1.01.2006
|
The wrong issue
Some Christians will no doubt get their knickers in a twist over the latest anti-Christian ruling to rain down from an out-of-control judiciary. And, well, they should. We are being told by an obnoxious federal judge that the Indiana state legislature may not offer a prayer to Jesus Christ as part of its traditional invocation. Other prayers, to Allah, and to an unspecified deity are just fine. Just not the Christian God.
A prayer invoked in Jesus' name, which is standard, and required of all Christians, is not "sectarian" in the sense of establishing one denomination. Which was the first (and many would say only) purpose for the so-called separation of church and state.
The founders of our nation did not want the Church of England grandees tussling with the Congregationalists, Quakers, and other denominations. So they wisely said, "knock it off, we're not going to have an established Church of the United States."
In the meantime, those of different faiths, or none at all, were protected. That's all she wrote. Judge Hamilton says otherwise. The story of how Hamilton is attempting to bully the sovereign legislative branch of Indiana may be found here. This judge, is attempting to dictate how a sovereign state's legislature opens its sessions. With not even the hint that the Federal Constitution is being violated.
Let's keep this simple: an invocation by a Christian in the name of Jesus is no more a violation of anything than is any othe invocation. By a Jew in the name of God; by a Muslim in the name of Allah; by a Hindu in the name of Ganesha. Some may be inflamed by hearing the name of Jesus; our Lord did, after all, battle Satan. Not that I'm making comparisons, mind you...
And that is the real issue for Americans: can a federal judge dictate what a state's legislative branch deems an acceptable form of public prayer?
My take on the separation of church and state is that Indiana, as an overwhelmingly majority Christian state, can invoke Jesus Christ in its public prayers. Just so long as non-Christians are not forced to participate. Of at least equal importance, liberty dictates that no judicial hack dictate to a sovereign state.
That's really what the issue is. Judge Hamilton, the article notes that you're "the son and grandson of Methodist ministers." Isn't that just typical of a PK (preacher's kid) to rebel against the faith. Or maybe it's just that you're a typical liberal hyperthyroidal judicial activist.
Regardless, a federal judge has no business meddling in the sovereign affairs of Indiana. Sic semper tyrannis, your "honor."
A prayer invoked in Jesus' name, which is standard, and required of all Christians, is not "sectarian" in the sense of establishing one denomination. Which was the first (and many would say only) purpose for the so-called separation of church and state.
The founders of our nation did not want the Church of England grandees tussling with the Congregationalists, Quakers, and other denominations. So they wisely said, "knock it off, we're not going to have an established Church of the United States."
In the meantime, those of different faiths, or none at all, were protected. That's all she wrote. Judge Hamilton says otherwise. The story of how Hamilton is attempting to bully the sovereign legislative branch of Indiana may be found here. This judge, is attempting to dictate how a sovereign state's legislature opens its sessions. With not even the hint that the Federal Constitution is being violated.
Let's keep this simple: an invocation by a Christian in the name of Jesus is no more a violation of anything than is any othe invocation. By a Jew in the name of God; by a Muslim in the name of Allah; by a Hindu in the name of Ganesha. Some may be inflamed by hearing the name of Jesus; our Lord did, after all, battle Satan. Not that I'm making comparisons, mind you...
And that is the real issue for Americans: can a federal judge dictate what a state's legislative branch deems an acceptable form of public prayer?
My take on the separation of church and state is that Indiana, as an overwhelmingly majority Christian state, can invoke Jesus Christ in its public prayers. Just so long as non-Christians are not forced to participate. Of at least equal importance, liberty dictates that no judicial hack dictate to a sovereign state.
That's really what the issue is. Judge Hamilton, the article notes that you're "the son and grandson of Methodist ministers." Isn't that just typical of a PK (preacher's kid) to rebel against the faith. Or maybe it's just that you're a typical liberal hyperthyroidal judicial activist.
Regardless, a federal judge has no business meddling in the sovereign affairs of Indiana. Sic semper tyrannis, your "honor."
posted by Jack Rich at 8:58 PM
I was born, grew up, and went to school in the Bronx, New York -- on the wrong side of the
tracks. Got the chance to go to college, so instead of joining the NYPD (the obvious career choice at
that time and place), I became an engineer. Spent
some years designing things that go boom (or things that take things that go boom to their destinations...), principally for our military.
Also took an interesting career turn and for some years was in charge of counter-terrorism for my agency...so I learned something about guns. And when to use them.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home