Faith, to many people, plays a significant role within the realm of daily life. Why then should it be different for those surrounded by the public spotlight, let alone those who make moral and ethical decisions for the people they represent? In today’s society, religion and politics cross paths with each other, frequently. Not only has it today, but for centuries of presidential elections, religion has played a role from our founding fathers to today’s political decisions. The United States culture is consumed with denominations and people of many faiths. According to the American Religious Identification Survey, 78.5% of Americans adhere to being Christians. Faith is and should play a vital function for those who plan on becoming and who are voting or employing a public servant.
The term Separation of Church and State is often misinterpreted and implemented by liberal and in turn biased courts with their own selfish agendas. The reason for the misinterpretation is that these judges view our Constitution as a living and changing set of standards that govern our great country. By doing so, they abuse the law set forth by our founding fathers who sought religious freedom not religious restriction. If we review the First Amendment of the United States Constitution we can comprehend the profound meaning by offering an honest elucidation of restrictions on religious freedoms. The First Amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Most court rulings hack the second half of the Free Exercise Clause to judge cases that would favor their political agenda to censor the religious right unjustly. But in context, the First Amendment was composed to protect those of religious faiths by assuring no statewide religion would be imposed, required, or established nationally. It furthermore grants or provides religious peoples with freedom to perform spiritual convictions without constraint. So within the public arena, beginning with our founding fathers, faith has always played a significant role. Why else would our Constitution be dripping with religious freedoms if faith should have no impact in decision making?
As aforementioned our nation has its roots deeply grounded in doctrinal ideals. According to an Oxford graduate and Christian Apologist, Dr. Ravi Zacharias who so brilliantly states, “It is a mindless philosophy that assumes that one's private beliefs have nothing to do with public office. Does it make sense to entrust those who are immoral in private with the power to determine the nation's moral issues and, indeed, its destiny? .... The duplicitous soul of a leader can only make a nation more sophisticated in evil.” A person’s religious beliefs trigger where they come from morally and ethically. So within elections, holy assurance or one’s beliefs provide guidance as to which candidate to endorse. And at an equivalent level of conviction, those leaders empowered and chosen must utilize their own faith in resolutions drawn from their desks.
Though a haunting aspect to some, one’s personal convictions and faith in a Creator or Sustainer of Life should be a guiding light not only for those entrusted with power but for those whom assign the duty of representation. From the misconception of the First Amendment to the enlightening words of Dr. Ravi Zacharias, one’s faith must be at the forethought in determining direction of one’s decision. While in the duration of this election cycle, United States citizens will have conflictions on numerous policies. The faithful majority will have conflictions on numerous issues. However, it is our duty to remain unified and preserve our root-not our routes.
Chaz Oswald
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The constitution is a 'living' document, which the founders intended. That's why it can be amended. That’s also the system they established provides for the creation of three forms of law; statutory law, procedural law and case law (and a mechanism for reconciling the three).
Even if the Constitution is set in stone as the "strict constructionists" claim (all of whom are hypocrites whose ‘strictness’ depends on where a particular issue happens to land on their conservative political sensibilities), there's this little bit to contend with (that rebuts your claims about the influence of religion in government):
"... The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
- US Constitution, Article VI
It’s perfectly fine for faith to guide one’s beliefs while in office when supporting or disapproving of various policies. The problem comes in when (as is currently happening) religious people want to force everyone to bow to their religion, and when they want to divert taxpayer money into their churches.
Religious freedom also means freedom from religion; a position the Framers of the Constitution took to heart – it’s well-documented in their personal and political writings outside of our governing documents, and it’s also withstood the test of time (with dozens of Supreme Court precedents) until recently.
It’s a bit ridiculous to cite the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and then ignore the first half of it: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – because there are just as many legal precedents upholding that tenet as there are upholding the second one.
Your claim that “faith always played a significant role” with the founding fathers is completely unsupported. It’s also undermined by evidence of the sentiments of the government as a whole as expressed in documents like the Treaty of Tripoli, which pointedly stated “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen…” written deliberately to assure the mostly Muslim citizens of Barbary that we are not governed by religion.
Ravi Zacharias is entitled to his opinions, but they’re generally poorly-articulated and riddled with logical fallacies, which is why he shies away from debate about his books. That quote you cited is a great example; it’s a Straw Man. He’s presenting a fundamentally erroneous picture of the opposition, which has never disagreed with the idea that religious beliefs drive the decisions of the political leaders who hold them.
I won’t try to speak for all liberals, but what I oppose is the establishment of religion that is taking place right now through practices like government funding for “faith-based” charities. This is patently-unconstitutional, and the tragic irony is that it’s leading to abuses of religious freedoms as individuals of one sect of Christianity are forced to adhere to the dictates of the government-funded religious charity that is providing service to them. A great example is Joseph Hanas (a Catholic), who was forced by the courts to attend a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program that focused on Pentecostal religious study (and did virtually nothing in the way of actual, clinical rehabilitation).
Wow, Seth, I think you need a girl ;) to fill the, what seems, too much time that you have on your hands! I believe your response is longer than the initial post. Though, I am often limited with time, I felt an urgency to respond.
A ‘Strict Constitutionalist’ takes meaning from the wording of the Constitution, and that implication does not change. The text itself is augmented only by examining what the Framers of the Constitution intended at the time – not by what the majority in society may prefer today.
It wasn’t until Former Chief Justice Warren was instated that the Constitution was viewed as evolutionary and that its words could be interpreted on a whim. I can recognize why judges would sustain and support the ideal of a ‘Living Constitution.’ Because, with such an approach, the Constitution can say anything you want it to. But this nation was not built on the principle that judges, attempting to gauge the will of society, would interpret the Constitution differently as times goes by.
As Scalia has declared “The Constitution must remain static, but that does not mean that laws cannot change to reflect changes in society. What proponents of the ‘Living Constitution’ want to bring you assuredly is not flexibility; it is rigidity.”
You must have misunderstood the principle of my prose. I am in no way advocating that a religious test must be given for those enduring a run for public office. The purpose of the writing was to combat those who believe that a person of faith must denounce his ideology with political decision making. No one in any way is trying to force everyone to bow down to Christianity or what have you. What evidence have you to support such a ludicrous claim?
There have been numerous Supreme Court precedents of which document the intentions of our Founding Fathers. In the 1892 Supreme Court ruling in the Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S, citing 87 precedents, they stated “Out laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” Numerous other precedents followed, but then in 1962, around the era Warren, the Constitution has been viewed incorrectly as a “Living Constitution.” Outside government documents, the intentions of the Framers, in personal letters to churches and other governments also back up this conclusion.
Furthermore, Reverend Daniel Foster spoke to John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Congress, and residents of Massachusetts in an inspirational address. If you would like to read the full sermon you can at www.newmag.com/foster Documentation from Foster, Hancock, and Adams all are one accord as to the views in the sermon.
You are entitled to your opinions as well. I, however, find it nearly laughable that you believe Dr. Ravi Zacharias, an Oxford graduate, poorly articulates his views. You must not have truly read his books or have viewed any of his debates. Ravi as a Christian Apologist travels all over the world just to defend his views. An Apologist means defender of the faith. If you truly and intently look at the profound arguments, maybe you could value the depth of Dr. Ravi Zacharias’s opinions.
I do not agree with forcing religion on anyone, but there is a liberal bias against those who hold religious affiliation. I myself have taken many hits for being a Christian. What I aim to do is not impose religion on anyone but protect what has been established. I seek to shield my faith from extinction, something of which many liberals support.
As for future reference, I will do my finest to entertain your thoughts, but as I started with, time is something that is against me. I am taking twenty credit hours, working twenty-five hour weeks, I lead two bible studies, I volunteer at a mission, I am the College Republican Chairman, and now am also the First Vice Chairman of the Michigan Federation of College Republicans. Beyond that I teach first through third grade Sunday school, while also helping with church AWANA. My time is limited but will do my best to check back when I can. I enjoy your views and how you express them, it makes for some enlightening and thought provoking conversation. I wish we could only have time to go in depth and not merely scratch the surface.
Chaz Oswald
I’ve got one girl already and that’s plenty, so no thanks. What I posted was only about 600 words which, at the rate I type, means it took about six minutes. Not exactly an exorbinant amount of time.
The problem with “Strict Constructionism” as you defined it is that it assumes there’s one agreed-upon meaning for all words, an erroneous conclusion that ignores the fact that the meanings of words (semantics) is determined largely by syntactics and the over-arching context. What the framers meant at the time depends on our understanding of the Framers. We’re now hundreds of years removed from that era, and our interpretation of history is invariably subjective and shaped by what the evidentiary record (and what interpretations of the evidentiary record) have concluded. The interesting thing about claiming that the Constitution is unchanging is that our understanding of what the Framers intended is molded by many documents (like personal letters and accounts from close family members) that were not available to the general public during the time when the framers were alive.
The other problem with “Strict Constructionism” is that we’re so far removed from the era of the framers that the world we live in (with powerful tools like the Internet that the founding fathers could never have foreseen) is not accounted for in the 18th century mindset. We’re dealing with paradigms that the founders did not account for – and to deny that it requires some subjectivity in navigating the legal framework is disingenuous.
Words aren’t interpreted on a whim, and interpretations of the Constitution existed well before Justice Warren (John Marshall, for example, might have something to say about that claim you’re making).
Scalia is a joke; he talks about the rigidity of the court and leaving the flexibility up to the legislature, but he’s been one of the most “activist” judges on the court – overturning nearly 60 percent of the laws passed by congress that appear before him (he’s only outdone by the most activist judge, another “strict constructionist,” Clarence Thomas).
I cite Article 6 of the Constitution for a couple of reasons. First, people like Ravi Zacharias promote the idea that the Establisment Clause only protects the religious – and they downplay (or deny altogether) that it protects the nonreligious as well. Second, we have a de facto religious test right now. Christians have so poisoned the atmosphere and religion has become so politicized that anyone not openly professing to be a Christian is automatically excluded from holding office (regardless of their qualifications). That’s why there’s only one nonreligious individual in all of the three branches of the federal government (and he’s an agnostic – so he’s still technically religious).
I cited evidence of the attempts of Christians to make others bow down to their beliefs (including other Christians like Joseph Hanas). If I ever happen to run afoul of the laws regarding substance abuse or alcohol abuse – I’ll be required to attend a rehabilitation program that forces the concept of religion (specifically Christianity) on me if I were to ever want to hold a driver’s license or get back custody of my [nonexistent] children. I’m forced to pledge allegiance “under god,” and I’m forced to use money every day that gives free advertising space to Christianity (or at the very least, monotheism). Then, of course, thanks to the Bush Administration which has broadly expanded the Clinton Administration’s “Faith-Based Charities” initiative, religious organizations that discriminate both in their hiring practices and in who they mete aid out to are now eligible for taxpayer funds – something that is patently unconstitutional.
Your citation of Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S is utterly meaningless. You’re quoting from Justice David Brewer’s opinion “in dicta” (which means that it was his personal opinion that has absolutely no legal bearing on the decision reached by the court). Swing and a miss.
Your link for the Daniel Foster address is dead. Regardless, the fact that he preached to John Hancock or Samuel Adams has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Many of the founders were religious – but they prescribed and advocated for a secular government. Adams, for example, ratified the Treaty of Tripoli that plainly stated the US was not founded on Christianity. He also said things like “Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind” (1787).
Indeed; it is my opinion that if you rest your premise on a Straw Man logical fallacy – it’s poorly-articulated no matter which university you graduated from.
In point of fact, however, Ravi Zacharias did not graduate from Oxford – he earned his Masters of Divinity from Trinity International University. He was a VISITING PROFESSOR at Oxford’s theological college (Wycliffe Hall), which is quite different. It wouldn’t surprise me if a religious bigot found his way into Oxford, however, because that university expelled Percy Bysshe Shelley for being an atheist in 1811.
The fact that Zacharias is an apologist doesn’t automatically mean that he welcomes all challenges to his claims – he primarily sticks to venues and forums that are congruent with his theological views. The day he sits down for a moderated public debate with someone like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, then I’ll give him some credit.
Your claim that there’s a “liberal bias” against those who are religious is completely unfounded and utterly refuted by the fact that the VAST majority of liberals are not only religious, but are Christians. I’d love to hear more about the “hits” you’ve taken for being Christian – would you care to describe some?
What “liberals” are seeking the “extinction” of Christianity and how are they pursuing that “extinction?”
Given your busy schedule, feel free to take your time responding.
Post a Comment