Tag Archives: secular nation

International news, local news, media news, national news, religious news

No doubt about it: U.S. is ‘secular nation’

An interesting argument has surfaced over the discussion about the use of Scripture to justify the separating of children from their parents as they enter the United States illegally.

It comes from the newspaper where I used to work, the Amarillo (Texas) Globe-News.

Here’s the editorial with the title, “The Spiritual Double Standard.” 

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently cited Romans 13 to justify the policy of yanking kids from their parents along our southern border and housing them separately. It also seems to suggest that the United States might not be a “secular nation.”

Actually, the United States most certainly is a secular nation. Of that there can be no serious debate.

The founders intended to craft a governing document that is free of religious requirements. Their ancestors came to this world fleeing religious persecution. Right? Yes!

The editorial seems also to suggest that critics of the AG are targeting Christians. Hmm. I don’t believe that’s the case. The founders didn’t even mention Christianity in crafting the U.S. Constitution. The Amarillo Globe-News opined: This is becoming a common tactic of many of those who support open borders – attempting to shame Christians by pointing out how federal immigration laws are not in line with Christian teachings about how to treat your neighbors, immigrants, etc.

The secular nature of our government is not aimed at Christians. It excludes any religious litmus test for government. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus … you name it.

The G-N also suggests that secularists shouldn’t use Scripture to debunk the AG’s citing of the New Testament to justify the policy.

Fine, except that if the attorney general is going to bring it up first, then it is totally fair for critics to use the Bible to rebut what they believe is his misdirected justification.

The G-N notes, “As the saying goes, you can’t have it both ways.”

Actually, in this instance, I believe you can.

national news, political news, religious news

Christian, Muslim, Jew … so what?

paladino-1-e1467138490245-300x198

Carl Paladino is a partisan hack who runs Republican nominee Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign in New York state.

He’s also spouting idiocy about the religious affiliation of the president of the United States, who he has labeled this week as a Muslim.

Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he is a devout Christian. I believe the president. I do not believe the idiotic rant of Paladino.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-advisor-carl-paladino-theres-no-doubt-that-obama-is-a-muslim/

OK, then. Now, let’s look at something in the U.S. Constitution.

If you’re a real, true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool conservative, you believe in what’s called a “strict constructionist” view of the Constitution. You choose to interpret as little as possible in the document, much like one might do with, say, the Holy Bible.

So, let’s open our copy of the Constitution and turn to Article VI. It covers several areas of government, such as debt, laws and treaties, the oath officeholders take to support the Constitution.

And, oh yes, it has a clause at the end of it pertaining to “no religious test.”

It states: ” … but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Do you know what I take away from that passage in Article VI? It means to me that an officeholder or a candidate for public office can worship any religion he or she chooses. It doesn’t matter what faith they worship.

Article VI lays it out there with crystal clarity.

That’s in a perfect world. I realize we don’t live in a world of perfection. It is soiled a good bit by those who choose to ignore constitutional tenets that fail to meet their world view.

Carl Paladino chooses, therefore, to declare in public that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, as if that’s supposed to label him as someone evil, sinister … anti-American.

I’ll make an admission: I am not as faithful to my own interpretation of the Constitution. Some constitutional tenets I take literally; I choose to interpret other tenets a bit more broadly. If you’re honest with yourself, you might be wiling to admit to doing the same thing yourself.

The “no religious test” clause of Article VI is one that — in my view — should be understood clearly and without equivocation. The framers knew exactly what they were doing when they expressly prohibited a “religious test.” They wanted to create a secular government run without specific religious influences.

My optimism runs eternal. Therefore, I’ll keep hoping for as long as I’m walking on this good Earth that one day we can apply that constitutional principle cleanly and without fear and suspicion.

Uncategorized

Talking past each other on religion

1 Comment

One of the frustrations I encounter occasionally when I debate the issue of our country’s founding is that my friends and I talk past each other when we disagree on this particular matter.

The recent Supreme Court ruling that sanctions sectarian prayer at public meetings provided that example.

I agree with the court’s ruling on constitutional grounds. I would prefer, though, that public meetings would begin with ecumenical prayers — and not prayers lifted directly to those of specific faith, notably Christian.

I make that point as a practicing Christian, OK?

Recently, I took note of the founders’ desire to create what I’ve called a “secular nation.” My point is that the Constitution contains an amendment that prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but also ensures that Americans shall be free to worship as they please.

Several of my friends out there in Blogger Land took issue with that view. They contend that the founders were men of faith and that they intended the nation to be based on “Judeo-Christian principles.”

Well, I don’t disbelieve any of that. It’s debatable, of course, that some of the key founders were devout Christians. Many historians have debated whether, say, Thomas Jefferson was a “deist,” or someone who believed in a more universal God. It’s been speculated that he believed in a holy deity, but did not necessarily believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to win our forgiveness for our sins.

I only can rely on what I know to be contained within the Constitution.

It does not contain the words “Christian,” or “Christianity,” or “Jesus.” The founders wrote the First Amendment and contained the religious freedom clause in its very first provision. Did they debate whether to establish a state religion? Surely they did. They settled, though, on a government framework that is decidedly non-religious.

What’s more, the founders also wrote in one of its constitutional articles that there should be no religious test for those seeking any public office. What does that mean? It means that you cannot require candidates to be of any particular faith, nor can you even demand candidates to believe in any faith at all.

Thus, by my definition of the term, the United States is a secular nation. We are governed by laws written my mortal, fallible and flawed human beings.

Despite their flaws, the founders created a nation that — absent any requirement to worship a particular faith — has emerged as among the most religious of any nation on Planet Earth.

It is because we are granted us the freedom to worship as we please, or not worship at all.

May I have an “amen”?