1. The origins of the Constitution comes from a mishmash of things, including Judeo-Christian philosophy. But that doesn’t make the United States a “Christian” nation.

2. The Founders did not create a system that emulated “what God would have me do.” They created a system that could best treat everyone on equal grounds. Now, if that is “what God would have me do” then I’m all for calling it God’s plan. Sadly, the Founders did not begin with a system that treated everyone on equal grounds, but the did create mechanisms within the Constitution that allowed it to be changed to correct such inequalities.

3. No, to remove “Christian” from governance (when it didn’t belong there in the first place) doesn’t at all remove “all” the foundations on which it is based. You’re starting here to get hysterical and ungrounded.

Don’t forget to comment with glee on the decline of Christianity and the horrible people Christians are.

Dude, take a chill pill. I’m dispassionate in my judgment. And it is my honest assessment that today’s Christian denominations have strayed from their roots, focused their fights where they shouldn’t be. As an example, same sex marriage. It doesn’t threaten traditional marriage. However, traditional marriage has a very powerful enemy: divorce. Divorce is highly destructive to traditional marriage. If Christian denominations focused half as much of their energy that they spend on gay marriage, and tune it in on divorce, you would save thousands of marriages and families in this nation. But talking about how to fix divorce is not politically incendiary. So few talk about it. But let me tell you, there is NOTHING as destructive to the family as divorce. You want to protect families and marriage in this nation? Help tamper down the number of heterosexual divorces and stop worrying about what the homosexuals of this world do. Their actions have little if any consequence upon a heterosexual couple and on families. I mean, really, it’s not that hard to figure this out.

Rejoice in the rise of other religions and their commitment to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” . . . the way they see it.

Okay. Sounds good.

With your joy in the decline of that horrible Christianity, you must also remove all references, implicit or implied, to Christian principles and practices that the Founders used to help guide them in their course.

Um, why exactly? As if those principles and practices are trademarked by Christianity? As if they are exclusive to Christianity? Dude, you’ve gotta get out some time and see the world around you!

I think you misunderstand the nature of those who prefer to change the nature of our society, as well as the supposed lack of power and influence of the legislative body. In New Hampshire, the legislative body created a law for same sex marriages. In New York, Gov. Patterson is pushing for same sex marriage legislation. To state that the “populace is so ignorant and behind the times that they can’t possibly make correct choices” is just not accurate. It’s highly based on un-reality.

Christianity’s existence is nowhere near at threat of extinction. Not anywhere close. This nation, however, is NOT a Christian nation. It is a secular nation where ALL religions are supposedly allowed to flourish, or at least reside, or exist. That other faiths, or even non-faiths, wish to flex their political muscle should not be taken as an attack on Christianity. Besides which, this post is not talking about “the future of Christian liberty” but “the future of religious liberty.” I posit that “religious liberty” is quite alive, well, and very vibrant in this country. There has been a decline in Christian believers, but not in religious believers, or even non-believers. The ability to believe or not believe in this country has never, IMHO, been at a better point than now. Christianity is not the only religion that deserves political protection. All religions do. At least that is what we claim to stand for.

Now, personally, I don’t have a problem with Christianity declining in popularity. I think that too many Christian denominations pressed too far politically and started forgetting what they really stood for. They forgot the core values of being followers of Christ.

Dan:
You catch on quick. I suppose that Justice Ginsberg was just kidding when she threw out her thoughts on foreign influences on decisions last week.
The major premise of my comment is that taking God and religion out of the equation allows for judicial activism to regulate anything they want – including religion . . . but that religion can only be Christianity.
They won’t attack any other religion, because they don’t form the foundation of the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence.
I’m actually surprised that legislative changes to state constitutions is even considered anymore. The populace is so ignorant, and behind the times, that they can’t possibly make correct choices. Legislatures can now be done away with, because the only voice that counts is the one sitting on a bench, basking in the light of his/her own . . . . (you choose).

I have not seen a pig fly yet. I’ve seen them get on airplanes, but never on their own. The moment I do, I’ll be convinced of the paranoia of Dave’s post.

I’m not convinced that Dave is misguided in his argument. Certain conditions certainly have to be met in order for the scenario he describes to come to fruition.

Don’t forget to describe those conditions as highly unrealistic. And then yes, if they are met, then his scenario could come to fruition. But I think pigs will fly first.

I’m not convinced that Dave is misguided in his argument. Certain conditions certainly have to be met in order for the scenario he describes to come to fruition.
The primary condition being that the Constitution no longer is a living document changed by legislative action, but rather is a living document changed by judicial activism, such as we have seen in Iowa and other places.
The present administration is not averse to controlling anything and everything. The fact that the president of GM is fired by the President, and some people think it’s a good thing doesn’t make it appropriate.
The fact that the gov’t handed out a bunch of money to industry doesn’t scare you? And then, ex-post facto lets everyone know that they are now in control doesn’t scare you? What ever happened to shareholder control? What was wrong with letting them go bankrupt to begin with, instead of wasting taxpayer money?
Why is it that we become blind to the reality that there is no existing service, or benefit, not expressly permitted by the Constitution, that the gov’t has become involved in that has ever succeeded?
Whenever they (Federal gov’t) have gotten their foot in the door they have never relinquished or reduced that control. In fact they create arguments to show that their control is necessary because of some implied interstate activity that may derive from that action they identify.
Now that judges feel empowered to change state constitutions despite the wishes of the people, do you think that they will ever surrender that power?
So why wouldn’t the judiciary, now empowered to be activist in changing the Constitution, not decide that religion needs to be regulated. The Supreme Council in Saudi Arabia does that. And since judges can bring in laws from foreign lands to provide legal justification for their decisions, why not use this power to destroy WASP influences with respect to the Constitution, and thus destroy “Natural Law and Nature’s God”. They are then free to create ad hoc laws based on their own intellect and reasoning. God won’t matter to them.
It is not a stretch to see Dave’s argument. Just wait and see who the next few appointees to the Supreme Court are and then judge for yourself . . . but by then it may be too late. At least the way I see it.

Dave is trying to make the huge leap to claim that there is a ‘threat’ to, for example, a church deciding who it will and won’t marry. This is at best misguided. It will not happen. Only when a church sticks its foot in the secular arena – and then claims to be exempt from secular law – does the government interfere.

So a church is free to state that it will not admit blacks, or will not perform interracial marriages. But if it runs a restaurant, it has to seat blacks at the lunch counter.