Posted by cav on August 18, 2004 at 23:41:05:
In Reply to: And this time, I'll argue the other side, just to prove to Jeff I am still saved. posted by PS on August 18, 2004 at 20:28:51:
I've been reading the posts and have finally managed to learn how to keep my mouth shut. I used to view these kinds of boards as battle grounds for sharpening apologetics and mental acuity...but then I just got tired of it all. After years of doing it, I found myself no better off. Not to say it isn't a great passtime, and healthy hobby- debate, that is, I just got worn out on it. So anyway all that to say, I hear you pj. I have opinions too, but lately I've been recognizing how my opinions don't really matter a whole lot unless I'm willing to get up and actively do something to put them in effect. And I'm not. So politics can have itself. I just don't care. (Personally I wish all nations could be disbanded.)
As this relates to church and it's politics, you can't win there either. Power struggles drive most of our society, but there is hope I think. We just have to look beyond what we may think of as the rules of human interactions. I have two quick stories I hope may be encouraging.
The first is like this: A man was reporting on the revolutions in Mexico in the early 1900's. He was interviewing a farmer and said, " so what do you think now that you have a new government." The man looked at him and said, "years ago, the government said we need to feed the rulers, pay your taxes and give us your chickens.' Then the revolutionaries came through and said, 'we are going to give you a better life, give us your chickens to feed the soldiers' and they took them. Then the next group said, 'we are the liberators, and we need to share all things, give us your chickens.' Now we have a new government, but I still don't have any chickens."
The second is a reference to that old movie War Games, remember it from the early 80's? At the end they have to send the super computer into a learning loop until it realizes one important conclusion about politics... the only winning move is not to play.
The hopeful part as I see it is that God is beyond all of that. We don't have to struggle to advance his Kingdom, or even to serve his people. He's already won in the end, all we have to do is learn to walk like that. I don't have to care about all that other temporary crap. I'm such a punk... but the wisdom here is that I am not just sitting in the gutter moaning, I'm learning and growing and seeking things that are outside the rules, outside the box. I only participate in the organized stuff when I have to, or when it seems beneficial. But to everyone else it looks like I'm some radical slacker...but again...I don't care! Ha!
Cut away the clutter, man. You're alright in the end.
: : After all,there is this beautiful thing (supposedly) called the separation of church and state, and even if the bible was placed there, in the monument, by private donations, I still don't think it's an appropriate placement. It's on government property, in front of a place where there's supposed to be impartial judgement and having a book of any religion placed there could imply that there's not so much impartiality going on as moral judgment based on one religion.
: : ~Nancy
: Hmmm... you certainly have the ACLU anti-Christian dialogue down pat. ;-)
: The key to the separation of church and state is not to prohibit expression; it is to prohibit coercion and forced adherence to a particular religious tradition imposed by government. A statue hardly qualifies as such coercion. Regarding the "government" property -- it is the county government, correct? When the federal government (a U. S. district judge here) tells the states, counties, or cities what they can and can not display, they are way over the line of "separation." What do the residents here want? If the monument was erected and maintained for 50 years without a serious issue, until an outside watchdog group got involved, that pretty much says it all.
: A little history will show that the activists here oppose many public expressions of Christianity that are not government-related at all. This movement is about restricting "public" expression-- which is the opposite of what the forefathers intended. They believed that all should be able to express their religious views without the interference of the government promoting or censuring a particular religious tradition. If a statue were removed because it depicted two gay men embracing, the sides would immediately reverse, and the issue would now be about "free speech and expression." The Christians would claim that the statue was promoting and endorsing an opposing religious tradition (to be against Judeo-Christian morality IS a religious stance), just as the ACLU-ites now are. This is not an objective issue at all; it is about specific subjective agendas, and neither side is consistent as a champion of "separation" or "free speech." Clearly the specific history of complaints by the ACLU-style groups will show that this issue is primarily about Christianity and Christian morality, not religion per se.
: Finally, the idea that any "Christian" art, monument, or historical exhibit that is displayed somehow precludes fair and impartial judgment is a bit extreme, don't you think?
: Oh well, I have to go oppress some religious minorities in the name of Christ. ;-)