Saturday, February 19, 2011 " . . . a religious people"

Saturday, February 19, 2011

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government shows a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." - - - - Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 312-314 (1952).

But that was 1952, what do our courts today think?

February 2, 2011


Courts Should Provide Equal Justice For All, Not Promote Religious Law, Says AU’s Barry Lynn

A federal appeals court made the right call in requiring a state judge in Ohio to remove a Ten Commandments display from his courtroom, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Judges should never send the message that some religious traditions have a preferred place in the courtroom.”

It sets forth overt religious messages and religious endorsements.

What happened to "When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities . . ."?

Last week I stated the closer you get to the time of the Constitution the more faith you find, and the closer you get to our time the less faith you find.  You see, the Constitution has not changed; the 1st Amendment has not changed; Jefferson's statement to the Danbarry Baptist has not changed; only the way we view them has changed.

We may find the answer to our religious Constitutional crisis in the first statement of the 1952 court decision.  They began by saying "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . ." Could it be we are no longer such a religious people and no longer presuppose a Supreme Being?  It may be that the problem is not the Constitution nor our institutions, but the heart of a people. 

If that were to be the case, herein would lie the problem, a people without a religious conscience pulling at their heart and no presupposed view of a Supreme Being, being governed by a document conceived in a society that embraced both!

Out of necessity conflict would arise, and it appears we have been there for some time now.  I have heard this described as the culture war or war of worldviews.  Those seem to be pretty accurate descriptive terms, but in a war, you most surely have collateral damage.  

I  suppose some of this damage could be viewed in that the non-religious side views the religious side as an enemy, thereby not recognizing the true heart and intent of a people who just want to do that which is good. (hopefully not in their own eyes) Jdg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. KJV



The religious side views the non-religious side as an enemy, thereby not recognizing they are separating themselves from the very ones they are to love and influence.  Mat 5:44 But I tell you to love your enemies and pray for anyone who mistreats you. CEV

But the scriptures also speak to the non-religious: Gal 4:16 Am I now your enemy, just because I told you the truth?

If history holds true, this conflict will not last long.  The religious among us must understand, yes we take a stand on the principles that govern our lives, for we can do none else.  But unless we as Christian people find ourselves once again in passionate pursuit of God and his purpose in our own lives, our culture war, or whatever you want to call it will be lost.  We may debate our debates; sign our petitions; tote our signs; and attend our town hall meetings, but our battle will be lost.

We may cry aloud "the Constitution" but it will be in vain.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - - - - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

If our passion for God in the church continues to be dormant, and the religious sentiment of our people secular, then of necessity our Constitutions of government must and will change.

"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." - - - -  John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws." - - - -  John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)
 
May God bless each of you,
 
David