In very early America, before America was even a country, there was a group of people that came over here on a ship called the Mayflower. There were actually two groups of people who were on the Mayflower as it made its way across the Atlantic Ocean in the year 1620. One group was called, 'Pilgrims' and the other group was known as 'Adventurers'. The Pilgrims were coming to America because of having to live in a stressful environment in which they weren't allowed the freedom to do what they felt God was telling them to do based upon Scripture. In England, the church and government were tied in with each other. Basically, the church had to do whatever the king wanted. And if you are in a church where the Bible is the final authority, and you want to follow that, you would be in conflict in England because you would have to follow the king and whatever he wanted or believed the Bible said. So, the Pilgrims made their way over to this land, far away from England, with the hopes of being able to establish a church that isn't headed by a king! The Adventurers came over to America with the hopes of finding gold and and whatever they could find that would make them happy. They did not profess to be Christian and at times, they made fun of the Pilgrims. It helps to keep this all in mind when dealing with the issue of Separation of Church and State. What originally was intended to provide freedom for the Pilgrims, is now taking a reverse role in America to try to eradicate Christianity, especially when the Christian is communicating Biblical truths on any governmental property. This is NOT how this principle was intended to be used.
Today, there are cases in which Christians (in particular) cannot even express opinions or share beliefs on God, because it violates something called, 'Separation of Church and State'. This principle is not found in the Constitution, yet, future lawyers are taught that it is, while they are in law school.
Take for example this ridiculous situation. A teacher was wearing a button that says 'I love Jesus'. When the principle of the school noticed it, he ordered her to remove it. Now, let me ask a question here. If a female teacher comes into her classroom fully garbed in Middle Eastern attire, will she get into trouble. Probably not. And rightly so. In America, she has the freedom to dress according to her religious convictions and she shouldn't be stopped. So, what am I saying? I believe that this whole concept of Separation of Church and State is really to silence the Christian. It holds a belief that Christianity is a threat to other people because of the demands it makes on a person's life.
When I was in school, it was a lot different (I'll admit, it was a very long time ago). We did the pledge of Allegiance (with one nation under God in it) and we even had prayer, I believe. I am not necessarily advocating having someone say a prayer ever morning over the intercom, as people will be praying to different gods possibly, and its not necessary to do that, but, in the early American days, we could get away with it because everyone in a community, during that era, was on the same page as far as religious beliefs went. I am not saying that everyone was a Christian either. Some were. Others were just in that environment and went along with it.
But today, there are groups who seem to search out anything that relates to Christianity, and remove it from the schools, and many times, will punish the person responsible for bringing it into the school.
Yes, we should not ever 'make' people believe in Christianity or the Bible. Only God can change a heart. But there is a great difference between trying to convert people against their will, and just living out a life based upon Scriptures. I find it interesting when I ask people if they ever got one (one, meaning a tract), and they ask me what it is, and I tell them that it has the Gospel message on it, occasionally, they will accuse me of 'shoving religion down their throats' (This phrase is always exactly the same. Must be some kind of anti-Christian conspiracy : ) So, if I give someone a tract, I am shoving religion down their throats? Kind of a stretch, isn't it? But this is exactly what is happening with the concept of 'Separation of Church and State'. It's not in the Constitution, but it is in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. These people were very concerned because the memory of the Church of England was still fresh in their minds. They had a valid reason to be concerned. Here is an excerpt from the article I mentioned on the top of the page:
Well, in October 1801 the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns over religious freedom. They were concerned as to whether the government would ever interfere with the practicing of their faith. Bear in mind that these early Americans had just gained independence from England’s government as well as from its established church. These Baptists had a valid reason for being concerned.
You can read the whole article at Separation of Church and State 2 - Examiner.com
Keep in mind that 'Separation of Church and State' is not in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution is the First Amendment, which places the restriction on the government, not on the people. Now we don't have to worry about the government deciding what we should believe in or what our churches should be teaching. Government cannot interfere with religious practices.
"The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep God out of government; it was to keep Government from establishing a “national denomination,” like the Church of England."
Very well said, Mr. Harker. A far cry from complaining about a Nativity scene in the front yard of a public, government owned building. Sad.
Today, there are cases in which Christians (in particular) cannot even express opinions or share beliefs on God, because it violates something called, 'Separation of Church and State'. This principle is not found in the Constitution, yet, future lawyers are taught that it is, while they are in law school.
Take for example this ridiculous situation. A teacher was wearing a button that says 'I love Jesus'. When the principle of the school noticed it, he ordered her to remove it. Now, let me ask a question here. If a female teacher comes into her classroom fully garbed in Middle Eastern attire, will she get into trouble. Probably not. And rightly so. In America, she has the freedom to dress according to her religious convictions and she shouldn't be stopped. So, what am I saying? I believe that this whole concept of Separation of Church and State is really to silence the Christian. It holds a belief that Christianity is a threat to other people because of the demands it makes on a person's life.
When I was in school, it was a lot different (I'll admit, it was a very long time ago). We did the pledge of Allegiance (with one nation under God in it) and we even had prayer, I believe. I am not necessarily advocating having someone say a prayer ever morning over the intercom, as people will be praying to different gods possibly, and its not necessary to do that, but, in the early American days, we could get away with it because everyone in a community, during that era, was on the same page as far as religious beliefs went. I am not saying that everyone was a Christian either. Some were. Others were just in that environment and went along with it.
But today, there are groups who seem to search out anything that relates to Christianity, and remove it from the schools, and many times, will punish the person responsible for bringing it into the school.
Yes, we should not ever 'make' people believe in Christianity or the Bible. Only God can change a heart. But there is a great difference between trying to convert people against their will, and just living out a life based upon Scriptures. I find it interesting when I ask people if they ever got one (one, meaning a tract), and they ask me what it is, and I tell them that it has the Gospel message on it, occasionally, they will accuse me of 'shoving religion down their throats' (This phrase is always exactly the same. Must be some kind of anti-Christian conspiracy : ) So, if I give someone a tract, I am shoving religion down their throats? Kind of a stretch, isn't it? But this is exactly what is happening with the concept of 'Separation of Church and State'. It's not in the Constitution, but it is in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. These people were very concerned because the memory of the Church of England was still fresh in their minds. They had a valid reason to be concerned. Here is an excerpt from the article I mentioned on the top of the page:
Well, in October 1801 the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns over religious freedom. They were concerned as to whether the government would ever interfere with the practicing of their faith. Bear in mind that these early Americans had just gained independence from England’s government as well as from its established church. These Baptists had a valid reason for being concerned.
You can read the whole article at Separation of Church and State 2 - Examiner.com
Keep in mind that 'Separation of Church and State' is not in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution is the First Amendment, which places the restriction on the government, not on the people. Now we don't have to worry about the government deciding what we should believe in or what our churches should be teaching. Government cannot interfere with religious practices.
"The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep God out of government; it was to keep Government from establishing a “national denomination,” like the Church of England."
Very well said, Mr. Harker. A far cry from complaining about a Nativity scene in the front yard of a public, government owned building. Sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment