Two thousand years ago, a man said, ‘I have come to give life and to give it in full.’ In America, I have the freedom to call that man Lord, and I do.” — Senator Elizabeth Dole.
Amen, Liz!
I found an interesting article by Julia Duin, who writes about religion for the Washington Times. It’s a round-up of “faith talk” leading up to and during the Republican National Convention. Duin points out what Christians already knew. There was no such talk during the “show” (beyond a reference to “the Almighty”).
The Christian faith must be repackaged for public consumption. This explains vague and generic references to God in political speeches and no mention of “Jesus Christ.” Why is that? The reason is simple, actually. Christ divides. He’s controversial. All you Jesus-is-a-liberal types, hear the words of our Lord:
I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. — Luke 12: 49-53
Did you hear that? Jesus says he wished this world were already destroyed. Frightening, isn’t it? And divisive! How could a God of love say such things? That will be addressed in a subsequent post.
President Bush barely managed to slip a reference to an omnipotent and omniscient being into his speech at all, I’m sure, so I’m not surprised he didn’t say the words “Jesus Christ.” So many are under the mistaken impression that mixing “church and state” matters is unconstitutional, but it’s not. Instead of re-inventing the microchip, I’ll re-post an entry I wrote in July explaining why this is so: “Incompatible Kerry’s Immaculate Deception”:
To justify eliminating religious views from the public arena, liberals are quick to shout, “Separation of church and state!” I’m certain Kerry knows that no such doctrine exists nor was it ever intended to exist in the Constitution. According to the First Amendment:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This is known as the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the formation of a national church. The mandate that “Congress shall make no law” is very significant. This single phrase gives individuals immense freedom. Rather than restricting us from freely exercising our faith, the Clause forbids the government from restricting our exercise of religious faith.
So where does the concept of “separation of church and state” come from?
More to come…
