Johnson
OK..........bear with the blonde, here. Are you saying that there actually is no law pertaining to separation of church and state and .......perhaps that's why we still see congress stand up and pray together when in session?
Ricky, you hit the nail on the head. There should be no such thing as a government sponsored religion. Our forefathers were very clear on that. However, there is nothing stating that government should seperate itself from religion. They have given everyone the right to practice whatever religion they wish because we are a free country.
The First Amendment doesn't say anything about religion. It's all about speech, which has been taken way out of context many times.
ND, your quotes from wiki point to the fact that this seperation was mentioned in court. From what I understand the judicial system has nothing to say about making changes to the constitution. They are merely there to uphold the law. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not an argumentive point, because I think I know which way you lean on this issue. Just my understanding of how the system works.
__________________
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
"Seperation" is tough to define and is often blurred. I try to live my life as a "christian" without even having to use the word God. People should understand and know that you are a follower of Jesus without having to specifically tell them. With that, wherever I am, there is God. They should see a Him through my life and actions, thus cutting out seperation.
The early Roman empire persecuted the first "Christians" to the point of cutting off their heads. Those people, lovingly submitted to their government even to death. What happened? The Romans were so blown away by their loving, submissive actions that eventually they made "Christianity" the religion of the emipire or a "state sponsored" religion. That was a downward spiral for what was considered the church. Definitely not a good thing.
I don't know that I necessarily think it's a good thing to have a govt sponsoring one religion or another. I personally think the less the govt interferes in my life the better although I agree 100% about the morals and ethics dissapating in our schools/businesses ect...
What I do find as a problem is that instead of focusing on our rights to choose and practice our religion, some people in our govt choose to focus on our rights to not be exposed to people practicing religion. That makes no sense. If I want to say Thank ya Jesus... let me. If someone wants to kill a goat for their atonement, whatever. People have the right to choose their religion. Let them do it. As long as while practicing your religion, you are still in submission to your government.
I guess I do not understand why morals have to be or are tied to a religion. I think that the lack of morals comes from the lack of parents spending time with children instilling the "right or wrong" per say.
It is sad that there are so many parents that seem to just ship the children off to school and let the Schools deal with everything.
To be honest, looking back on growing up. There were classmates/acquaintances/children back then that were treated the same. And to be honest. Although they may have done some things in their pasts, it seems that they have really pulled it together to give their children a better childhood then they had. Be it support/love/guidance/discipline from parents or whatever.
I find the separation of Church and State very sad. I feel like the Christian religion instills morals in our children that they need in order to live a good life. They need more than just reading and math. With the separation of Church and State, the kids seem to be gettng an hour of Sunday School per week and maybe, if they are lucky, grace at the dinner table. That doesn't give the kids the knowledge that religion is something that should permeate and guide absolutely everything in your life. It's not something that should be reserved for certain moments in life. Children learn by example. We cannot overcome separation of church and state simply by telling them on Sunday mornings that they should keep God with them all week, and then contradict that by sending them to school all week where God is not to be mentioned.
On the other hand, I remember one student who had to leave school each time they celebrated a birthday or Christmas, as his religion taught that those things were not to be celebrated. That doesn't seem fair either. It's a very confusing issue.
From Wikipedia:
The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[3] The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,[4] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.[5] This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
Here is a really beautiful slide show of some quotes from our founding fathers:
First Admendment is freedom of speech...Not Freedom to ram it down throats and if you dont like it tough. There is a huge difference between Judeo-Christan and Muslium! Judeo-Christian is kind loving and forgiveness...Muslium is KILL KILL KILL. If you don't believe me...pick up a Koran and read. That will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. Do you honestly believe that if (and Obama says he's NOT) a muslim gets in office he or she won't push there beliefs on all of us. Sheesh, take the blinders off and start standing up for what is right, true and honest. Oprah is no Prophet. She is a millionair with her own propaganda in mind. Some people act like sheep who follow someone just because he or she is on TV. Admit it how many have ran out and bought a book because Oprah said it was a great book and ya all need to get it. I know I did... and I want my 15 bucks back! And dont tell me what great things she does...I know she does. But others are out there doing the same thing...they just don't televise it. Ugh... I'll shutty now.
I still haven't found anything anywhere that proves the seperation of church and state theory. Can someone please give me concrete proof that our forefathers intended this?
__________________
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
I was pleased to see, and to their credit, the editors at the Williston Herald did post my note. Kudos to them. There seems to be no opposition to lengthy postings even of a political nature, so I guess I will continue to use that forum as well, when I...ahem....feel the need.
I just read a post on the Herald Guestbook that warrranted, at least in my opinion, a response. Due to the possibly controversial content, I am not sure if the Herald will print it. Either way, I want to get the subject out for discussion....
On the concept of "one Sovereign God". No matter what the individual belief is as to which god constitutes "Sovereign God", the simple fact is that the United States of America was founded on the principles of judeo-christianity. We, the "still in the majority" Christians, have bent over backwards, then frontwards, then backwards again, in order to appease the politically correct, to our great detriment. Nevertheless, our constitution guarantees those of all religions the inalienable right to worship as they see fit, or not. I wager, for the sake of discussion, that in the event that Islam, which, by the way, is considered by some to be the fastest growing single religion on the face of the earth, was the religion practiced by the majority of the population of the United states, and if...again for the sake of discussion, the majority of members of both the House and Senate were of the religion of Islam, do you doubt, even for one minute, that there would be a movement, most likely successful, given the penchant for beheadings, and other horrific acts exhibited by Islamic radicals, throughout the world, and a lack of universal outrage by both moderate Islamists, and others, that Islam, again most likely the Sharia version, be the one and only acceptable religion in this country?
