Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Great Blog: V is for Victory

Ran accross this great blog while commenting on the Latin Mass over at Cafeteria is Closed. V is for Victory is run by a lawyer living in Boise, ID named Anita Moore. Anita does not have access to the Latin Mass as the nearest one is apparently 300 miles away. Let's pray for the return of the Latin Mass for those who wish to hear it and pray it.

Her current post brought to mind a conversation among friends just a few days ago.

We were discussing my post on the whole Hillary vs. Obama thing. Mary from Against All Heresies suggested that it was better to have a communist than a Muslim. A few folks suggested that Obama is a Christian. Then others said it should not matter because there is a wall between church and state. They presumably said this to mean that religion is off limits when analyzing candidates.

Here's the problem: the "wall between church and state" refers to a restriction on the State from establishing a religion. Here's the original words by Thomas Jefferson:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

Anita Moore writes, "
Thomas Jefferson said that in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. Let the attackers of Christian marriage and Christianity take note."

These words are quite simple and so is the Constitution's First Amendment of which Jefferson wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It's pretty simple. No official State religion, not even secular humanism or athiesm. If a politician or a citizen wants to speak out about religion then that is okay (for now.)


aliberalfriend said...

Two minor points...your friends may not believe that religion is off limits when analyzing candidates. I certainly don't. The statement that a communist is better than a muslim implies to me that one would be worried that a muslim would impose their religious beliefs on the populace through policy. I am as worried about that as I am a Christian imposing their beliefs on the people through policy (ie abortion, gay marriage bans). Of course I take a candidates religious beliefs when analyzing candidates. Second minor point, no one is "suggesting" that Obama is a Christian, the man himself has stated it.

Anita Moore said...

Thomas, thank you for the kind words. I appreciate being appreciated.

Anita OPL

Thomas Shawn said...

Is living in Mecca just like living in Rome, hmmmmmm. What are the qualitative differences. You think there are any?

I fear the religious beliefs of the non-christians. The one's that out law home schooling (Germany), ones that force Catholic adoption agencies to do things against their beliefs (England, Massachusetts). The ones that have little girls slipping condoms on bananas in 6th grade health class in front of cheering boys(Townsend, MA.)

I fear a government that takes my money at a point of a gun to run their schools as it attempts to brainwash my children into their religion (athiestic humanism.)

Everybody has a religion. Until now, Christianity has been the dominant one.

Beware the evil that gets unleashed when you strip away centuries old Christianity. It was good to you, it let you have the freedom you now have, it produced your grandparents and parents, corporations (one you know well), universities, trades and culture flourished.

Hedonistic athiesm is no match for the sword of Allah. Briton will learn this soon. Watch. We'll be next.

aliberalfriend said...

I don't want to strip away Christianity. There are way too many good people in world that consider themselves Christian, chief among them yourself!!! I was simply stating that I do take into account a politicians religious beliefs. I may not have been clear when I stated that I do not wish to have Christianity thrust upon me through policy. Maybe I should have stated that I would lean towards a more social liberal Christian candidate (Hillary perhaps??). Or I would vote for an athiest. Lots of good athiests around as well. Out of your three examples above (Home schooling, Catholic agencies, or condoms on bananas) I agree with you on two of them as being bad social policy (I will let you guess which one I favor, here is a hint, one is a good source of potassium).

Thomas Shawn said...

OK, I was taking your take on the "wall" as meaning no analysis of religion of candidates.

But you're take on the "wall" is this: who cares what religion someone is? there's a wall.

The wall between Church and State protects me, too. Imagine my shock and horror if an Evangelical Protestant teacher starts prosletyzing my children.

The qustion for us is this: what things are strictly religious and what are generally moral.

I may get religious inspiration for increasing social spending, that does not mean the idea gets tossed. I may demand that everybody go to Confession on Saturday. Now that gets tossed.

So for Obama, what inspires him? This is crucial. His religious faith allows one to peer deeply into him. If he does profess Christianity he is in a lot of trouble because according to Sharia Law he is a Muslim for life. He may need double Secret Service protection.

The banana thing, how you educate your daughter is strictly your business. That incident sets a tone that I'd seek to avoid for my children. Public schooling is non-starter for me.

Anonymous said...

A person's religious beliefs are private, except in the case of a person elected to public office, who does not enjoy the right to privacy. Therefore, analyzing a candidate based on religious beliefs is legal.

The problem with Hillary and electing a communist-socialist is that Karl Marx believed that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Thus if a communist-socialist was elected, and if religion were allowed, it would be state controlled (read: we would be back in the catacombs, which is what attending Dartmouth College is like--my grades would probably be better if I verbally abused Christians; was female, unattractive, sexually frustrated and/or spoke Yiddish.)

However, the advantage to having a Christian in office is that the religious beliefs of a private individual would remain private -- not open for public scrutiny.