Church_State

TO BE POPE OR PRESIDENT?

Separation of Church and State?

For the last few years, the discussion has peaked and ebbed regarding the separation of church and state. How many town and county holiday displays have been challenged? Don't forget the defiant stand of the judge in Alabama that, in the middle of the night, placed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the court house. The act by the judge was, by itself, questionable, recognizing the covert method of placement, however, the outrage and demand for removal cause me to believe that, finally, it has gone too far.

There can never be and there never were a complete separation of church and state. All of the laws that exist today are based on religious foundations. Laws can come from one of two sources, the first is the animal instinct and kingdom, while the second is from the religious developments which trace its roots to whatever you want to believe. Some laws rely on the desire to differentiate Man from animals, however, most laws are based on "Do unto others ..." or "Love thy neighbor ..." or the Ten Commandments.

Notice now closely the characteristics of politicians and church leaders resemble each other. Each has a desire to control the way the general populace thinks (mine if the right way), each must have a certain amount of public presentation, and each wants to make a comfortable living from this career. In neither case is the person willing to forgo monetary position in order to humble themselves before those that they serve. Does Tammy Faye and Jim Baker ring a bell? This was just a side note and may turn into a full discussion in the future.

A little history from my perspective may help. This country was founded, in large part, by people that were escaping the stringent relationship between church and state that existed in many of the European countries, with England being on the forefront. During this time, the Church of England was founded by the King (for his personal convenience) and therefore played an important role in the way the people and beliefs were viewed by those in power. After all, what was good enough for the King...

With the desire to have a choice in means and methods of religious observance at the heart of so many of the settlers, the developers of the Constitution could not gain the needed votes to found the country without including a set of specific freedoms as defined by the Bill of Rights. How can anyone declare that the religious fundamentals should not be recognized as a component of the state when one of the founding freedoms is choice of religion? Of course, the founding fathers recognized the inclusion of church in the state, however, there wasn't a dictation in which church. What this provided was a basis for many of the laws that were to be developed for this country. The entire legal structure during the formation of the country was based on the principles of Christianity. This is most apparent in what are referred to as the victimless crimes, i.e. prostitution and gambling. In almost every community where the law making councils were bible readers and church goers, laws against these activities developed (more based on discouragement of participation by citizens than actual need). I am not indicating a preference for or against, but I believe the basis of the laws is religious in origin.

Recognizing that the church (in whichever form you prescribe to) is the basis for the laws, why is there a need of such vocal demands for separation? I think the answer is simple. Fifteen minutes of fame for the person that screams the loudest and has press conferences and pickets, etc. Everyone seems to have forgotten that besides the freedom of religion, everyone has the freedom to ignore, not participate, or walk on by. But in today's climate, the attitude for everyone is that the rest of the world MUST agree with me, what I think is wrong then you must think is wrong and, no, you are not allowed to have an opinion that conflicts with mine. The issue isn't just at the lowest level, but it has pervaded the levels of the judicial system as judges are more interested in making decisions that bring the press than in simply dismissing those cases that lack, well, are just plain stupid.

The motto of the United States was not chosen because the words fit well into the space provided, "In God We Trust" is a declaration by the founding fathers that winning the fight for independence was more of a miracle than an even matching of foes. Which also reflects the origins of the founding fathers as seekers of religious freedom. "In God We Trust" has, through the years, given hope and inspiration during each and every crisis that this nation has faced, and, when the need arose, opened the hearts and pocketbooks to the rest of the world. Every godly characteristic has been displayed by the people of the United States. Mercy, Compassion, Charity, and a host of others represent the actions of the United States at various times.

The time has come for the judicial system to re-position themselves. Instead of paying heed to causes which have no value to the public, they need to re-enforce the concept that not everyone can have everything their way and that the majority desire recognition. Instead of declaring prayer in school WRONG, they should have said that prayers must be silent. The Pledge of Allegiance represents the recognition by the majority that this country is worthy of loyalty and that this country must still and forever rely on the human attributes that are godlike in order to become a better place. 'In God We Trust' represents the belief that a larger power exists in the universe and will, in the future, as it has in the past, come to the aid of those that believe.

I often wonder if those people that oppose the Nativity scenes at Christmas put up a tree and exchange gifts? How can they forget that the entire concept is a reflection of that exact origin? Perhaps we should declare that Christmas is no longer a national holiday? Where does it stop? No, it is no longer a matter of where but when.