Re: Establishment of Government Religion?

["Dale Courtney" <dmcourtn@moscow.com>]

Ted writes,
> You state that "today's Christian political activists.... are simply
> maintaining that you cannot have good government with out religion."
First,
> I do not think you can speak for all of today's Christian activists,

Of course I cannot speak for everyone. There are always people who disagree
and dissent. However, in the Christian world, you tend to have those who
think politics is dirty and not right to engage in; and the other side that
sees involvement as a civic responsibility. Since the latter pull out and
abdicate, you are left with a smaller playing field.

However, having read the majority of the political activists and having
worked for some, I can make some broad-brushed generalizations.

> some of
> whom do want the Federal government to officially make the USA a Christian
> nation.

There are those who think that civil government is our savior. Some people
are always derailed.

I have *never* met anyone who advocated setting up a Christian Ayatollah or
anything similar to what Islam professes. If you know of one, I'd really
like to hear who it is. Otherwise, it's the standard strawman argument.

>But your statement dodges the issue.

I have nothing to dodge, so let me speak clearly -- and I'm speaking for
myself and no one else.

> If the religion was Buddhist or Islamic, and the good government was
> following the principles and practices of these two religious points of
> view, who do not believe Jesus was the divine Son of God, I imagine you
> would be very unhappy with this form of "good government with religion."

There is a *significant* theological difference between Islam and
Christianity. I won't bore you with the technical details, but, as the old
adage goes, "ideas have consequences." Islam is violently monistic -- and
that influences everything that they believe and do. So you see consistent
Islam trying to make everyone the same (dressing the same; thinking the
same; doing the same; etc) because their theology is that way.

Because of the Christian revelation of the Trinity, there is an
understanding of both "unity and diversity" -- and both are equally ultimate
in the Godhead: the one is not ontologically more important that the many.

Christianity understands a separation of church and state -- the church
doesn't run the state (as it does in Iraq/Iran); and the state doesn't run
the church (as it does in Europe, for instance). But that doesn't mean that
the state is overtly hostile to religion (as in the USA today); and neither
is the church overtly hostile to civil government.

> You want your religion expressed in
> the government, not anyone else's.  This is why I think the government
> should stay out of religion as much as it can.  Every religion wants to
> impose their viewpoint, and government must be fair an impartial to avoid
> the heavy hand of the law being used to suppress religious activity and
> thought.

But see, Ted, that's where the crux of the disagreement exits -- and what
Doug Jones has been addressing. Even atheists have a "religion." *Everyone*
has a religion -- they may deny it; they may kick and scream that they don't
(as atheists and agnostics do); but everyone has a religion. In our day it's
secular humanism and postmodernism. If you read the "Humanist Manifesto I"
or "II" it reads like a church doctrine with belief and faith elements. In
fact, atheists have more faith than I do.

And everyone carries those religious presuppositions with him/her into every
facet of life -- including civil government and legislative decisions.

Dale Courtney
Moscow, Idaho