The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

2 On Nov 23rd, 2007, at 7:20am, V. L. Parks wrote:

You can only do it in love, true Christ Love, there is no other way.  If the people do not have love, Christ Love, it will become a law that becomes a ugly giant and causes pain.  Nothing works if it is not done through Christ Love, nothing! If you have a nation that has not Christ Love you get the me, mine attitudes, hearts and laws. I Pray..
Father God I ask for the Love that Christ brought. For me, for my family and for my nation, for my world. Fill us Lord Jesus with Your Love for every person on the face of this earth. In Your name Jesus I ask. amen.

4 On Dec 2nd, 2007, at 8:41pm, Harry Rockfeller wrote:

Lisa, it was a poor choice in words on the ERLC home page.  It’s phrased a bit differently here: How do you think the relationship between church and state should work?  Do you have an idea on this one?

6 On Dec 5th, 2007, at 3:58pm, Loyd Turner wrote:

The 1st amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof—”. The statement about a wall of separation between church & state was made in a letter on Jan.1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. They had heard a rumor that the Congregationalists was to become the national religion. He, wrote to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God.  He also wrote: I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. The reason was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation. He wanted to remove all fears that the state would dictate to the church.

8 On Dec 19th, 2007, at 3:02pm, Greg wrote:

Mr. Husser,

I can see where you are coming from. Naturally our religion affects our beliefs, values, and ideologies. Obviously such an influence will affect our opinion on issues. I think the point Romney is trying to make is similar to what John Edwards said about gay marriage: his religion forbids it, but he cannot deny that right to other Americans, just because he thinks it is wrong. Which brings up the important point of the overlap of marriage between church and state. Marriage is a sacrament. True. But even Christians are divided over the issue of whether same sex marriages should be allowed in their churches. Marriage is ALSO a civil right, their are over 1,200 federal laws that accord special privileges to married couples. The Supreme Court in Turner v. Safely (1987) determined marriage was an important constitutional right. In 2004 in Lawrence v. Texas it protected the rights of homosexuals under the equality clause of the 14th Amendment.

10 On Dec 29th, 2007, at 7:13am, Trent Johnson wrote:

Blessed is the nation whos God is the Lord. It is just another lie from the devil. You are always talking about the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Salt heals, preserves and flavors and where there is no light there is gross darkness, but put salt on an open wound and it stings to no end. Those without Lord are wounded and in gross darkness. That is why they hate the salt. It is the sting they cannot stand, and the light exposes their sin and they do not want that exposed. They think that if the light and the salt are removed they will be free to do as they please, but they will find that there isn’t any more flavor, or healing or preservation to life, only gross darkness where there will be wailing and nashing of teeth. It will be to late at this point. It will be the dividing of the sheep and the goats and they will not want what they have brought upon themselves. May the God of all creation have mercy on us all!!!

12 On Jan 4th, 2008, at 6:16pm, Greg wrote:

Discrimination:
  treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Non-heteosexual couples aren’t allowed to marry denying them 1,138 federal laws that give special status to married couples . . . . need I say more?

I think its ironic that some who claim to be the moral right are the same people who seek to deny groups of people equal treatment under the law. Using your religious beliefs and enacting them into law forces others who don’t share those beliefs to follow the same law. So in that way the beliefs of an organized block of people can create laws that enforce their beliefs onto an oppressed minority. Your beliefs are your own, its not your place to legislate them when it hurts others.

14 On Jan 9th, 2008, at 5:54pm, Greg wrote:

This nation and the Constitution was founded actually by deists,  who actually believe that divine revelation and holy books are human interpretations rather than authoritative sources.

Let’s reflect on our government for a second. Does the fact that the constitution, like our Congress, was written by white, wealthy, heterosexual men mean that the concerns of our Constitution and our laws in biased? Is there reason why our country has such an infamous past of prejudice, persecution, and oppression?

Racism and other issues that have become scars on our national identity aren’t things of the past. There is an extent to which religion dictates our morality but there is also a part of our morality not determined by our religion. I believe there is an American morality. A sense that everyone deserves equality of opportunity and personal liberties and freedom. We have lost sight of that American sense of what is moral.

16 On Jan 12th, 2008, at 3:02pm, Trent Johnson wrote:

If (Heb.13:8) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today and forever, and if (Isa.9:6-7)is true, 9:6 For unto us a child is born,  and the government shall be upon his shoulder:  (Isa.9:7) Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and justice from henceforth and even forever, and if (Phi.2:9-11) are true, (Phi.2:9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given Him a name which is above every name:(Phi.2:10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, (Phi.2:11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, then there is no separation of church and state. In fact, just the opposite is true. There will be no discrimination, because every and all sin will be judged, finished and settled once and for all. So, if one is fighting for separation of church and state, then one is fighting against God Himself. Good luck, you are going to need it.

18 On Jan 14th, 2008, at 7:41pm, Dreama Taylor wrote:

The separation of church and state issue has been detached from it’s historical origination. Our forefathers wished to protect our young nation from the same fate as England declared itself Anglican.
  United States history is afterall our story; past generations handed off to following generations the responsibility, execution and protection of the awesome, miraculous constitution that God was credited and honored for by all who took part in the penning of our Constitution. Those wise men followed the very Word of God (OT) as a model to shape our government. Seems we are not so different from the Israelites; no matter how often God reveals Himself in miraculous ways we soon lean toward forgetfulness and stray.
  We Christians must not relinquish our duty to protect and guard the liberties that God Himself afforded us. Erroneous “Separation of church and state” mentality does not free us of this responsibility.

20 On Jan 15th, 2008, at 2:30pm, Greg wrote:

For those not familiar with Filmer. His ideas, which were adopted in England and in England’s settling of America, were based on the fifth commandment, “honor thy father and thy mother.” That was used to justify a hierarchy in all aspects of life. Social inequality was believed to be the way God wanted it. But today equality of opportunity is a core American value. In a Filmerian society, equality didn’t exist unless you were white, rich, a member of the dominant denomination in your community, first born, and male. Everyone else was relegated to a lower position, not because of their personal merit but because of how they were born.

Is that the America you want?

22 On Jan 16th, 2008, at 10:22pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Trent, you are forgetting that there is a difference between civil sin, and sin.  Sure David said against you and you only [God] have I sinned [adultery and murder] and done what is evil in your sight.  This is because God does have authority over civil government as you pointed out.  David, however, didn’t receive the death penalty because he was King.  Jesus said to look upon a woman to lust after her in your heart is just as bad as committing the act.  This is in God’s sight.  Does man have a right to apply civil punishment for someone who only thinks rape or adultery?  So, there are at least two categories: sin in general and a subset: civil sin.  This is where many Christians stumble.

24 On Jan 18th, 2008, at 6:08am, Trent Johnson wrote:

Harry & Drema, Thanks for your post. I am a sinful man and the only hope I have is that He who began a good work in you is faithful to complete it until Jesus Christ. I look foward to that day. I believe that we are at the culmination of all the ages. With that said, I guess I get tired of anything goes except the truth of God’s word and I am looking past the so called church/state issue, or any other, to a time when the whole earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord and there will be no other issue. My mind & heart is there now. FOREVER oh Lord Thy word is settled in heaven! Face the firey furnace or anything else, I will turn away from the only real truth and wisdom I’ve ever found and the more we as a people turn away and push God out the slippery the slopes become and the easier it is for those without the Lord to slide right into the eternal pits of hell. Thank God there is a redemer and may He reign in our hearts and our government, now and forever!!!!

26 On Jan 18th, 2008, at 7:24am, Trent Johnson wrote:

The framers of the consitution were not deists. Nothing could be futher from the truth and anyone who thinks so would have to be blind or out right lying. Thomas Jefferson even produced The Jefferson Bible. King David didn’t die for his sin because he was the King, God put away his sin because it was a revelation of Jesus Christ and the redeeming work He was yet to do (a picture of Christ & the cross) and David was a man after God’s own heart as well as he carried the blood line through which Christ would come and His throne will be established forever. If so called separation is ever realized, we will cease to exsit as a nation.

28 On Jan 19th, 2008, at 12:58pm, Greg wrote:

Here are some historical facts regardless.

Thomas Paine published “The Age of Reason” which popularized deism in America.

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Ethan Allen all either considered themselves deists or expressed strong components of deist beliefs in their personal diaries, speeches, and other writings.

We founded this nation for many reasons. One was that so the colonists like Dreama’s family could practice their religion in peace. The separation of church and state is not meant to hurt religion or religious practice. It was added to protect religion and ensure that no single denomination would dominate the others, as had happened in England.

The separation of church and state has protected the freedom of religious expression of Baptists and will continue to do so in the future.

30 On Jan 22nd, 2008, at 7:39am, Dreama wrote:

Thank you gentlemen. It’s been an honor.

32 On Jan 25th, 2008, at 9:10am, Trent Johnson wrote:

For anyone who thinks our founding Fathers were deists, I would like to suggest that you go to wallbuilders.com and read house resolution 888. God Bless the USA!!!!!!!!

34 On Jan 26th, 2008, at 10:20am, Dreama wrote:

I cannot even find an appropriate word to accurately describe the feelings evoked by looking around me and witnessing the ever growing result of the new ‘separation of church & state’ mentality. Does no one else see what that so called sophisticated thinking has done and continues to ‘feed’ to society? For instance, taking prayer out of school has raised a generation of searching, lost, misguided, confused, vulnerable young souls. Let’s face it. A far too staggering number of people are buying into, exploiting and enjoying the lack of accountability fed by lack of exposure scripture, prayer, sound, lawful guidance. I grew up in a generation of church-goers.  That generational influence seems to have passed & been replaced by a staggering number of non-church-goers. So, confused, searching, misguided….wonder why?

36 On Jan 28th, 2008, at 1:17pm, Greg wrote:

As previously established the separation is meant to protect religion. I support the truth that there is a separation, however, I don’t agree with removing religion from schools, or any part of life for that matter. I believe that prayer should be allowed, but if we do that we must realize that we are allowing prayer for Jews, all denominations of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., and must also respect the choice of atheists not to pray. Taking prayer out of schools was reading too much into the separation and not enough into freedom of religion. To reiterate my previous point, the reason there is a separation of church and state is to make sure no single religious denomination dominates the rest through the power of government. Furthermore, I would also argue that other generations have been just as “confused, searching, misguided” as this one. No time in American history have we had all the answers and I don’t think we ever will. That is personally why I believe in God.

38 On Jan 28th, 2008, at 4:13pm, Greg wrote:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
-first amendment to the U.S. Constitution

“building a wall of separation between church and state”
-Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

“Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States,” . . . “practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”
-James Madison

-In more than 25 separate Supreme Court cases the high court has used the term “separation of church and state” and has upheld its constitutionality

The separation of church and state is a legal and political reality, not some fantasy of liberals and atheists.

40 On Jan 29th, 2008, at 8:55am, Greg wrote:

I can give you a list of atrocities committed by past generations. If you could give me some evidence of how this generation is so much more misguided, because your statements come across as dramatic and unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, you make one big assumption, one must be Christian to be moral. I can also tell you of many great, tremendously moral people in history that were not Christians. Gandhi, Mandela, and Kofi Annan to name a few.

42 On Jan 30th, 2008, at 6:55pm, Greg wrote:

Well I am not sure you can blame the failure of our schools on the separation of church and state. Thats a result of underpaid teachers, unqualified bureaucratic administrators, and other socioeconomic factors. There are many private religious schools that are also underachieving.

Furthermore, this generation isn’t responsible for the holocaust, for a world war, for the colonization of the World, for slavery, for the overt oppression of women, blacks, Jews, and immigrants. I don’t see legal segregation, and I don’t see hundreds of African American men hanging from trees.

Sure there are problems going on now, but open a history book, these problems have been going on for the course of human history. Let’s be realistic and not unsubstantiated sensationalists.

44 On Jan 30th, 2008, at 9:31pm, Roberta Franklin wrote:

I would gently remind us all that there is a great difference between “church” as most people interpret the word (meaning religion) and “church” as in the Body of Christ.  This is, undoubtedly God’s world and it is He who allows the authority of the “state,” wherever that may be.  Thus real separation between the Body of Christ and the government under which they live is impossible.  We, by God’s grace and plan, live in America, with relative freedom (given by God alone) to practice whichever “religion” we choose.  Others in this world are placed by God in different situations, but always with His goodness and sovereignty in tact.  The world’s problem, as well as the individuals problem, is that we choose to forget that there is only one Creator God, and He is not us…you, or I.  One born again child of the living God need only participate where He directs to impact the relationship between the “church” and “state” in the way God wants it done.

46 On Feb 1st, 2008, at 6:30am, Dreama wrote:

Well said, Roberta.
This is a classic example, Greg, of just how easily we become distracted. We complicate things often by overthinking on our own, which reiterates the importance of turning to God for guidance.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am not attacking the school systems; “my way” is not the only way, but like it or not there is One True God…no one can escape that. I’m interested in equipping young people with the one core avenue of problem solving, strength, help, guidance, power…prayer is missing in all too many lives. (To me it is no differant than providing a starving person with food; thank God power of prayer is in never-ending supply.)Intelligence & education driven by the power of prayer can be an unstoppable force.
As for me, I’ll continue to follow God’s guidance.

48 On Feb 1st, 2008, at 3:11pm, eugene wrote:

there is NO separation of church and state, just no forced religion by the state!!!

50 On Feb 2nd, 2008, at 8:58pm, Harry Rockfeller wrote:

Family authority is subject to the state.  Just a couple examples.  There are zillons more.  Baptists lost a U.S. Supreme Court decision where a teenager wanted to be baptised but her parents forbade it.  The state ruled her parents had the authority to overrule the teenager’s and Baptist Church’s authority.  Joseph Smith lost his polygamy case.  “Church” has another meaning: a particular denomination or ecclesiastical authority.  I believe in this separation of church and state.  The other two definitions, given by Roberta, are impossible to separate from “state”.  The argument over whether deists founded our government or not is not the issue.  It’s a legal question.  What religion or philosophical authority is our U.S. Constitution under?

52 On Feb 4th, 2008, at 4:59pm, Greg wrote:

The point is that separation of church and state protects marriage and is not meant to hurt it. I agree sometimes politicians take the separation too far when they expect everyone to abandon their believes in public places. I believe prayer in school is ok, for example, but with the understanding that if you an any way support one religion, you have to support them all, even those who believe God doesn’t exist.

The separation, as I previously stated is a legal reality and not some conspiracy from gay atheist liberals. It helps the Southern Baptists and has allowed them to gain a strong following in several states. It ensured that a more liberal interpretation of scripture didn’t run our nations laws and force the SBC under its religious/secular rule. The SBC follows the same secular laws as everyone else, but thanks to the separation of church and state is can follow whatever religious rules it desires. That is the freedom the separation of church and state gives you.

54 On Feb 5th, 2008, at 10:16am, Dreama wrote:

God is not a religion or philosophy, He is the supreme authority. A person does not negate His authority simply by choosing not to believe in Him or His Word. Since our country was founded based on God’s authority & laws, then decisions which govern us in this country should be weighed against what His Word says about the subject at hand in correlation to the Constitution.

56 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 6:25pm, Greg wrote:

Well Dreama, I’ll just go with you on that one for a second. The problem still exists who’s interpretation of his word, law’s and authority are you going to use. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same God and all three religions have a multitude of denominations. Again, do you use the interpretation of the Episcopalians who generally embrace issues like gay rights or the interpretation of the Southern Baptists who condemn homosexuality. That’s just one of many issues in which different denominations do not agree. You assume there is unity on what God wants us to do and not to do but no such unity exists.

58 On Feb 7th, 2008, at 9:41am, Dreama wrote:

Last time I checked, God’s law - The Ten Commandments, was not disputed by Christians or Jews,
(nor was our country founded on Muslim belief). What’s so difficult about “Thou shalt not bear false witness”, or “Thou shalt not steal”? I’m reminded here of the saying, “What part of NO don’t you understand?”
Not only do Americans carry the responsibility to do what’s right in God’s eyes, but we also carry the responsibility to protect, carry out, & ensure the goals our founders intended. I suppose an indepth search of that history is vital.
Following is the issue at hand:

Amendment I
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.

60 On Feb 7th, 2008, at 6:28pm, Greg wrote:

Well the fifth commandment isn’t so straight forward. As previously mentioned it has been interpreted by some, dating back to Sir Filmer and beyond, to state that women are meant, by God, to be interior and submissive to men. Sure don’t steal, don’t murder, etc. those are common human moral values. Even atheists have such values. However, there are plenty of issues regarding religious law that is debated among religions and denominations. The Episcopalian Church has openly gay leaders, something the Southern Baptists would never condone in their own congregations. There is plenty of divide. So again I ask, if there is no separation of church and state, then who’s interpretation rules the rest? No denomination holds a majority. If the Southern Baptists tried to make the law reflect their beliefs 60-70% or more of the nation would vote against them because they have different beliefs and different interpretations.

62 On Feb 7th, 2008, at 7:40pm, Harry Rockfeller wrote:

John LeLand, one of the “founding fathers” of Baptist religious liberty, wrote in his memoirs that Christian, Turk, or pagan would have a right to participate in the new Federal government.

John Whitehead of the Christian Constitutional organization, Rutherford Institute, said the first amendment has recently been reinterpreted to mean any religious belief has equal standing in the public square including atheism, and rightly so.

People who have no regard for the 10 Commandments have been changing U.S. law for quite some time -legally.

As far as bear false witness, have you heard or read any recent political speech or press lately?  As far as thou shalt not steal, how much is a dollar bill actually worth these days?  The government breaks God’s command about equal weights and measures every time they print more fiat money.

64 On Feb 8th, 2008, at 1:17pm, Greg wrote:

Everyone is, or at least I hope, smart enough to know how to vote on their own without some religious leader with a political agenda telling you who to vote for.

Politics is dirty, religion is holy. My faith is a different sphere of my life entirely. I think its ridiculous and somewhat blasphemous to say “God wants this candidate.” None of us know, not even our church leaders. Do you honestly think the almighty God, ruler of the Universe, cares who we elect. What God wants is his people to live just lives. Who you do that is open to many interpretations and a lot of which you should use your own judgement. When my religious leaders try mixing politics into religion I find it an insult to my faith in God.

66 On Feb 12th, 2008, at 9:23pm, Paul Brodersen wrote:

I don’t understand the theory of the premise. The church is the people; the people of Christ are the church. In much the same way, per Plato, the State is the people, the people of Christ who have freedom due to Judeo-Christian historical events are the State. Perhaps I could wonder on the same train of thought, how should the relationship between me, myself, and I work?

Realistically, the fallacy of separation came from a letter, not constitutional merit. I do not understand the argument for or against separation.

If the church was not separated, legally, perhaps tax liability would result, but so would the creation of a religious political super power. The only restrain for politically active churches currently is fear of loosing tax-exempt status. If such status were taken away, I believe a political machine would result, and I would like to hear comments on whether that would be positive or negative in reclaiming our heritage..

68 On Feb 13th, 2008, at 3:29pm, Paul Brodersen wrote:

The fact that America currently legislates from the bench and that the Constitution “means what the Supreme Court says it means” is what is currently true, and what is currently wrong with this representative democracy, in my opinion. The inference of privacy and legislation from the bench seen through Roe v. Wade has created a great many problems including the absence of 30 million from our work force, as well as the inherent evil associated with such and allowable practice. Now legislatures in conservative states such as Oklahoma, and many other states, have passed legislation allowing public tax dollars used to fund abortions. How did an interpretation of Privacy merit the use of my money to fund death? And how did the interpretation of privacy through Casey v. Planned Parenthood take away a Man’s divine right to take care of the welfare of his offspring? Perhaps a more literal interpretation of the Great Charter would have prevented our current situation. I don’t know.

70 On Feb 20th, 2008, at 6:50pm, Raymond Reinhold Holmes wrote:

Seperation of Church and State simply means, “The State will keep its hands off the Church by not interfering with its Constitutional Rights.” We do not have a State Church like England does, although the Supreme Court acts like we do. Should we call our highest Court, “The Church of America?” After all, they legislate from the bench and treat the Constitution like it was a living being- it is not! They all swore an oath to obey and defend the Constitution and MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE! We are protected by the First Amendment which should guarentee Seperation between Church and State!

72 On Feb 25th, 2008, at 8:10am, Dreama wrote:

Greg, I have a comment re:your Feb.8 post(“without some religious leader with a political agenda telling you who to vote for.”...“Do you honestly think the almighty God, ruler of the Universe, cares who we elect…God wants is his people to live just lives.”
Our compass/guidance for all things should be God’s Word; the New Testment says as Christians we should be the salt & light. Salt influences flavor,preserves…we are to influence those around us & all things that affect us. So, my answer to you is Yes, God does care who we elect…those who will influence, protect/guard, preserve & edify God’s world. This is all part of living a just life; we are to influence everything/everyone around us for God,to help others find their way to a “just life”, including how we are governed & by whom we governed. By the way, the Bible is our imcomparable source of knowledge/guidance/education as to the way life should be lived;prayer the best source of guidance re:all choices in life.

74 On Feb 25th, 2008, at 4:20pm, Greg wrote:

I would also like to point out that the evangelical viewpoint on key issues isn’t united. Not all evangelicals are anti-gay, pro-life, conservatives. Red Letter Christians, who live by the actual, red letter teachings of Jesus support gay rights, the Democrats, and organizations that solve social problems like poverty. On the issue of homosexuality, to serve as the example, the Southern Baptists have a strong stance in opposition of equal rights for non-heterosexuals. However, the New Testament is surprisingly silent on the issue and evangelicals must refer back to Leviticus in order to oppose homosexuality. (Though they seem to ignore the rules about keeping kosher.)  Reform and Conservative Jews, who use the Old Testament as their sole religious guide, recognize gay marriage.

76 On Feb 26th, 2008, at 3:29pm, Roberta Franklin wrote:

Fact: God created us, He is and He is good. Fact: He knows what is best for us. Fact:  We don’t want what He wants for us, we want our own way. Fact: Homosexuality is a sin against life and God, just as fornication, adultery, lying, anger, malice, etc. are. His children, born of His Spirit need to live the way He says we should, do what He says is good, and pray for those who are missing the boat.If we live the way that God says is good for us, we will see Him work because…He is God and this life is not about us, it really is about Him. If people don’t want to acknowledge that God is God, that is surely tragic…but not really anything we can force. The criteria then becomes our priorities, whether we are willing to be rejected by the world to be faithful to God and just how far we are willing to go to live in truth.  All of it.

78 On Feb 26th, 2008, at 5:52pm, Greg wrote:

That isn’t all fact to a lot of people, and a lot of highly educated, moral people as well. What is fact is that thankfully we live in a society where oppression doesn’t live forever. Government processes will win out in the end and all people, gays included, will have their rights. Homosexuality is no more a sin than the hate and fear of the homophobes who preach against it. Furthermore, Roberta, why is homosexuality such a sin? Because of Leviticus? Conservative and reform Jews have had this debate, they are the experts on Leviticus and we have their answer of homosexuality. Btw, do you keep kosher? Funny, how people ignore so much in the Old Testament but decide to pay attention to something that they can use in order to justify their fear and hate of something that they don’t understand.  The Judeo-Christian tradition is supposed to be about compassion, acceptance, and benevolence. It seems like some denominations of that tradition have lost sight of what’s really important.

80 On Feb 27th, 2008, at 7:45am, Paul wrote:

Greg, you are partially correct, homosexuality is no more a sin than hate, and fear, or lying, or coveting, etc., but it IS still a sin. I have a problem with losing my temper, and it is not my right to act violent to people because that is how God made me, it is an area I am week and must consciously turn away from.

Obviously you are only interested in the red letters of the Word, something I do not agree with, but lets go from there. Christ said in Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” If Christ came to fulfill and uphold the law, and the law states that Homosexuality is an “ABOMINATION” than the action of homosexuality IS still a sin, and we are commanded to avoid it. It may be more difficult for some people who are tempted more in that area, same for abusive fathers and anger, or a weight problem and gluttony, all sin, all must be avoided.

82 On Feb 27th, 2008, at 10:08am, Roberta Franklin wrote:

Thank you Greg, for making the point so obvious. You will never be able to understand sin, until you admit that you are a sinner.  Sin is an observation from God’s perspective, not man’s. Our nation will never be able to recognize spiritual truth, until we are individually in relationship with Him.  We may, as a nation, be able to agree that our Constitution was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic and indeed, even on Biblical principles and their interpretation because that is historical fact.  We will never be able to agree that we are a “Christian” nation (as in followers of Christ.) Should we be? Of course! Will every knee bow, and every tongue one day confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God?  Absolutely! Would I lay down my life to affirm this truth. By God’s grace, were it necessary, yes.  Can I force you to believe it? No.  So, argue what you will, we each live according to the sovereignty of the one to whom we accede Lordship…and believe me, we each have a god.

84 On Feb 27th, 2008, at 10:20am, Mike West wrote:

Hey Greg, I grew up with a close friend named Bobby who chose a homosexual lifestyle, and as a result, he died early on from disease. The Bible is clear that “the wages of sin is death”. In his case, this particular sin of choice paid off sooner than others. Don’t be deceived, statistics clearly prove Homosexuals have a much shorter life span. All of God’s ways and laws are centered on giving us an abundant life now and an eternal life later. I say this not in judgment, but in an attempt to warn you. I wished that I had known better back then and could have warned Bobby. I am afraid that it may have cost him his salvation.

86 On Feb 27th, 2008, at 10:40am, Dreama wrote:

cont’d   Christ’s love turned my darkness, pain, confusion, lonliness into deepseated joy and peace;even worst of circumstances. My desire is to share that with others-not to pass laws that ultimately perpetuate their condition. You seem to want to keep ‘the church’ out of the sphere of influence of voters/government issues, but the government to influence/enable the acts of sin which lead to difficulties in life…we who know how to rise above the trappings of sin,are responsible to help others find their way to truth. Passing laws which lead people to further destruction is the opposite direction on the road to more peaceful way of life…the road to Christ. I have experienced the pit of sin;my motivation is not hatred of persons, but out of love and desire to offer a hand up out of the pit.Separation of church and state? impossible irresponsible. Ok, separate church and state if you like, but separation of God and state leads to precipice of breakdown of society.

88 On Feb 28th, 2008, at 1:40pm, Mike West wrote:

With or without “Separation of C & S”, civil & religious leaders have to have an origin of some kind of moral law in order to apply justice. The question is whose? Where is the beginning & end of all authority, man or God?

We must also remember that freedom of religion for all citizens is a different matter than who governs the nation. A true Christian nation would have a test of allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ before he could be in authority. Sadly, we are not really a true Christian nation, our founders never envisioned a future time where civil and religious leaders would be anything but followers Christ.

My goal is not so much to change the nation, but to be personally faithful to God for what he has entrusted me. In my family, my wife and children have freedom of choice to serve whomever or whatever, but when it comes to making final rules and applying justice, I will serve the Lord based on my best understanding of the scriptures, allowed by the Holy Sprit.

90 On Feb 28th, 2008, at 9:12pm, Greg wrote:

And to Mike West. Just as an aside, since this has nothing to do with separation of church and state: do you think they have a shorter life span because they are sinners or because they are subjected to constant hate from those who don’t understand them. Many sinners live a long time, their punishment comes after death, not before it., because even the sinner can seek forgiveness once they’ve realized there sin. I believe, like the APA and other medical associations, the reason why many non-heterosexual people die younger, from suicide, etc. is because they are the targets of hate and oppression. Anytime a gay youth is raised in a healthy, accepting environment they live just as long, and as happily and successfully as any of their heterosexual peers. Any psychological study will show you that. There is no biological, medical, or neurological inferiority associated with being gay.

92 On Feb 28th, 2008, at 9:28pm, Greg wrote:

Anyway lets return to the separation of church and state. Which as previously stated, defends all of our diverse beliefs. Religious beliefs are for the church and tell us how to conduct our daily lives. But the state is responsible for ensuring that the Episcopalians can’t force the Baptists to recognize same sex couples and you can’t tell Episcopalians to get ride of their gay bishop. It ensures the American value of the freedom to choose our religion and to practice it freely.

I understand that many Baptists feel threatened by the secular attack on their religion, and many of those fears are justified. But a separation is needed in a nation of religious diversity. Iran has little separation but the whole nation is shiite.  Our religion reflects what policies and people we support politically, but the separation of church and state makes sure that the government can’t walk into your church and tell you what to believe. And that makes America great.

94 On Feb 29th, 2008, at 10:03am, Paul wrote:

Greg, in response to Feb. 28th, specifically ..“when you treat people like they are less than human or what they feel they are naturally is wrong..”, this is where the confusion sets in for me. Most of what we all “feel is natural” is wrong, it is a “sinful nature,” again, it is difficult for everyone, not just homosexuals, to “deny themselves and follow Christ.”

Your personal accomplishments have nothing to do with it. Neither do the bad choices of your friend. Statistics show that nurturing produces fruit in anyone, that is unarguable, the question still remains of truth, God’s law, Christ’s covenant of forgiveness ONLY after repentance, and denying ourselves. What made America great IS the Judeo-Christian foundation, creating freedom, not the perversion of liberal America.

96 On Mar 1st, 2008, at 9:48am, Equal Sexes wrote:

Greg wrote: “... enforce you[r] religious beliefs on others…”

No. This seems like propaganda to deny equal rights to Christians. First, the SBC & the Bible says that men and women are equal before God. Conversely, the function of homosexuality is to deny and abridge equal rights to both men and women in the name of ‘love’. This is a perversion. Same-sex oriented sexual preference is just as unconstitutional as same-race oriented racial preference (see http://www.gayanswers.com).

The First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... the right of the people ... to petition the government…”

Religious people have the right to petition the government to make laws according to their religious conscience (see http://www.wall-of-separation.com). Different roles for men and women in marriage no more makes them unequal than do different roles in corporate or civil government. If no one submitted to anybody else, we wouldn’t have a government or equality.

98 On Mar 1st, 2008, at 2:27pm, Greg wrote:

As pointed out by Paul: nurturing produces fruit in anyone, that is unarguable. Well, then shouldn’t we nurture everyone the best we can so that they can be the best they can? God will judge our lives, it isn’t up to us to judge others, that job belongs to a higher power. We can guide people as we see fit, but there is a line between trying to help someone and judging them. I don’t believe who I choose to love is a sin, you can’t change my mind about that and I doubt I can change your minds. But I expect that my belief is respected like I respect yours, but we should both be allowed to live up to our potential and live full lives, and let God have mercy on our souls when we move on. There are many different beliefs on this issue, you see your position as undeniable as I see my position as being undeniable.

100 On Mar 9th, 2008, at 12:48pm, Tom wrote:

Eugene is right.  There is no Constitutional “Wall of separation between church and state.”  That is a private phrase of Thomas Jefferson.  In the First Amendment to the US Constitution the Framers put up a religious door facing the government hung with a sign that says “Do Not Disturb!”  But there is no constitutional prohibition from religion interfering with, disturbing or otherwise influencing the government.

But nowadays its backwards.  Religion cannot influence the government (e.g. via 26USC Sec. 501(c)(3)).  And without a syllable of authority from the Constitution the nine lawyers of the Supreme Court decide whether a village green can display a creche or not.

The People of course are responsible for this turn of events.

102 On Apr 3rd, 2008, at 8:31am, Dreama wrote:

In the name of separation of church & state, God & recognition of Him, spec. prayer, were removed from schools to appease one person’s conflicting belief of the very foundation our government & constitution were built upon. Once again we see the ‘fruit’ of separation of church and state - 3rd graders plotting to kill their teacher! What source but evil gave birth to such horrendous, unthinkable nightmare scenarios as this?! Our forefathers fully intended & provided accordingly for education of American children as to God’s higher authority we all fall under. Clearly this is not being fulfilled in today’s society. Thanks to our so-called leaders passing law to forbid this (no prayer/scripture reading in school) our children are falling prey to evil. Be careful what you ask for & stand for America. A price is always paid for ignoring God.

104 On Apr 11th, 2008, at 5:23pm, Rev. David Hammock wrote:

April 11, 2008

In reality, there is no such thing as the separation of church and state. Looking at the historical evidence from 1606-1982(375 years) of legal documents(state constitutions, the US Constitution and other legal decisions, it is obvious that our founding fathers ever considered that the two would be “separated.”

When you look at original intent, and the definitions of Freedom, Religion and Establishment Clause based on the actual verbage, semantics, and linguistics of the times, the above stated documents were written, you’ll find your answers.

Rev. David Hammock
President
Revivals For America

106 On Apr 11th, 2008, at 8:41pm, Rev. David Hammock wrote:

The definition of “religion” according to Webster’s 1828 dictionary meant: “Includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of His will to man, and in man’s obligation to obey His commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties….the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to His will or commands, is not religion.” (Daniel Webster)

Actual words, intent, perception, judgment, interpretation and application are what we must look at in 1791 when the First Amendment was added. Then we go from there. The founders never intended for the adjudication of their intentions, or the removal of truth from the US Constitution or state constitutions.

Rev. David Hammock

108 On Apr 12th, 2008, at 10:29pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Lloyd, How true.  I would also like to add 2 things. 1) There is no option for a U.S. Christian eligible-to-vote citizen to *not* vote.  Christ said to render to Caesar (your civil gov’t) what belongs to him.  So, to choose to *not* do that is, well, sin.  2) Who to vote for?  Simple, use the Bible.  Vote for a proven leader with a spotless track record in family, church, and probably business life as well.  Most criteria for deacons and bishops probably should apply too.

Unfortunately, 2) rules out the viable presidential contenders in both major political parties.  Hmmmm.

Are the pastors not teaching/preaching this or are their congregations letting the teaching/preaching in these areas roll right off their backs like water on a duck?

110 On Apr 14th, 2008, at 4:32pm, Rev. David Hammock wrote:

The idea of separation of church and state was a point of Jefferson’s; we all know that. The separation of state idea, never meant the (idea) of the {removal} of the influence of God upon government, education, or any other area of American life. If such were the case, it would be reflected in the state constitutions, charters, the Bill of Rights and other judicial documents. Two other points: 1-Unity does not mean unanimity or uniformity. 2-Diversity does not mean divisiveness. We need to consider this when we consider “church and state” models, if that’s what’s being done in a democratic society. Remember GOD foresaw all of this. What did our founding fathers foresee?

Rev.David Hammock
CEO
Revivals For America

112 On Apr 16th, 2008, at 8:54am, Rev. David Hammock wrote:

Harry,
Regarding Caesar: As Christians we are to be salt and light.Remember, I said “clarify” Caesar’s world. I did not say be “uninvolved” in Caesar’s world. The point I am making here is that as Christians we are not to “revolve our life around, try to find into, or seek to make our self comfortable in Caesar’s world.” We must speak out. We must provoke change. We have a duty to disobey all that evil stands for. Therefore, we must vote; otherwise we have said it is okay for evil to prevail if ungodly leaders are put in office and we have not done our part.  My point…do all you can, obey God in all you do, occupy until Jesus comes,never forgetting that “My kingdom is not of this world.” Thanks for your comments. Forgive me if I did not properly address it.
Rev. David Hammock

114 On Apr 20th, 2008, at 11:52pm, Rev. David Hammock wrote:

The “idea” of separation of church and state was never intended for there to be a severing of the state “from” religion. The church (religion) is an extension of the people.  Man the world over is a worshiping creature. To sever the church from the state is to weaken the very fiber of our nation. Our founding fathers never intended for America’s religious heritage to be compartmentalized. Such would be an implosion of America’s identity.

If one builds a house, there are many different rooms in the house designed for separate purposes. The living room is separated from the master bedroom. MY POINT: Each room is still a part of the same house. The two rooms are separate, but equal. Each is necessary to make the house complete. A bit of food for thought.

Rev. David Hammock

116 On May 15th, 2008, at 2:07pm, David Hammock wrote:

It should also be unrealistic to expect a Christian church to follow non-Christian values. That is what the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life that God hates are all about. We have a duty to disobey evil as well as speak out against it. It’s not about shoving “our” Christian values down anyone’s throat. If we believe the gospel is truly the power of God unto salvation, then why not speak it and live it? Sharing the truth is the greatest love we can give anyone. Speaking the truth in love for God and love for the truth comes before sharing with another. How shall they hear and understand God or his ways if we don’t tell them? God’s Holy Spirit won’t do our job to communicate. We have to be willing to face things. If we don’t, how will anyone else learn from us, that is, if we have anything to share.

Rev. David Hammock

118 On May 16th, 2008, at 9:29am, Eqaul Sexes wrote:

Rebekah wrote: “I believe it is our job as believers in the Lord Jesus to simply love others…”

No…

2 Cor. 10:5 “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God,”

Jude 1:3 ...ye should earnestly CONTEND for the faith…

con·tend: To strive in controversy or debate; dispute.

120 On May 16th, 2008, at 9:53am, Equal Sexes wrote:

Greg Wrote: “I don’t believe who I choose to love is a sin,”

I thought homosexuality was not a choice? Isn’t it supposed to be unchangeable? Thus, homosexuality is totally gender-exclusive and unchangeably intolerant of sex equality and diversity in the name of ‘love’.

That is a perversion.

Same-race oriented racial preference = racism
Same-sex oriented sexual preference = sexism

big·ot: “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group [e.g. sex], religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” - American Heritage Dictionary

Homosexuality is strongly partial to one’s own sex and is intolerant of those who differ.

Straight heterosexuality is uniquely gender-inclusive, sex diversity and equality orientation (i.e. man + woman).

122 On May 16th, 2008, at 1:53pm, eric wrote:

Roberta Franklin wrote:

Fact: God created us, He is and He is good. Fact: He knows what is best for us. Fact:  We don’t want what He wants for us, we want our own way. Fact: Homosexuality is a sin against life and God,...

You are confusing fact with faith. None of the above is a fact; it is what you want to believe is true. The fervency of your belief is inconsequential.

Your god is not my god; you have no mandate, legally or morally to make your ‘sin’ a civil matter. [for which we should both thank our respective deities] I find your simplistic paternalism particularly insulting, and the antithesis of Amwerican freedom.

124 On May 19th, 2008, at 10:52am, Amy wrote:

Separating church and state is a must in today’s society. We are no longer living in Walnut Grove along with everyone else from Little House on the Praire. America is a melting pot of cultures and religions. I teach first grade students and as a Christian, teacher, and future parent, I would not want other religions to be taught in the schools much less enforced. Being that we are in America, if Christians want to teach and practice Christianity in the schools and other forms of state government, then we have to let all religions be taught. Furthermore, if Christians would just do their job of loving others, living out their faith by their actions, and stop judging others then Christianity would spread like a wild fire. Even the Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s and Buddist’s would be falling on their face worshipping God.

126 On May 19th, 2008, at 2:12pm, Rebekah wrote:

We are all sinners condemned to death and in desperate need of grace. We have forgotten this as believers, however, and have elevated ourselves to a place where the gavel rests in our hands.  The world has proven to respond angrily to our attempts to be judge and jury on how to live. Why do we continue to push? He who is without sin can cast the first stone.  If you have the gall enough to cast it, you are the worst of the lot.  You may not be a homosexual or “pagan” (though I doubt the latter is true), but you are not without the sin of pride.  So how far will you allow your “convictions” to go?  Will you then be a proponent for punishment of thought crimes?  The beginning and end of being a Christian is admitting that you don’t know anything.  Perhaps the most gracious thing you can do for the world is to remove yourself from their living room, keep your mouth closed and your hearts open.

128 On May 19th, 2008, at 5:57pm, David Hammock wrote:

Thank you ERLC.
Just how much “morality” does the Constitution really have, or subsequent judiciary decisions imply that should or should not be legislated? Is it really Biblical to legislate morality? Just how much is enough? Just how much is inadequate? Is not the US government (at times) the opiate of the people, or is the US govt. the conscience of the people? If it were the conscience of God…some things are drastically lacking, if Biblical standards are what is currently at stake. If people were so concerned with reality, then why wasn’t change made long ago? Show me the true power of prayer in the US, then we can talk about this dilemma of church vs. state separation. “A church that has lost it’s legitimacy will ultimately lose its power.” George W. Bush

Rev. David Hammock

130 On May 29th, 2008, at 8:39am, David Hammock wrote:

To Dreama:

Very well said. “The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth MUCH.” I too am convinced that God reveals much in prayer and that learning to hear God and share with God, makes way for all that is to be done with God and for God.

Equal time for different groups in our schools is the truly legal way for the affairs of America to be conducted.

God bless you.

Rev. David Hammock
Revivals For America

132 On May 31st, 2008, at 10:24pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Dreama, you can’t stop at Christian and Jewish.  Islam, Kiballah, Scientology, and even God forbid, Satanism prayers are *supposedly* all Constitutional. This is not the biblical way for prayer to be taught.  Parents are responsible for their children’s education.  The church may have compassion on some orphans.  Either public schools need to be explicitly Christian with parents in charge (i.e., funded at the most local level), or they shouldn’t exist.  I see no other alternative in Scripture.

134 On Jun 10th, 2008, at 5:54pm, Beth wrote:

Separation of church and state does not mean that faith should not influence one’s voting.  I believe the Bible teaches social justice, so I vote accordingly.  However, as a long-time member of a Southern Baptist church, I am disgusted by the SBC’s insertion into the political realm (including through the ERLC), particularly on controversial issues like immigration, where faith can lead us to a variety of political conclusions, not just a conservative Republican one. The SBC does not represent me when it promotes certain policies, claiming to represent “the views and concerns of the over 16 million members.”  I am very disappointed in the SBC’s apparent view of the relationship between church and state as a means to lobby narrow political positions that lack biblical support or even contradict biblical principles.

136 On Jun 11th, 2008, at 8:20pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Jonathan, I understand what you are saying *only* if I use two definitions of -religion-.  One definition is “church (denominational) authority”.  Our Constitution was written to separate this kind of church and state.  The other religion includes all kinds of philosophical belief systems, even atheism.  This kind of -religion- is exactly what influences how we vote as well as what one believes is right and wrong (both civil and personal ethics).

Beth, I agree with some of what you are saying.  No person (other than Jesus Christ Himself) has a corner on defining civil ethics.  Yes, even Southern Baptists are wrong biblically in some cases.  I have written here about biblical reasons why I believe this is so.  Perhaps you too might share some of your civil opinion formed from biblical principles which contradict ERLC?

138 On Jun 15th, 2008, at 2:58pm, Dreama wrote:

Why are we trying to prove biblical contradiction of the ERLC? I’m thankful that my rights from a Christian standpoint are being defended. Washington seems to seek to quiet those of us who choose to consult God first rather than follow the public majority because is easy; for years I have felt disinfranchised. ERLC is our avenue of representation as Christians. Nothing and no one is perfect, but I am certainly happy there are those who seek God. I pray we all learn from David’s mistake of failing to consult God before he acted. May we all pray fervantly for God’s guidance, God’s “opinion” & authority on matters far greater than the human mind seems able to rise above. May we continue in God’s grace for the love of others.

140 On Jun 16th, 2008, at 3:12pm, Dreama wrote:

Take all the freedom from MY ‘religion’ you like, Eric, but all the freedom in the world will not free you from God’s judgement. Saying sin is not sin does not make it so; sin remains sin regardless of our individual opinions! Consult God, pray for Him to reveal His existence, to reveal Himself & His truth…I’ve come a long way on my journey as a result of seeking God’s truth; just as sin will take you further than you ever wanted to go, God’s truth will take further than you ever dreamed.

142 On Jun 18th, 2008, at 7:45am, Dreama wrote:

Eric
Seems we may be the “pot” & “kettle”, eh?

The following current issue may serve well as an example you seek: “Right now, a bill is being prevented from getting to the floor for a vote by liberal leadership in Congress. This bill - the Broadcaster Freedom Act—would permanently ban the so-called
“Fairness Doctrine” & bring about true Radio Independence…
the Fairness Doctrine - a form of government
control of ideas that could banish the conservative voice from the airwaves!”

The fact that prayer has been banned from schools which has presented countless “persecution” scenarios speaks volumes here.

We certainly proved here the importance of “fair representation”, haven’t we?

Is a “secular, religion-neutral government” even truly possible? Secularism could be defined as a religion. Would ‘separation of church & state’ then exist?

I believe our constition should be utilized in the manner our founders intended…not at all difficult to interrupt as intended.

144 On Jun 21st, 2008, at 9:59am, eric wrote:

Harry: Your comment, “..The ERLC method of a secular government *IS* not biblical and is useless to uphold the Constitution as our founders intended.  We need a specifically Christian government so the Christian principles our founders intended can be legally enforced.” raises a number of troubling questions:

What evidence do you have of what the founders “intended”? What they, in their wisdom produced, is the Constituition. Not having your psychic insight into their unwritten thoughts, I’ll base my conclusions on that.

Your concept of legal enforcement of religious law has never, in the history of mankind produced anything but strife, discord, and human rights abuses. Would you criminalize some 80+ million citizens who choose not to practice your faith? Would heresy become a federal crime? Like the Taliban, your interpretation of your religion seems incompatible with an egalitarian society.

146 On Jun 24th, 2008, at 12:08pm, Matt wrote:

RE: Elvis, post 145

With regard to your remarks about Land’s statements, perhaps it would help to apply the context of Land’s comments. When he made the fireman/arsonist metaphor he was speaking specifically about the candidate’s stances (and records) on the abortion issue.

Clearly, the 2 candidates have ‘polar opposite’ stances on that particular issue, thus the ‘opposites’ metaphor is accurate, regardless of what your stance is.

I suppose the pro-abortion viewpoint would see McCain as the ‘arsonist’ of their position, and Obama the fireman. As a prolifer myself, I would not take no offense with them saying that… b/c it would be accurate.

But I digress… I don’t wish to steer the thread a bit off track any further.

148 On Jun 24th, 2008, at 2:24pm, David Asher wrote:

The separation of church and state is very real (upheld over 200 years by over two dozen Supreme Court decisions) and it is a cornerstone of American society.

What makes America great is that it is possible to view an issue as an American and say I support POLICY A (like same sex marriage) and think well equality and justice for all Americans. Then you can look at it as a Southern Baptists and say no to POLICY A (marriage is between a man and a woman). The solution is then a compromise between the two (say civil unions or a marriage bill like the one in Canada that allows same sex marriage but guarantees religious leaders the right to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious views.)

150 On Jun 26th, 2008, at 7:31am, Dreama wrote:

Each time I see the comment re:‘hate’ my spirit sommersaults. Isn’t it interesting that the “hate” wasn’t stopped when Jesus endured ridicule, beating, hanging on the cross…...oh but if it had been stopped the very key that gains entry to heaven & salvation would have been lost. “God so loved the WORLD”...John 3:16.
Is it hatred when one sees a vehicle approaching on a road broken ahead by a huge ‘sink hole’ & dares to interrupt the journey by issuing warning in hope of preventing the vehicle & all it’s passengers hurtling to death & destruction?
Ezekial 33:1-23 is an interesting read re: this issue.
If I see a burning building & do not warn the occupants am I not responsible to some degree for the lives that may be lost or damaged?
Hatred has nothing to do with it; rather the deepest, most compassionate, unconditional human love possible…the reason I see complete separation of church & state unacceptable & even irresponsible.

152 On Jun 26th, 2008, at 9:29am, eric wrote:

“Seems we may be the “pot” & “kettle”, eh?”

Dreama: You are entitled to identify with whatever kitchen appliance you choose; such is the freedom of America. A pity you seem bent on removing that same freedom from others.

Thank you for proving my point with your example of oppression. You feel oppressed when you are not allowed to hijack instruments of the state for your religious purposes; when you are not allowed to use courts and schools for your religious indoctrination; when you are denied the ‘right’ to exclude those not of your faith from such public institutions.

What America needs is more such ‘oppression’, until you finally see that you are NOT more equal than others.

154 On Jul 4th, 2008, at 7:50pm, David Asher wrote:

Dreama hate may not be your intention and you may not harbor hate inside of you. But just so you are aware there are millions of people living in this country such as non-heterosexuals and atheists that feel that they are hated by Southern Baptists and other similar religious groups. And that is exactly why they embrace the separation of church and state because they worry that someone who they perceive as hating them will get control of the country and try to tell them how to live their life.

156 On Jul 8th, 2008, at 7:12pm, Dreama wrote:

PART 1: I realized exactly what tends to be forgotten in our country. We must remember the baseline of the foundation our country was built on. To begin the laying ceramic tile in a very large room one must first find the center of the room/area, lay out the baseline to adhere to while laying remainder of room. All tiles must be set from baseline lest the lines begin to waver & the entire room goes askew. Just as the center tile determines the condition of the entire room, so does the center (the core) of our country. The U.S. was founded with God at the center of the work the framers of our Constitution forged. They worked the baseline off of that “Center”;thus we MUST follow that baseline today. Stray from the baseline, then things begin to go ‘askew’, lines are blurred. Just as fabric begins to unravel with the deterioration of the center threads, so will our country unravel when we stray from the baseline of our foundation.

158 On Jul 9th, 2008, at 8:39am, Patrick J Burwell wrote:

How I demonstrate the wall of separation, of the government from affecting religious liberty, is to exercise my free speech right to preach the Gospel on the street, to anyone I choose, without regard to government intervention or prevention, encouraging those who do likewise (like Michael Marcavage of RepentAmerica.com).
Indeed, the expectation of the Federalist Papers my ancestor helped to pen, Captain Burwell, the Undersecretary to Thomas Jefferson, did actually affirm the required role of Christianity to the establishment, affirmation and affection on the government of the people, for the people and by the people. Without the role of Christians on government this nation would not now exist, and will not prevail as the bastion of freedom all the world has come to for should Christians fail to do their duty.
Patrick J Burwell/OnlyJesusSaves.com
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

160 On Jul 11th, 2008, at 3:05pm, eric wrote:

PJ: Your activity seems more concerned with enhancing your reputation as a ‘Christian’ than obeying the tenets of your faith. [a singular characteristic of Mr. Marcavage]

You might wish to re-read:

Matthew 6: 5-7

5 “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.
6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

It is hypocritical dominionist attitudes which assure me that we must prevent ANY religious zealots from controlling the nation.

You and the Taliban seem to have a lot in common; opposite sides of the same coin?

162 On Jul 14th, 2008, at 10:03pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Statements like this don’t accomplish much in this discussion: “It is hypocritical dominionist attitudes which assure me that we must prevent ANY religious zealots from controlling the nation.” 
Instead why not suggest PJ read some of the back comments addressing the *legality* of homosexual behavior, which includes a so-called right to “marriage”.  As much as I dislike the idea even I defended this legal right (See post 49).  Patrick Henry, well-remembered for the phrase “give me liberty or give me death” spoke this in - *church*.  He didn’t want any denominational zealot(s), or the King of England, controlling the nation.  He did expect Christian moral law, as given in the 10 Commandments for example, to be enforced however.  I keep trying to steer this discussion toward the legal crack in our governmental foundation but it never seems to make it there.

164 On Jul 15th, 2008, at 8:39pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Eric, It is your reference to religious law [humanist democracy in opposition to Christianity] being enforced as civil law that is the problem.  *You* have refused to elaborate on how that would be enforced without denying the rights of me, a U.S. citizen, to reject those humanist commandments in opposition to my religion.  Saving the life of humans in the womb is in some ways already a crime.  Orthodox, i.e., Bible-believing, Christians are already disenfranchised.  Legal means to lead others to the Living Water are pulled out from under us.  For example, offering freedom to a homosexual trapped in sinful behavior can be construed as harassment in many business settings.  Secular, environmental, etc. humanism is the epitome of dominionism.
There is no neutrality.  This is one reason our founding fathers permitted the Federal government no moral law making ability.  The 10th amendment reserves that right to states and the people.

166 On Jul 16th, 2008, at 2:18pm, eric wrote:

Ah,the old ‘humanist’ denial. Like it or not, our humanity is a commonality linking all peoples of all faiths, creeds, races and nationalities. Ergo, when debating civil law, it is with those commonalities we must begin.

Nobody is denying YOU the right to live YOUR life by YOUR tenets. You seem, like Dreama, to imagine that your rights extend to the lives of others, and rationalize that under the guise of faith.

You have made proposals to radiacally change the structure of America, yet you have not detailed the causes of your dissatisfaction. You have linked my rejection of your religious law to a need for a specifically Christian government. You have repeatedly avoided answering questions about the implementation of your plan. Why the reticence, Harry? Afraid to reveal the extremism of your position?

168 On Jul 17th, 2008, at 7:43pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Eric,
See my post #15 for what political action I propose.
You may view my blog at harrysworldview.blogspot.com too if you would like.

Basic doctrine of Jesus Christ is missing in your “civil gov’t is humanist” argument.  Jesus Christ lived as a human, died and conquered death.  As a result *all* authority in heaven and on earth is given unto Him.  This includes civil law.  Yes, there is civil social sin worthy of civil punishment no matter what one’s chosen religion.  Otherwise, why is murder (most kinds anyway) punishable in a civil court?  God said it (6th Commandment), gave the authority to Jesus Christ (Matt 28:18), and commanded Christians to teach this as part of the gospel (19&20;) (how societies and cultures can obtain God’s blessing and avoid His wrath).  Then of course there is the next life and the Judgment facing all humans no matter what their chosen religion.

170 On Jul 18th, 2008, at 5:42pm, eric wrote:

David: [post 154]: Considering the posts here, I think we can pretty much eliminate any doubt about the threat to freedoms!

172 On Aug 3rd, 2008, at 9:41am, helen M nanney wrote:

The framers of our constitution meant the Separation of Church and State, to keep government control out of religion. They had experienced religious persecution from totalitarian regimes.

Our political system is almost as corrupt as they
were. We bow down to atheistic organizations like the ACLU, and have taken God out of our social and cultural influences through supreme court decisions. We have devalued our democracy’s moral values. We are #1 in the world in murder, rape, abortion, child molestation, and incarceration. We have reached a self destructive stage. God’s creation is expressed in purity and any thing less becomes the forces of darkness as in Sodom and Gomorrah and all kingdoms that have fallen from their iniquities.  America and the world needs prayers and action.
Helen M Nanney http://www.journey-book.com

174 On Aug 19th, 2008, at 5:29pm, eric wrote:

Actually, Helen, very little of what you say is true. There are many countries with far worse crime statistics than USA. “Bear not false witness”. A cursory google search of appropriate statistics, rather than hysterical rhetoric may be in order.

The ACLU has defended many Christian organizations whose rights were threatened. If you have fallen afoul of them, it was you who were transgressing against others.

176 On Aug 21st, 2008, at 6:33pm, Helen Nanney wrote:

Get on the ACLJ e-mail list and your eyes will be opened. They do their homework, before they go to court.

Before America was born, rulers controled religious rights of people and many were persecuted. Our forefathers wanted our religious freedom to protect it from government control, not suppress it. My book: http://www.journey-book.com
  Teaching that America was founded on the principles, of a divine Creator, who created the universe, and is the source of all that is Good, would not offend any religion. It would give a moral base for children.  Teaching evolution as mans source is not healthy for any country.

Dr. Wernher von Braun, the “Father of the American Rocket and Space Program,” said, To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to “violate the very objectivity of science itself.” [5] While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it.

178 On Aug 22nd, 2008, at 7:56pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Eric, I don’t expect you to understand my political philosophy.  You have admitted you reject any authority of Jesus Christ.  You claim I’m in the camp with Hitler, but I claim I’m in the camp with C.S. Lewis’ _Mere Christianity_ when he wrote it to explain Hitler’s evil nature.  So, this next paragraph is addressed to those who do accept Jesus Christ’s authority.

It is true, that a dominionist view which requires strict adherence to civil moral law as given in the Old Testament is an extreme position.  The death penalty for working on the Sabbath is certainly hard to swallow.  It’s even hard for me to accept.  In fact, I don’t want to but will if that is our Creator-God’s intent for today.  This is why I have asked for a cogent coherent biblical exegesis of the Southern Baptist political philosophy.  I very much am willing to be convinced Jesus Christ, The King of kings, has a different intent.  I do want to submit to His authority in *everything*.  Don’t you?

180 On Aug 23rd, 2008, at 1:20pm, Helen Nanney wrote:

When Jesus said, “a fountain can raise no higher then its source”, he was quoting a scientific fact, and certainly a law of cause and effect. How can an infinite Deity be the source of finite matter? Adam and Eve were warned not to believe they would be as a god if they accepted themselves as the source of things contrary to God’s image. That was the beginning of the beliefs of life as separate from God. Thus thy lost sight of their perfect place in the order of creation. Sin, disease and death is not from God. That is the worlds disruptions. You need to read my book as I am limited here to explain all this.
  * “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission), The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

http://www.journey-book.com

182 On Aug 24th, 2008, at 7:51pm, Helen M Nanney wrote:

Bruce, man is made after God’s image and likeness. Since He is an all presence God, and is eternal, He must also be Spirit. Matter is not spiritual. How can the infinite creator of Life be in finite matter? Why would He make man in His image from another ‘origin of species’? Cause and effect have to be from the same source to be scientific. God is not from a self-theory of another ‘origin of species’.

* “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.” Malcolm Muggeridge (British philosopher), The Advocate, March 8 1984.

184 On Aug 27th, 2008, at 3:37pm, helen M nanney wrote:

Eric: You have no idea. He, whom is unknown to you, has talked to me several times. It does not take a rocket scientist to know, because He is all TRUTH, then all these other theories are replica’s of the dark ages, so excuse me if I choose that which I know is real, rather then that which is guess work. God is all TRUE knowledge, therefore there is no knowledge, be it science, theology, physiology, or any other theory, except that which comes from God. He gives you life, breath, free will, and all things spiritual. When you leave this world, (our darkness) then what do you expect? Your choices are yours now to decide what you want to be, think, do for eternity.
God is not a man, He is infinity, so how could you fathom Him when you are not receptive to the messages He sends you each moment. We cannot hear Him in our darkness. That is what prayer is for, to lift us up to receive, then we are open to hear His call.  Helen

186 On Sep 4th, 2008, at 4:11pm, Helen M Nanney wrote:

Matt,Harry. There is no perfect denomination but there is a perfect creation, and it reflects God’s knowledge. None of us can know all of His knowledge. Jesus said by their works ye shall know them, not by their church.  Jesus rejected all the beliefs of the flesh,he healed the sick, fed the multitudes on a little, the lame walked, blind eyes opened, storms stilled, taxes paid from the fishes mouth, diseases healed, and the dead raised. His church is those who walk in the way he taught. Get off the denominational wagon, go into the world as he taught and heal the empty hearts. Churches are coming together in these times and doing just that. God supplies all our needs. All we need to do is to pray without ceasing, ask and it shall be given.  God is not of this world. Our greatest deception is to believe in any other power but Him. He is not in our darkness, more in http://www.journey-book.com

188 On Sep 6th, 2008, at 10:39am, Dreama wrote:

Eric, I am wondering from whence comes your supreme authority? You reject our Constitution created by greater men than you by divine guidance(by their own acknowledgement) than you & I or them. Yet you seem to think you are greater, more intelligent & more capable of dictating just how things should be than anyone else. How is that different than your accusations against us?
I am chilled by you quite honestly. Mark 2:21-26 comes to my mind. You are so unaware of the true danger you face. I am praying for you in Jesus name for your sake! There is more power out there for you than any power, principalities or dominion could ever have! Accept it & meet your full potential God intended. Mark 9:23 Jesus said, “Everyting is possible for him who believes.”
Harry, I want to hear more about that “crack” you mentioned & your bill, please.

190 On Sep 9th, 2008, at 5:50pm, eric wrote:

Thanks, Dreama, for proving my point of your dominionist position. Years ago, while working in the voter registration drive, I was ‘invited’ to leave Alabama by someone who, like Harry, advocated an America where some citizens enjoyed rights denied to others. I didn’t leave then, and I’m certainly not going now. [but he did have a nice robe]

What part of America do you despise most? The ‘all men are created equal’ part? The idea that I, as a non-Christian have the same rights and responsibilities as you? Contrary to your claim, I make no claim of superiority. Please, find ANY such, in my posts!

Is it the concept the freedom should apply to others as well as you?

You express NO loyalty to the constitution. You deny my freedom of faith by your blah, blah, praying for me. I do not insult you with details of my faith; your disrespect of mine speaks volumes.

Please, for your own sake, define freedom and equality, as they would apply to ALL citizens!!

192 On Sep 9th, 2008, at 9:12pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Thank you Matt for allowing this discussion to continue.  I am praying for you as well as for Eric.  Thank SBC for hosting this forum as well.  I am trying to understand the Southern Baptist position.  Matt, I sense the same frustration from you that Dr. Richard Land (_Divided States of America_, pp. 53, 191) mentions.

He identifies dominionists as religious extremists on the loony fringe who argue for hardcore theocracy using Old Testament law, and thus are opposed to democratic means of government.  When secularists discuss the “religious right” he detests the Southern Baptist position being painted the same color as the dominionist one.  The only Scripture he uses to distance Southern Baptists from dominionists is on p. 126 where he gives Romans 13:1-7 as evidence that government is not given authority to demand or prohibit faith or worship.  This is a straw man argument.  Dominionists don’t believe this either.

194 On Sep 10th, 2008, at 8:09pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Dreama, Dennis Woods wrote _Discipling the Nations_ where he discusses the “crack” in the U.S. Christian Legal system.  You can read one chapter here: http://www.ismellarat.com/chapter.htm.  Dennis cites Dr. Gary North’s (http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks) _Political Polytheism_ often.

196 On Sep 12th, 2008, at 8:57am, eric wrote:

“People came to America to be free from religious persecution.”

Yes, and now you would have your religion established as a state religion, persecuting those who choose to reject your faith, as you reject theirs.

“There is no Christian that wants to control America.”

You haven’t paid attention to Harry; he and his supremicist bretheren would, by his own words, limit the rights of non-believers.

You are free to believe as you wish. Your tone of patronizing disrespect makes it evident that you do not “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

198 On Sep 12th, 2008, at 12:31pm, eric wrote:

Harry: Still waiting to hear what rights you plan to deny non-believers….....

Dreama: Wouldn’t your suggestion that non-believers should leave America unless they are willing to submit to your faith be somewhat an attempt to exalt yourself? [You must admit that being arbiter of citizenship would be a career advancement]

“Humility & Christian “meekness” does not receive intimidation.”

Perhaps, but you seem to have no qualms about attempting to intimidate others.

200 On Sep 12th, 2008, at 11:27pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Eric, My main concern is to make Christians aware of the proper standard of political justice.  Ephesians 6:12 tells the Christian who our enemy is which includes any definition of political justice apart from Jesus Christ.

Rights routinely hit brick walls.  Most of us think of criminals as having lost “rights” but law-abiding citizens have their rights infringed too: no stealing, murder, etc.  The right of a doctor to do an abortion and the right of people to picket his action, and on and on.  My post #179 gives a simple single method of political change.  When Christians vote this November, I hope their minds would have already asked: does this candidate or that one uphold God’s Standard of civil justice better?  It’s getting to the point where some would like to jail pastors who dare preach this from the pulpit.

How about you.  You’ve told us what your standard of justice is not.  How about what *is* your standard of political justice (civil ethics)?

202 On Oct 4th, 2008, at 5:49pm, J. Walter wrote:

Congress shall make no law. It is that simple. Without a law, the courts, including the Supremes, have nothing to rule on.

204 On Oct 27th, 2008, at 10:02am, Stephen wrote:

I think one of the very first acts of Congress was to finance the printing of a new American edition of the Bible so that we would not have to use the King James Version. Someone correct me out there if I am wrong.  Steve

206 On Nov 5th, 2008, at 4:20pm, elliot chase wrote:

Please, would you please remove yourself from participating in the political process and violating the principal of separation of church and state or go all out and declare yourself a political party. 

Ronald Reagan opened Pandora’s Box and unleashed your “church” in order to literally “scare” up enough votes to assist in the advancement of corporate America’s and particularly the industrial military complex’s agenda.

You are unwitting or perhaps witting pawns in this effort that took a big blow yesterday.

I ask, since when did Jesus Christ push for the well being of the NRA or take positions on what we should do in Iraq. 

If you want to take a political position, how about starting with the capital punishment in Texas?

Finally, why did Jesus die for our sins? Was it so that you could evoke the old miserable, vengeful God of he Old Testament whenever you don’t get your own way?

208 On Nov 8th, 2008, at 2:52pm, eric wrote:

“All I have left to say at this point is God help you and God help us all.”

Those of us who have not abandoned all semblance of intellect may still be able to help ourselves…

210 On Nov 24th, 2008, at 11:57am, eric wrote:

Matt: Sorry for the long delay:
Re post 185:

Your words would be more credible if, over the past year or so, you had not ducked, evaded, and refused to answer exactly the same questions I asked of Harry.

He has posted a supremacist position, based on religion. You admit this to be an “extreme” position, yet, from the “large swaths” of scripture you claim he ignores, you cite neither verse nor phrase to refute his position. As board admin. you have limitless words with which to denounce the moral repugnance of supremacism, yet you say nothing, except to distance the SBC from it.

What you have done is to give tacit approval to supremacist goals. Your refusal to stand against those forces seeking to destroy freedom and equality within America speaks far louder than your milquetoast response. As in the parable of the Good Samaritan, you have chosen to “pass by, on the other side”.

212 On Nov 26th, 2008, at 8:29pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:

Eric, I thought this site, SBC ERLC, had defended their political position.  Go to the top of this page.  It begins with the “3 Competing models” for separation of church and state.  Most of the material is covered in Dr. Richard Land’s book _Divided States of America_.  Have you read it?  Why don’t you respond to points in the book as I did?  Also, I don’t understand why you are asking for the same thing I am, an exegesis of their position.  It wouldn’t mean anything to you since you don’t recognize Scripture as the Defining Standard in moral ethics.  Cringing to use overused words, Matt probably doesn’t have the “freedom” or “liberty” to elaborate.  He has to keep his boss happy.

214 On Jan 28th, 2009, at 10:14pm, James E Reeves wrote:

If Matthew 21: 33-46 can be rightly divided in truth then as a christian beliver I must say that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven is the beliving world of Jews during Jesus time on earth including those who were called Christians first at Antioch in Acts 11: 26.
Now if a separation of church and state exist, it exist
solely for unbelivers since the constitutional dates of the first meeting until now proclaim (anno Domini) A.D. or The Year of our Lord. The ethical adherence of this claim and its provable treatse should be Dr. Land’s apologetical answer as our leader.

Your brother,
James

216 On Feb 10th, 2009, at 12:50pm, Dreama wrote:

I certainly pray, cosidering the days we are now in, that those leaders in Washington would see the need to forget about “separation of church & state” and seek guidance from THE much Higher Power than they to see the way clear to a “bailout” for our country. One must admit that in these desparate days that belief in God or not we certainly intelligence and wisdom far beyond those “brains” in Washington. God help us, please! Save us from the arrogance of the proud.